HB 1576: Efforts to Undermine PA Wild Trout Protections Continue

[TimRobinsin]

Good point dude. I need to find that out.

 

[TimRobinsin]

I am writing my term paper on this today and while reading through HB1576 I came across this:

8 Section 3. Coordination of designation.
9 No Commonwealth agency may take action to designate or
10 consider fish, wildlife or plants as threatened or endangered
11 unless the fish, wildlife or plants are designated under the
12 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §
13 1531 et seq.) or pursuant to this act.


Does that seem redundant to anyone else?

If the species is already covered under the ESA what more should we do?

What if a species is threatened here with in the Commonwealth but not nationally? does this mean we can't make moves to protect it here in state?

what do you guys think?

 

[shortrod2]

TimRobinsin wrote:
What if a species is threatened here with in the Commonwealth but not nationally? does this mean we can't make moves to protect it here in state?

Yes, that is exactly what it means. This is bad because if PA can do some thing to protect such a species, it can help keep the species from being listed at the federal level.

 

[TimRobinsin]

Shortrod- that's kinda what I was thinking too.

Here's more:
PA HB 1576

Section 5

22 (b) Conditions for designation.--
23 (1) Any designation of a Pennsylvania endangered species
24 shall be made only when the species is in danger of
25 extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
26 range WITHIN THIS COMMONWEALTH.

Again, why are we only concerned with issues when they reach the extreme? The brink of extinction should never be the threshold for action.

Second, define/quantify significant portion.

#censor# politicians. this #censor# is going to get through like this if we don't check these motherfuckers. I'm not apposed to streamlining this process. I worked in the construction industry for years and I watched developments and important infrastructure projects delayed as a result of poor communication within these departments, commissions and administrations. I will also say that a large reason for those delays and probably the main reason for those delays is understaffing. We expect these agencies to have someone available to process permits immediately but the reality is that they do not. Furthermore including the IRRC process in this brings in the legislative branches of government which are always in session...right? BAHAHAHA.

 

[Chaz]

BrookieChaser wrote:
I'm not so sure the PFBC is funded by taxes. I know the PGC is independent. I assumed the PFBC is funded by license sales just as the PGC.

This may be why the PGC and PFBC are the only agencies not covered by the current IRRC.

Neither agency gets money from the State tax structure, but they do get money from the wildlife conservation fund of the Feds. And that is in jeopardy.

 

[shortrod2]

TimRobinsin wrote:
Again, why are we only concerned with issues when they reach the extreme?

Section 5 is the redundant one. Section 3 already said you can't designate a species as threatened or endangered until it is listed on the federal list. Once it is on the federal list a PA listing will mean little.

 

[BrookieChaser]

^ What I was getting at Chaz was that Tim's reference to paying for the PFBC through being a tax payer should be checked. That was it.

I really don't like that this bill, if I'm reading it correctly, takes away the possibility for a species to be listed as state endangered.

 

[MrMustard]

Does anyone has know when the final vote will occur on this Bill? It was my understanding that it was supposed to be this week, but I can't find any definite information.

I was happy to receive a response letter from my local state rep stating that he would not be voting in favor of the Bill.

 

[Chaz]

TimRobinsin wrote:
I am writing my term paper on this today and while reading through HB1576 I came across this:

8 Section 3. Coordination of designation.
9 No Commonwealth agency may take action to designate or
10 consider fish, wildlife or plants as threatened or endangered
11 unless the fish, wildlife or plants are designated under the
12 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §
13 1531 et seq.) or pursuant to this act.


Does that seem redundant to anyone else?

If the species is already covered under the ESA what more should we do?

What if a species is threatened here with in the Commonwealth but not nationally? does this mean we can't make moves to protect it here in state?

what do you guys think?

