|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 4, 2014 15:51:55 GMT -5
So the newest rumor circulating is the Game Commission was never meant to be an "independent agency" (bull crap); so here is an example of a letter that can be sent regarding IRRC. Dear Legislators, I'm writing regarding my disappoval for HB 1576 and SB 1047 — collectively called the Endangered Species Coordination Act, and urge you to vote NO on either as they come up. You should be aware the legislature ALWAYS intended to keep these agencies independent; and to place them under an IRRC would be a slap in the face to those before you who were wise enough to know that these agencies SHOULD remain somewhat free of political pressure. We all know the pressure never really goes away. From your own statute, Title 34; § 103. Ownership, jurisdiction and control of game and wildlife. (a) General rule.--The ownership, jurisdiction over and control of game or wildlife is vested in the commission as an independent agency of the Commonwealth in its sovereign capacity to be controlled, regulated and disposed of in accordance with this title. How anyone at the capitol could mutter the intent was never to have them as independent agencies is beyond me. The language is clear. You should probably also be aware that Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provides for cooperation with States, and allows States to assume a degree of authority and control over endangered species matters. In order for States to be given this power, and the federal funding that comes with it, they must demonstrate they have the institutional capacity and legal authority to identify, list, and manage endangered species. If this infrastructure is dismantled, control will revert to the federal government; and funding for those resource agencies would be in jeopardy. Here is the link to that section of law. www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-6.html I felt it in the best interest to let everyone know what the Federal guidelines are before the vote slated for Monday on otentially embarrassing legislation. If you need further information, I can put you in contact with the appropriate department at the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Best, Kathy Davis
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 9, 2014 14:54:09 GMT -5
Not what it seems: Deceptive bill won’t protect endangered speciesMarch 8, 2014 8:51 PM Pittsburgh Post-Gazette In nature, some species disguise themselves in order to appear innocuous. That happens in politics too. The deceptively labeled Endangered Species Coordination Act (state House Bill 1576) is a prime example. As its backers tell it, this bill won’t harm endangered species — it just wants to bring transparency and order to the process of species designations. No, it doesn’t. The sole reason for this bill’s existence is to make life less burdensome to natural gas drillers and coal mining companies. It puts economic interests ahead of protecting endangered and threatened species. Further, in stripping the independent Game and Fish and Boat commissions of their current science-backed roles, and having them second-guessed by a state regulatory review commission that must by law consider “hidden costs upon the economy,” the system to protect species will itself be threatened — affecting everything from bald eagles’ nests to fragile trout streams. That is why groups such as Trout Unlimited, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society oppose the bill. Yet despite industry backers’ concern about jobs, Marcellus Shale operations are booming without it. On Monday, the House is expected to take action on HB 1576. Pennsylvania’s many sportsmen and nature lovers must urgently make themselves heard. Read more: www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2014/03/09/Not-what-it-seems/stories/201403080007#ixzz2vUsIux8H
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 10, 2014 16:13:34 GMT -5
Just received this update:
The House just adjourned for today without taking any action on HB 1576. We heard that prior to caucus, the House Republican leadership still very much wanted to run HB 1576. It could very well be that there were enough No votes in the R caucus to forestall action and/or enough R members had significant questions on the bill to postpone consideration.
A new amendment has been filed by Rep. Keith Gillespie, R-York and a strong opponent of the bill. The amendment guts the current bill, removes the IRRC and permit review language, and converts the bill to one amending Title 30 (Fish) and Title 34 (Game). (More details to come.) Stay tuned.
Thanks to everyone for their work. Members are hearing from their constituents thanks to all of the organizational action alerts and individual work to generate calls and e-mails. Keep up the heat!
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Mar 10, 2014 19:54:57 GMT -5
My gut tells me these are tough bills to pass during an election year, especially with Corbett very aware he is losing big on environmental issues.
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Mar 10, 2014 20:00:08 GMT -5
I will say too, we all know these bills are about the gas drillers being able to put roads/pads close to streams and also be able to let silt/etc flow into steams. Some very powerful and wealthy people in PA are trout fishermen. I think some of the R's not paid off by the drillers are probably under pressure from the trout crowd.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 11, 2014 8:30:47 GMT -5
I will say too, we all know these bills are about the gas drillers being able to put roads/pads close to streams and also be able to let silt/etc flow into steams. Some very powerful and wealthy people in PA are trout fishermen. I think some of the R's not paid off by the drillers are probably under pressure from the trout crowd. I have to say I do not support a bill that allows for irresponsible environmental actions and I also do not support non-professionals second guessing professional opinions! I do support professional oversight for listing species just as I support added oversight for all industry that impacts the environment, especially natural gas. But to just make unsupported accusations as to the conduct of that industry is just as irresponsible and harmful as irresponsible legislation! If you know of pay-offs, aside from legal contributions you certainly should substantiate those claims. Same way with silt drainage. I live in the middle of this industry. I can see several well pads from my porch and there are dozens within a few miles. I have never seen such a purposeful effort to be environmentally correct as I see with this industry. Not in farming, quarrying, timbering, auto salvage or any industry that is conducted on our earth's surface. Where is the outcry? There is no rational explanation for the free pass on the worst offenders and I really question the sincerity of this animosity towards natural gas. I think it's more of a --- they have it, so let's get it from them --- thing!
