|
Post by Dutch on Jan 15, 2014 15:34:48 GMT -5
I'm glad Scarnati isn't my senator. He seems like an angry, vindictive guy.
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Jan 15, 2014 17:11:17 GMT -5
I think he has been running #2 behind Corbett in terms of "contributions" from the gas lobby. Those Texas boys will treat you real good, IF you deliver what they want. I would think Mr. Scarnati is under some Texas-Sized pressure!
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Jan 15, 2014 18:11:48 GMT -5
I think its a shame- and this bill should NEVER see the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 15, 2014 19:30:11 GMT -5
I think he has been running #2 behind Corbett in terms of "contributions" from the gas lobby. Those Texas boys will treat you real good, IF you deliver what they want. I would think Mr. Scarnati is under some Texas-Sized pressure! The outcome of this was/is a foregone conclusion. You can tell by the questions. Of course, one guy was just plain pissed at the PGC for various things, and that may be well deserved. Funny tho, one common complaint was how long it took for the PGC/PFBC to issue "permits", and even when told the backlogs are a thing of the past, it fell on deaf ears. Doesn't matter if this is a good or bad piece of legislation, it seems it'll go thru. Just another part of the "witch hunt" of the PGC and PFBC. Sadly, while these morons are talking about how there are no checks and balances on these agencies, who overseas or offers checks on these well established incumbants? ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2014 21:33:24 GMT -5
The agenda (witch hunt) was set a long time ago.
No matter how many times you explain that putting the designation of T&E species under IRRC is NOT going to fix the problems they keep referring to as the reasons for needing this legislative fix, they refuse to hear it. Can someone say, "Selective hearing"?
If it was about speeding up or streamlining the process, they would be putting deadlines in statute and going after DEP, because as repeated over and over again, DEP controls the permitting process. The commissions review and make recommendations. DEP has the final say. But this isn't about fixing things, it's about sending a message to the commissions and gaining more control of them. Start with T&E under IRRC and show how good that works, then you'll have justification for more. Keep asking for studies on a merger until they give you the results you want. Then merge the agencies, change the role of the commissioner to advisory only, and run all regulation under IRRC so the legislature gets final say on everything.
I will give Senator Alloway credit for at least appearing to look like he wants to find a compromise that doesn't include IRRC. Time will tell if he's serious about doing what's best for the commissions/sportsmen.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 16, 2014 6:31:06 GMT -5
Alloway will do as he's told.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 7:44:46 GMT -5
The agenda (witch hunt) was set a long time ago.
No matter how many times you explain that putting the designation of T&E species under IRRC is NOT going to fix the problems they keep referring to as the reasons for needing this legislative fix, they refuse to hear it. Can someone say, "Selective hearing"?
If it was about speeding up or streamlining the process, they would be putting deadlines in statute and going after DEP, because as repeated over and over again, DEP controls the permitting process. The commissions review and make recommendations. DEP has the final say. But this isn't about fixing things, it's about sending a message to the commissions and gaining more control of them. Start with T&E under IRRC and show how good that works, then you'll have justification for more. Keep asking for studies on a merger until they give you the results you want. Then merge the agencies, change the role of the commissioner to advisory only, and run all regulation under IRRC so the legislature gets final say on everything.
I will give Senator Alloway credit for at least appearing to look like he wants to find a compromise that doesn't include IRRC. Time will tell if he's serious about doing what's best for the commissions/sportsmen. Frank, Alloway wants more deer, and that leads him to do anything to thwart the evil game commission's role in wildlife management. Did I mention that Alloway wants more deer?
