fadeaway263
Active member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,530
This was in my TU email traffic yesterday
http://www.tu.org/get-involved/take-action/tell-pennsylvania-representatives-that-anglers-oppose-house-bill-1576
The_Sasquatch wrote:
The Potter County Enterprise had a fairly well balanced review of this bill last month. Pointed out a few things that groups like TU aren't pointing out.
The_Sasquatch wrote:
The Potter County Enterprise had a fairly well balanced review of this bill last month. Pointed out a few things that groups like TU aren't pointing out.
troutbert wrote:
In the article State Representative Jeff Pyle says a power plant has been shut down because of endangered mussels.
Is that true?
If so, which power plant?
shortrod2 wrote:
troutbert wrote:
In the article State Representative Jeff Pyle says a power plant has been shut down because of endangered mussels.
Is that true?
If so, which power plant?
As I said in a previous post, blaming this on mussels is BS. Read this.
salmonoid wrote:
Other than a reference to Pennsylvania as one of the states with coal plants to be shut down, where is the connection to mussels?
If there is a specific plant that was shut down, I'd be curious which one. Just like the Massauga in AZ absurdity should be called out in our politicians, so should tilting at mussel-shutdown windmills (er, plants).
I understand your point that coal plants are being shutdown, but it doesn't necessarily follow that invoking mussels is a smokescreen for that happening, with this bill. In other words, coal plants being shutdown by the EPA doesn't preclude there being a mussel induced plant shutdown.
The quote in our paper from one of the reps who sponsored the bill was that he had been offered no assurances by Republicans that a floor vote would even be called. Committee vote was 16 for, 8 against.
boychick wrote:
Taking the decision of designated a stream as wild trout water away from PFBC can only be bad for streams, trout, and anglers. Who actually benefits from this bill?