Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Username: Password:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread  (Read 522 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2017, 12:08:28 PM »

Let's not turn this into the debate the EPA thread.

The head should be cut off of that agency and it should be restructured, their mission clearly defined, and their actions monitored and scrutinized.

You're getting your wish. 

While I believe in reasonable regulation and conservation, I am no fan of the EPA. I believe, as stated many times, the EPA is an activist organization that over steps it's boundaries.

A few things - well many things - are going on in this country right now that are pretty disturbing.  I've already mentioned the politicization of the EPA.  This, on top of a lot of rhetoric/misinformation, has led many people to unfortunate views on science and protective regulations.  The way you aired your feelings suggests strongly that you have fallen victim to the rhetoric. 
Logged

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2017, 12:42:43 PM »

Step #2 in the privatization of lands that belong to all of us.

shttp://wilderness.org/blog/their-plan-working-new-bill-would-sell-3-million-acres-public-lands

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz wants to sell off 3.3 million acres of public lands, the latest step in a plan to seize Our Wild.
Under a recently passed House rule, a new bill would sell off 3 million acres of public lands—an egregious assault on Our Wild.
Click here to call your representative! Tell them to vote AGAINST the new land takeover bill (H.R. 621)!

Find out if your representative voted for the "lands are worthless" rule

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz's bill identifies 3.3 million acres across 10 states to be 'disposed of' and sold off, just a few days after the House passed a rules package that makes such land seizure plans easier to execute. 

Fellow Utah Congressman Rob Bishop, seeming to nurse an eternal grudge against the very idea of public lands, concocted the latter provision for just this purpose. Right now, the Congressional Budget Office, which provides lawmakers with data so they can make budget decisions, officially considers public lands to have no monetary value, meaning that legislation like Chaffetz's has an easier path to enactment.



Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz wants to sell off 3.3 million acres of public lands, the latest step in a plan to seize Our Wild. Photo credit: Michael Jolley, flickr.

"Trump's allies in Washington laid the tracks for this land takeover scheme the moment they started their legislative session, and now they're driving a locomotive over and through the American people and our wild natural heritage," said Alan Rowsome, senior government relations director for The Wilderness Society, in a statement.

A study released in 2016 estimated that parks and programs managed by the National Park Service alone are worth about $92 billion. That doesn't even account for the more than 560 national wildlife refuges, 150-some national forests and more than 200 sites in the Bureau of Land Management's National Conservation Lands system. But to some members of Congress, none of that matters—Our Wild belongs on the clearance rack, and the sooner America liquidates it, the better. 

Chaffetz's land sell-off scheme based on unpopular idea

Chaffetz's bill, which he previously introduced in a slightly different form, would sell lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming to reduce the federal deficit. A poll conducted just a few months after the first time he introduced the legislation in 2013 showed that 72 percent of voters in western states would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports selling public lands to reduce the budget deficit. Most voters in his own state said they are less likely to vote for a candidate who proposes the sale of federal lands, too.

The congressman couches his proposal in populist language about benefitting taxpayers, as have many other proponents of fringe land seizure efforts. But people in Utah and across the U.S. decisively reject the idea of selling off public lands: Polling from after the 2016 election showed that 78 percent of Americans oppose efforts to privatize or sell public lands, including 64 percent of people who voted for Trump.

Politicians are waging war on Our Wild—will you help defend it?

This is not Rep. Chaffetz's first dalliance with extremist anti-conservation proposals that try to degrade public lands or tear them away from the American people. He has previously supported measures to eliminate presidents' ability to protect land as national monuments, and to allow widespread motorized access to wilderness areas.

However, sadly, he is not alone. A cohort of lawmakers in Washington and at the state level are following the lead of the Bundy family and attacking the previously inviolable idea of Our Wild. We need to make sure our representatives remember that they work for US.

What you can do:

You can either find your representative and their contact info here or dial them online at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote AGAINST H.R. 621. Demand that he or she stand up for your public lands!

Tell your member of Congress you think public lands have tremendous value!

Tell your member of Congress where you are from, and about the public lands you cherish.

Challenge your member of Congress to demonstrate his or her support for our public lands by pledging to protect them from the Trump Administration and anti-conservation lawmakers. 
Logged

fishtaco

  • Crew
  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1187
  • Chasing Puffers since 2012
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2017, 12:56:54 PM »

Haha, "I'm " the "victim " of rhetoric.
Logged
I have seen death... he drives a white Grand Marquis.