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 16, 2014 13:52:20 GMT -5
Hey Mutt, didn't you vote for him? Bet you wish you could have that one back.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Jan 20, 2014 23:55:59 GMT -5
Woods and waters: Government decisions make it easier for development at wildlife’s expenseIt is difficult to keep up with everything political that affects our natural environment. It seems that every time I blink a legislator introduces a new bill that would seek to plunder the natural splendor that we enjoy. Several Republican-sponsored bills now pending in the Pennsylvania House and Senate would ease the way for additional Marcellus shale gas, coal mining and other development. According to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and a host of sportsmen and conservation groups, this “easing” would be at the expense of endangered and threatened species, as well as naturally-reproduced trout. That would be my take on the situation, also. All hunters, anglers, hikers and lovers of the outdoors should make note of these bills and take appropriate action. HB 1576 and SB 1047 — collectively called the Endangered Species Coordination Act — would add an unnecessary layer of legislative oversight to the process by which endangered or threatened species are listed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission or the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Of particular concern to trout anglers, including this writer, is that the same would apply to the listing of newly identified naturally-reproducing “wild” trout streams. The oversight would be in the form of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission - a five-member board. Four members (with 3-year terms) are appointed by legislative leaders and one is appointed by the governor. The IRRC typically interacts with the agencies and parties involved to accomplish what they call the “best regulatory balance.” This includes the expected economic impact on the public and private sector. Under provisions of the bills, the non-scientific IRRC also gets to decide what data is acceptable. Can you envision how this will play out? Pennsylvania is the only state with an IRRC. After a period of two years, SB 1047 would delist all currently state-listed endangered and threatened species (more than 60) if their status could not be proven to the yet unknown standards of the IRRC. House version of the bill has been amended to remove this provision. It appears to me that the language in the bill leans toward eliminating all state-listed species unless “the species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Of course that is not the purpose of state-listed species. Identification and proper protection at the state level hopefully would keep the species from becoming threatened or endangered at the federal level. It has been alleged that the gas industry actually wrote these bills. The true answer will likely never be known, but I will say that these bills read like — whatever industry wants, let’s put it in this bill. Have our commissions abused their power? (A better question might be ‘Have our legislators abused our trust?’) In the last five years the Fish and Boat Commission has added 13 species to the state endangered and threatened category and de-listed 11. The Game Commission has added just three species in the last 10 years. Those organizations opposing the legislation include the Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited, the PA Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and the PA Trappers Association, as well as the state chapters of Pheasants Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, National Wild Turkey Federation and the Izaak Walton League. The Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the PA Forest Coalition, Penn Future and several other conservation/environmental organizations also oppose the bills. It is no surprise that these bills are supported by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Pennsylvania Builders Association, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, the Associated Petroleum Industries of PA and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. According to Sam Denisco, vice president of government affairs for the Chamber, “[The bills] strike an appropriate balance between effective threatened and endangered species management and economic development,” he said. Industry likes that word “balance.” Trust me, there already is a so-called “balance” and the environment suffers every day because of it. Do we want to make it worse? I was somewhat surprised to see that the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania and the State Camp Lessee’s Association were supporting these bills. I interviewed leaders from both groups. Other than repeating the industry lines of needed transparency, accountability and balance, the groups had little to offer in the way of logic for their positions. The USP news release rambles on about mountain lions and it is clear that SCLA has a beef with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, not the PGC or the PFBC. There already is a very transparent process, involving public comment, one that both commissions go through to list or delist a threatened or endangered species or for the PFBC to list a new wild trout stream. Carl Roe, the former Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, expressed concern that the legislation also ignores the fact that both Commissions now routinely provide two public notices and opportunities to comment on proposed listings and delisting of threatened and endangered species as well as two separate votes by the boards of each respective commission. According to Brian Wagner, the President of the Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited, “The current process for designating wild trout streams is rigorous and transparent and considers public input. It is rigorous in that data are obtained via well established, scientific sampling methods, and designations are based on stringent technical criteria, including numbers of trout, biomass, and size classes represented. This rigorous, scientific process results in yes or no answers – either a stream meets the criteria for designation as one of the classes of wild trout waters, or it does not.” Richard Martin, founder of the Forest Coalition had this to say about the bills. “Politicians pushing these two bills claim that it’s merely ‘checks and balances.’ In reality, the bill is designed to allow political considerations to second-guess the sound science of the biologists from the Game Commission and Fish & Boat Commission. Those agencies have the experts; I expect that few, if any, legislators or IRRC members have PhD’s in Biology and Zoology,” Stan Kotala, of Juniata Valley Audubon Society likened the bills to asking an insurance company for a second opinion as to whether you need an operation or not. Of particular concern in this entire process is our own Senator Corman. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of his constituents — the readers of this column - would want wild trout streams and endangered or threatened species not afforded the protection that they deserve. Based on Corman’s questioning at the January 10, Senate hearing in Indiana and the fact that he has received over $91,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, I think I know which way he is leaning. Let him know how you feel about this issue — hold his feet to the fire — and then we will see how he votes. Do not take my word for about these bills or Senator Corman’s intentions — conduct your own investigation. In the end, I think that you will agree with me. Mark Nale, who lives in the Bald Eagle Valley, is president of the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association. He can be reached at MarkAngler@aol.com Facebook Read more here: www.centredaily.com/2014/01/19/3992531/woods-and-waters-government-decisions.html#storylink=cpy
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 21, 2014 7:54:59 GMT -5
$91,000 buys a lot of influence and face time with a Senator.
