Tell Pennsylvania Representatives that Anglers Oppose House Bill 1576

fadeaway263

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
 
Fade .. what's the bill all about?
 
I sent an email to my rep this morning.
John
 
House Bill 1576-legislation will make it much harder to designate streams as Wild Trout Waters in Pennsylvania, putting native and wild trout populations at risk and limiting future fishing opportunities.
 
I've look into this too....my main concerns are who would make up the review board and will all current wild trout streams, class A streams, and wilderness streams be grandfathered in or reviewed as to their current status.

Without those answers I can't really make an educated decision on this bill.
 
My rep is a sponsor along with 63 others of this garbage.

As far as I can tell, it does not actually say that it will be harder to designate a stream as 'a wild trout stream', what it does is take the ability to do so away from the PFBC and gives it to a separate committee.

The only reason that I can think of to do this is so that industry can purchase seats on the committee and make it impossible to designate streams as 'wild trout streams'.

The question was asked about grandfathering existing streams. I think the bill only mentions designating, so I believe that existing streams with a designation would remain. That is until ...

The next obvious step is to review the existing designations under the new policy and in no time at all we will have no HQ or EV streams.

Can anyone put a more positive spin on this?
 
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.

Link?
 
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.



Is this the review?


If so, that is not a review, it is a snow job by the guy that introduced the bill.


Coal power plants are shutting down all over mussels or no mussels because they can't afford to run the clean enough.


The snakes in Arizona are not the same sub-species as the snakes that are only found (in PA) in four swamps in western PA.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Here's more discussion that has been had on this board. If you haven't watched the committee meeting video that vcregular posted in that thread, you definitely need to take the time to check it out. The overflow of blatant ignorance made me cringe several times while watching. Scary stuff.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.

No connection to mussels, only the real reasons for the plant shutdown.

I have not been able to find a direct relationship between a power plant closing and mussels. I have found this article about a plant closing in Mr Pyle's district.

The EPA is not shutting down these plants. The EPA is saying "you have to pollute the air less". The energy companies are saying "It will be cheaper to build gas plants and shutdown the coals plants than to make the coal plants cleaner".

Finally, even if there was a mussel problem for a power plants, it would only be a small part of the problems that coal plants are facing today.
 
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?

Those who would rape and destroy said stream.
 
This is pretty simple.

Fracking is big business.
The bill is to get the decision making out of the hands of those protecting our streams, watershed, etc, and into the hands of pawns,of the industry.

 
This bill is set up to change the way the process works and takes away the control from the PFBC and PGC on these matters today. I can't find one environmental group that supports this bill. So that leaves oil, gas and developers as those in favor of this and most troubled by the current system.

I see no way that is going to be good for anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts.

Here is another article on the subject. Link

The link to follow taking you to the TU site to quickly and easily communicate to your Pennsylvania Representatives that Anglers Oppose House Bill 1576. Link

Send that email today.
 
I'll also be hand writing a letter to Dan Truitt, my state rep (R) since I gather sometimes the (literally) written word might have more weight.

The TU link works better for me in Chrome than IE.
 
Back
Top