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Mar 11, 2014 8:46:26 GMT -5
I consider legal contributions to be payoffs. If I am niave and foolish for thinking so, then I guess I will continue to live in fantasy land. You tell me why the gas industry(and others, too) are trying to inject politics into the E and T species process? The tax works in every other major producing state. I would like to see the money used for environmental cleanup and remediation. That is my position and I ain't changing it. As far as "animosity" that is your word. As for my stance on the industry, when they first came to PA, they instantly starting paying large sums of $$$ to politicians in key positions who could support their agenda. That was a red flag. Their agenda was: no severance tax, to influence environmental regulations, and to get access to state land under favorable terms.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 11, 2014 18:34:33 GMT -5
I consider legal contributions to be payoffs. If I am niave and foolish for thinking so, then I guess I will continue to live in fantasy land. You tell me why the gas industry(and others, too) are trying to inject politics into the E and T species process? The tax works in every other major producing state. I would like to see the money used for environmental cleanup and remediation. That is my position and I ain't changing it. As far as "animosity" that is your word. As for my stance on the industry, when they first came to PA, they instantly starting paying large sums of $$$ to politicians in key positions who could support their agenda. That was a red flag. Their agenda was: no severance tax, to influence environmental regulations, and to get access to state land under favorable terms. Well I'm glad you stood up and answered. Tom Wolf and Co. certainly did their share of "payoffs" buying him a job, as did nearly every industry in this state. Every corporation wants political connections and I don't know what the details of the "E and T" species are but I see people condemning the PGC on one hand demanding oversight and then reject independent oversight on the other hand. Would we not welcome "qualified" independent review on most things? I think we would. So......raiding private sector business works in other states eh? Interesting that you are not raising concerns about that since it goes directly against your business "private sector capitalism" philosophy. It, (selecting one industry above all others), simply is not right in most people' eyes who believe in fair trade and private sector business freedom. I am constantly amazed at people who contradict in favorable to their wants ways, but ignore so called "precious environment" threats from all other entities. The true threats to our environment are a whole lot closer than the natural gas industry but........No outcry is heard! It is simply easier, less burdensome, (to those not selling this product), to take a shot at my welfare, if it benefits your favorite cause.
|
|
|
Post by dennyf on Mar 15, 2014 7:58:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 15, 2014 10:03:11 GMT -5
Denny, my stance is that the professionals should do the job and be reliable in that charge and be left alone to do it! However, what I see here, in many instances, is a call for oversight, in some areas, and a call for "leave it alone" in other areas. In those instances it sure looks like it's merely political loyalties are at work, with no set of standards! As for the designation of certain species, I am "NOT" versed on that and I have not seen the indications that anyone was suggesting any changes to listings of guidelines for listings.....or any fundamental change of course. I hate micro managing and second guessing professionals, especially by "non-professionals." But here and other places, we see the same people, who don't want oversight on this topic, calling for second guessing of every damn thing from antlerless tag numbers, to squirrel seasons. When I don't have in depth knowledge of a topic, I'd like to see factual commentary. Just to say that independent review of some decisions is a horrible thing, has little credibility when it is being said by the same people .....who actually "want" review of other policies and decisions in that same agency............?
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 15, 2014 10:36:59 GMT -5
I think USP is the only ones doing that....and they support the IRRC provision. banghead
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 15, 2014 13:35:43 GMT -5
I think USP is the only ones doing that....and they support the IRRC provision. banghead Wouldn't it be grand if it were that clear cut and simple? All the bad folks under one big umbrella! I'll say again, "I" do not support any provision that demeans or second guesses/overrides the efforts of professionals. I'll also state that I've seen serious polarization against the natural gas industry, no matter how environmentally sound and conscientious it may be. In an era when many here, (yes, right smackin here), are questioning the politics of the BOC and PGC in general, I would hope that there is not an effort afoot in favor of hampering safe and rational progress through selective support.........? There actually seems to be a willingness to endure existing, more environmentally damaging sources of energy.