The best government money can buy.
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Jan 21, 2014 8:29:13 GMT -5
If I recollect correctly didn't this all start out as being about bats? LMAO2
Didn't take long for the scum to rise to the surface on this one.
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Jan 21, 2014 12:33:53 GMT -5
A politician for sale to the highest bidder. What else is new?
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Jan 21, 2014 20:13:07 GMT -5
Friend of mine calls the USP- Unbelievably Spoiled People.
I hear they got somewhere around $10G from industry.
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Jan 29, 2014 20:32:23 GMT -5
what is the change of these two bills passing and going to Corbett?
|
|
|
Post by melody on Jan 29, 2014 21:11:45 GMT -5
Maybe not in the current form, but the chances are pretty high that "something" will pass.
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Feb 10, 2014 13:56:23 GMT -5
I heard today that these bills will be placed on the calendar on the 10th and 11th of March.
An amendment will be added to the bill - something that might make it more palatable to sportsmen, but I still can't be in favor of an IRRC regardless.
No on the bill and amendment as written from me. Amendment will be out soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by johns on Mar 2, 2014 14:14:39 GMT -5
I was at a meeting on Friday with two representatives and Gregg Raffensperger, I was told the PGC was told if they come up with a plan to work with business that are affected by species being put on the ESL the bill would not run but to date nothing has been presented. Just what I was told, can't vouch for the veracity.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 2, 2014 15:09:05 GMT -5
Article in the Outdoor News is saying Sen Alloway is looking for a compromise and that he doesn't like the bill. He is blaming PFSC for all the untrue rumours surrounding this bill........
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 3, 2014 8:07:04 GMT -5
Alloway LOVES to point the finger at everyone else for his short comings, and HATES taking heat for anything. He even pointed the finger at me during committee meeting. He pointed at me and said (crude remark removed) that I bust his, um... and have people write him emails.
You should have seen the look of disappointment in him by the other Senators at that meeting. Oh well. Do you job, or face the heat.
His "way out" is to falsely blame everyone else. I bet "Wasn't me" and "I don't know" were frequent visitors to his home when he was a kid. rofl
I can tell you he didn't believe that Dr. John Organ from US Fish and Wildlife Service emailed him regarding the bill. That; was humorous. I had an email exchange with John, and somehow Melissa was copied on it from Alloway's office. She wasn't happy that we were talking "about" them; but not necessarily "to" them. Oh well. Again, have your senator do his job, and then we won't have to pick on you by having people email, and discussing your faults.
It wasn't like I went behing their back either. I TRIED to talk to Alloway and his staff. I warned them, and they turned a deaf ear. Maybe they should listen sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 3, 2014 8:12:10 GMT -5
I was at a meeting on Friday with two representatives and Gregg Raffensperger, I was told the PGC was told if they come up with a plan to work with business that are affected by species being put on the ESL the bill would not run but to date nothing has been presented. Just what I was told, can't vouch for the veracity. I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt thats true John. In fact, at the PFSC meeting last year, I brought that very thing up directly to one of the guys in the gas industry. He thought there was room to work together. Carl was also supportive, but he isn't there now. I think this kind of thing is exactly why our commissioners should attend PFSC meetings. Heading off bad legislation takes a team, and requires large numbers of people to be on the same page. I was also in a recent meeting with a very powerful Senator (not Alloway) who asked the PFSC to work on a compromise that both sides could live with. Again, Alloway needs to quit pointing fingers at the PFSC and start working with them. He apparently hasn't yet figured out that they have a more reasonable approach to hunting, fishing and conservation issues and he could learn a lot by befriending them instead of poking them (us) with a stick.