Shakeyfly

  • No Time to Fish
  • Administrator
  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *****
  • Karma: +104/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7502
  • Huge Member
    • The Rules of Fly Fishing
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2017, 02:40:48 PM »

Yeah I see where this is going.  I don't need a left vs. Right divide on my safe space.  Let's just keep it as informational please.  I'm keeping my opinion offrom this. 
Logged
"A desperate and lasting sadness descends on you when you realize you're a fisherman who's not gonna catch fish today."
John Gierach, Good Flies

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2017, 03:29:41 PM »

Who said anything about left and right?  This is a pro science-based and socially responsible environmental policy thread.  Mother nature and her ecosystems are agnostic to political leanings. 
Logged

Shakeyfly

  • No Time to Fish
  • Administrator
  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *****
  • Karma: +104/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7502
  • Huge Member
    • The Rules of Fly Fishing
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2017, 03:44:40 PM »

Ok.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 03:47:36 PM by Shakeyfly »
Logged
"A desperate and lasting sadness descends on you when you realize you're a fisherman who's not gonna catch fish today."
John Gierach, Good Flies

fishtaco

  • Crew
  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1187
  • Chasing Puffers since 2012
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2017, 06:19:43 PM »

This was a spin off from the “Congress” thread railing against the government overstepping boundaries, something I have a problem with too. Apparently overstepping boundaries is OK if it supports certain agendas.

The EPA has been sued, at great expense to the citizens, several times because of their overreach, tactics, and avoiding or ignoring requirements. The agency need to be reeled in.

But hey, I’m just a spinning gear using knuckle dragger that easily falls victim to rhetoric. I wish I understood sciencey stuff.
Logged
I have seen death... he drives a white Grand Marquis.

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2017, 06:56:38 PM »

I suggest you ignore this thread. 
Logged

Franky

  • Chum
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • I'm New
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2017, 04:03:01 PM »

I don't understand how the whole selling off public land thing is still going. Demographics clearly aren't in support. Guess I'll have to give my reps another call soon.
Logged

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Logged

trico22

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +3/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1672
  • addicted to chasing tails
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2017, 08:14:25 AM »

yes, but think of all the unsafe, black lung causing jobs we can provide if we can just continue turning mountains into gravel pits and poison streams and water supplies.  Plus we can prop up an industry that is no longer economically viable due to cheaper, cleaner alternatives.  :eyeroll :cry :rant
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 09:48:32 AM by trico22 »
Logged

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2017, 09:16:26 AM »

Another good article from the Sierra Club.  http://sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/goodbye-stream-protection-rule

If someone hasn't seen the Stream Protection Rule, here it is:

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has finalized the Stream Protection Rule to improve the balance between environmental protection and providing for the Nation’s need for coal as a source of energy. The final rule better protects streams, fish, wildlife, and related environmental values from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations and provides mine operators with a regulatory framework to avoid water pollution and the long-term costs associated with water treatment.

The rule defines “material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area” for the first time and clarifying that the statutory prohibition on the approval of proposed operations that would result in material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area applies to both surface and underground mining operations. Under SMCRA, the regulatory authority may not approve a permit application unless the application demonstrates, and the regulatory authority finds, that the proposed operation would not result in material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. The rule requires that the regulatory authority specify the point at which adverse mining-related impacts on groundwater and surface water would constitute material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area reach that level of damage. It further provides that the regulatory authority must specify threshold values for surface water and groundwater parameters that will trigger an evaluation of whether the permit must be revised to prevent the occurrence of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.

The rule expands the baseline data requirements for permit applications for proposed coal mining operations to ensure that the permittee and the regulatory authority have a complete picture of premining conditions to which the impacts of mining can be compared. Monitoring during mining and reclamation will include a comprehensive suite of parameters for both surface water and groundwater to ensure that the impacts of mining are identified in a manner that will enable timely initiation of corrective measures.

The stream protection rule requires the restoration of the physical form, hydrologic function, and ecological function of the segment of a perennial or intermittent stream that a permittee mines through. Additionally, it requires that the postmining surface configuration of the reclaimed minesite include a drainage pattern, including ephemeral streams, similar to the premining drainage pattern, with exceptions for stability, topographical changes, fish and wildlife habitat, etc. The rule also, requires the establishment of a 100-foot-wide streamside vegetative corridor of native species (including riparian species, when appropriate) along each bank of any restored or permanently-diverted perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream.

The stream protection rule modernizes the regulations governing the mining of coal and reclamation of mined lands to reflect advances in scientific knowledge and mining and reclamation techniques in the 30-plus years since most of the regulations were last revised in a comprehensive fashion.


source: https://www.osmre.gov/programs/rcm/streamprotectionrule.shtm
Logged

k2

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +6/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1444
  • fan of the rainbrown
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2017, 10:00:58 AM »

Some good news regarding http://wilderness.org/blog/their-plan-working-new-bill-would-sell-3-million-acres-public-lands

jasoninthehouse: "I am withdrawing HR 621... I look forward to working with you. I hear you and HR 621 dies tomorrow. #keepitpublic #tbt"

https://www.instagram.com/p/BP_zOxEF0-Q/

« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 10:03:37 AM by k2 »
Logged

trico22

  • Baby effin Wheel Kid
  • *******
  • Karma: +3/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1672
  • addicted to chasing tails
Re: The "threats to Mother Nature" thread
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2017, 10:14:38 AM »

 :thumbsup:
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up