|
|
|
Post by johns on Mar 15, 2014 14:25:28 GMT -5
That is exactly what this legislation is meant to do, take the decision from the professionals and give it to a board that wouldn't know a bar from a salamander. I also believe the main reason is because of the fish commission duty to water ways and I also believe it is all about natural gas. The timing is just too coincidental to be a coincidence, if that makes sense. Between the outcry from some who were afraid something would be done to reclassify bats and the F&B commissions duty to waterways, this legislation is a pre emptive strike by those whose hands have been greased by the industry. I am not opposed to the natural gas industry as long as the proper precautions are taken and if they are willing to belly upand take responsibility and mitigate any damage they may cause. Bowbum, I also believe after seeing your posts for a whole lot of years that you are far too smart to believe this move at this time is a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 15, 2014 14:57:40 GMT -5
Bowbum, I also believe after seeing your posts for a whole lot of years that you are far too smart to believe this move at this time is a coincidence. John, I wouldn't even think to suggest that this came out of nowhere! Yes, I think I am actually more aware of the origin of this move than most people are! Every industry greases palms to get doors open more expeditiously and, in some cases, to cut corners and avoid restraints. The natural gas industry is no different and is probably better at this game than most. On the other side of this coin,..... I'll tip my hand a little. I've heard of threatened "road blocks".....via E and T species reviews and protections, simply if the industry persists in trying to expand mining state lands. It wasn't a question of whether they would be accountable or comply, not a question of whether they would be even willing to make exceptional changes to ensure, above and beyond existing standards, safe and no-impact environmental situations. I try not to post "nuances" or things that I can't verify. So I'll suffice to say I have not heard these words or seen them.... this is a "supposedly" ....natural gas industry reps were said to be willing to bond and guarantee acceptable procedures beyond the norm but the response from at least "one" group representing conservation interest was....(more or less): people do not want drilling rigs and roads on pristine state lands and if there if a snail darter can stop progress then we'll find us a slew of them. Things often appear to be one sided but...........................rational folks should be looking a lot deeper than they are if they are sincere about awarding the "dirtiest player" trophy.
|
|
|
Post by dennyf on Mar 15, 2014 15:11:39 GMT -5
Maybe these are all coincidences that just happened to come to a head this year: Legislative demand for IRRC to supplant the existing T&E protocols and procedures in place at both wildlife agencies, with such decisions being made by professional biologists and wildlfe managers - not political appointees. Legislative initiative to cut commissioners' terms in half for both agencies. When most know that such terms were intended to be eight years in duration, to lessen the potential for the very type of political meddling this bill supports. Legislative initiative to enact a coyote bounty. Although historically, such bounties have proven to be a waste of money and agency time, with little usefulness in controlling predator numbers. Constant pressure on both agencies for more deer, more trout and other bits of "oversight", typically far removed from what passes for good wildlife management. There may be a consistant theme in there somewheres, fer them what can sort it out?
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 15, 2014 18:37:19 GMT -5
Denny, you appear to have had an Epiphany!
But I'm sure you know that each soul on here realizes, (as stated so many times), that politics really is dirty, as is industry.
Not that any "conservation" concern would also threaten legislative routes to prevent action they deem unwanted....... rofl
Hello real world!
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 15, 2014 18:53:45 GMT -5
And don't forget earlier attempts to put seasons and bag limits under IRRC, and all the bills Wednesdays hearing is focussing on that would set legislative restrictions/mandates for specific deer management tools.
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 16, 2014 7:58:19 GMT -5
THIS IS NOT DEAD - PLEASE FOLLOW THE ADVICE BELOW
Rep. Garth Everett Listens to Hunters & Anglers
A Lycoming County hunter wrote to his Representative, Garth Everett. asking him to vote "no" on HB 1576, the Threatened & Endangered Species bill (which would take away protection of the critters & make it harder for PFBC to list wild trout streams).
In the last line he wrote "Please represent your district of hunters, fishermen, bird watchers, conservationists and assorted eco-nuts." It worked. Finally we have a representative who listens to his constituents.
Please forward Garth Everett's reply [below] to your State Representative and ask him or her to also oppose HB 1576.
And please forward your representative's reply to us.
From: Garth Everett <Geverett@pahousegop.com> Date: March 12, 2014 at 9:53:23 AM EDT Subject: RE: HR 1576
On Monday, 3/10, our Caucus met and discussed HB 1576 prior to bringing it to the floor for consideration. In our Caucus meeting, I and a number of my colleagues expressed our opposition to the bill. As a result, the bill was pulled from the voting schedule. It is my sense that the bill does not have the support necessary to pass out of the House and will not be brought to a vote.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on an issue which I know is of great importance to you. Please feel free to contact me in the future with any of your state government concerns.
Garth
Garth Everett, State Representative
84th Legislative District
Harrisburg Office: (717) 787-5270
District Office: (570) 546-2084
|
|
|
Post by TusseyMtman on Mar 16, 2014 8:20:55 GMT -5
A very gutsy move by MR Everett, one he is likely to receive punishment for by the GOP leadership. If the enough of the R's stood up to the gas industry funded leaders, it is a good sign of the strength of the opposition. However, the backroom threats and arm twisting are happening as we speak, no doubt. You are right we need to stay alert. But, voting yes for this bill is rather dangerous in an election year for many of the politicians.
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 16, 2014 10:38:28 GMT -5
My sources tell me there were 18 democrats ready to vote in favor of the bill. As long as counting votes is still happening, we have GOT to pay close; close attention.
|
|
tedo
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by tedo on Mar 27, 2014 10:01:32 GMT -5
|
|