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Mar 4, 2014 13:33:41 GMT -5
I think the public pressure worked to stop this. And, I think the public in general is almost in shock at how much influence this industry has on Corbett and other select politicians. You can see it in the poll numbers. Some of these politicans being bought by the industry are finding themselves way out of touch with the voting public.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 4, 2014 13:58:41 GMT -5
It has NOT been stopped yet! It is still being supported/pushed by many legislators and others with strong political connections.
So don't back off. Keep calling/emailing your legislators asking them to NOT support the legislation, regardless what so-called amended language has been or will be added to the bill! See the article below for details on why we don't need a legislative fix. And please let us know how your legislators respond to your request. We still hear all the time that legislators aren't hearing opposition from sportsmen.
PA Environmental Council Opposed To Bill Removing Protection For Endangered Species Posted: 04 Mar 2014 07:19 AM PST
The PA Environmental Council Tuesday sent a letter to every member of the House expressing its opposition to House Bill 1576 (Pyle-R-Armstrong) that is now on the voting schedule for next week. The text of the letter follows—
On behalf of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, I am writing to express our strong opposition to House Bill 1576 (P.N. 2647), which would fundamentally impede endangered and threatened species protection in Pennsylvania.
The issues cited by those speaking in support of this legislation concern permit review and Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) consultation process with the Fish & Boat Commission and the Game Commission. House Bill 1576 makes no actual changes to the current permit review process – instead, it places political hurdles in front of new species listings, and imposes unclear standards on listing determinations and data sharing. It also systematically drops hundreds of species of concern from the permit review process, irrespective of their status in the state, welcoming potential federal listings in the future.
In other words, House Bill 1576 does nothing to address the stated problems with permit reviews.
The legislation also ignores recent key developments designed to improve the PNDI review process:
— In May 2013, the Department of Environmental Protection issued updated policy guidance for PNDI coordination during permit review and evaluation [Document Number 021-0200-001]. This policy, which has been in place less than a year, clarifies the PNDI consultation process and establishes clear determination guidelines.
— The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, in partnership with both Commissions, is already undertaking an overhaul of the PNDI system that will provide valid permit applicants with greater access to species data as well as the ability to expand the scope of environmental review for proposed projects.
Both of these efforts will help facilitate more efficient permit review without sacrificing species protection in Pennsylvania.
Without question, there are opportunities to improve transparency and partnership between resource protection agencies and permit applicants. But these goals can be achieved without the need for legislation, and it is our understanding that the resource protection agencies are now diligently working with members of the General Assembly to identify concrete concerns and develop tangible solutions.
On behalf of our membership, we urge you to oppose this legislation.
Thank you for your consideration.
John Walliser Vice President, Legal & Government Affairs Pennsylvania Environmental Council
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 4, 2014 14:01:35 GMT -5
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Urges Action To Oppose Endangered Species Bill Posted: 04 Mar 2014 07:17 AM PST The Chesapeake Bay Foundation-PA sent an action alert out to its members urging them to oppose House Bill 1576 (Pyle-R-Armstrong) saying it would significantly reduce protection for endangered species. Click Here to take action.
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Mar 4, 2014 14:14:23 GMT -5
I meant to say stop the momentumn the bill had. I'm not in Harrisburg. But, will many politicians come out to support this bill so close to the election season? If you look at the other thread we have going on Mr Wolf, Corbett's opponents are really making hay right now on such issues.
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 4, 2014 14:24:59 GMT -5
I heard today that these bills will be placed on the calendar on the 10th and 11th of March. An amendment will be added to the bill - something that might make it more palatable to sportsmen, but I still can't be in favor of an IRRC regardless. No on the bill and amendment as written from me. Amendment will be out soon enough. I posted this Feb 10. Look whats on the calendar. It is far from "stopped" www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/SC/HC/0/RC/CAL.PDF?r=1393960809236
|
|