Pennsylvania has it's own Endangered Species Act or something similar, so the PGC and PFBC can designate fish and wildlife as needed.
Let's say hypothetically that all brookies in PA were Extirpated from the commonwealth, but were still common in some other states. Would we want to wait until they were all gone before we took action, no! That's why it's not redundant. Please don't take this as saying that brook trout are even threatened at this point because they are not.
That is an extreme example and I probably shouldn't use it. But an example that is relevant is paddlefish. Paddlefish are endangered in PA and may not be elsewhere, either because of the way the laws are written in other states, or just because they aren't threatened there. PA should be able to designate it's own endangered species list. To put it another way, suppose because PA is in the middle of all brook trout habitat, and because of it's unique location and geology has an abundance of brook trout, but brook trout become endangered in the remaining range, should it be listed as endangered elsewhere and not in PA?

 

[Chaz]

greenlander wrote:

shortrod2 wrote:
I just found out that the Unified Sportsmen of PA and the Pennsylvania State Camp Lessee's Association are supporting this bill.

Anyone here belong to one of these orgs? How could anyone that claims to love the outdoors support this bill?

USP has a big bone to pick with the Game Commission over deer reduction. While I know very little about the ins and outs of that dispute, the USP openly advertises it as basically the main reason for their existence.

As you note, it seems preposterous that anyone who claims to be a sportsman or love the outdoors could support these bills. That is, unless, it is more important to seize the chance to stick it to the GC.

UPS has cost the hunting public hundreds of dollars because of frivolous lawsuits against the game commission, I have no doubt that they oppose any change in the stocking practices of the PFBC and in fact would want more stocking. They are clearly a group that opposes anything that is good for most Pennsylvanians and fish and game.
If you ask them who their members are they will not tell you. That says a lot.

 

[TimRobinsin]

Chaz - my question in regard to section 3 is:

Can the PFBC still designate a species as threatened or endangered if it is not already on the ESA list?

My interpretation is: NO

If that is true it means a species must already be on the federal ESA list before we (PA) can also designate it as endangered. That is what seems redundant.

Again, I am asking you guys if I am reading this wrong. thanks

 

[allan_s]

Tim, you are reading it correctly.

 

[MrMustard]

TimRobinsin wrote:

8 Section 3. Coordination of designation.
9 No Commonwealth agency may take action to designate or
10 consider fish, wildlife or plants as threatened or endangered
11 unless the fish, wildlife or plants are designated under the
12 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §
13 1531 et seq.) or pursuant to this act.

quote]

Tim,

I interpret this a bit differently. I think you are missing the last sentence of line 13. In other words, a species may be designated a PA endangered species if it is already designated so under the ESA, OR it may be designated so through the procedures that are laid out in the Bill.

So a species does not have to be on the Federal list in order to be on the PA list, but that is one way to get it designated here. The other is through the procedureslaid out in the Bill.

 

[greenlander]

Yes, Tim is reading it correctly, though the issue with that clause isn't one of redundancy.

The issue is that PA cannot recognize a threatened species within our state and designate it as endangered unless it has already been federally designated.

Think about the implications of this. Not only is it an idiotic, ridiculous clause, it is a dangerous ones. Well, at least for said endangered species.

 

[TimRobinsin]

Ok, I see what you are saying Col. Mustard

 

[bikerfish]

basically, the gas industry gets to decide whether something is endangered or not.
they don't ANYTHING in their way as they frack up our state. No way in hell they are gonna let a trout decide if they can drill or not.
And let me say this, I think this is only the beginning, if this passes, there will be more bills to follow to ease their path to profits.

 

[MrMustard]

I just came across this as well, which I think this backs up my interpretation:

Summary of HB 1576

"Under this legislation, an agency must follow the provisions required in the bill to designate a
stream as a wild trout stream, or to designate fish, wildlife, or plants as threatened or endangered
on a state level, unless they are already designated under the federal Endangered Species Act."

 

[CRB]

What will the gas industry do when Gov. Corbit loses the November election?

 

[bikerfish]

they will spend what it takes to buy the next gov.

 

[double00]

Have been watching the House website daily for updates.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/

Seems as if the vote on HB 1576 is being delayed each day for the last couple of days. Each day its listed on the house calendar, and at the end of each day its not voted on and is listed as on the calendar for the next day. Of course I might not be reading it right either, and have no knowledge of how such things work.