Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  5
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Small is Important

  1. #1

    Default Small is Important

    New article posted on theflyfishingforum.com: Small is Important

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    2,460

    Default Re: Small is Important

    I think TU might want to rethink this one.

    The proposed rule seems to go a lot further than the article says. From my reading of it, it looks like it could be used by some overzealous bureaucrat, or some of the more extreme 'environmental' groups, to file lawsuits regulating, at the federal level, things as small as spring runoff puddles in your own back yard.

    I'm a TU member, but don't always agree with its support for some things.
    Today is always the first day of the rest of your life.
    Use it wisely.

    Paul

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Strathroy, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    271

    Default Re: Small is Important

    Whoa....where to start with this one? Its like deja vu all over again. Sometimes I look at the states and think...wow, you guys got it right. THEN...others, I go...look to the north to see what we are doing...or in this case relative to the TU proposal...what we did wrong.

    In Canada, we have a piece of legislation that is called the Federal Fisheries Act. This Act...protects fish and fish habitat...and habitat is loosely defined as 'needed for feeding, shelter and reproduction...and all the corridors (streams) connecting them'...and I paraphrase when I say that. The act also brings into play....direct and indirect fish habitat. Direct being...well, fish actively use 'this' feature while indirect could be many things such as 'just' a water contributer to a food source (i.e. creek banks)...to a range of things that could be waterborne or end up in the water.

    While this act has been around since the 1800's, it did not undergo any re-writes until recently..and not in a good way. That said, the act was only selectively deployed across Canada being most used for Marine fisheries more than anything. Late 1996, the provinces whom were 'doing' the act, pushed the act back to the Feds and then, the act was started to be more applied.

    At first, many thought like you did Plecain...'even a pond could be fish habitat'.....but that didn't happen. Logic always still applies....and 'zealous bureaucrats' are fewer than logical scientists/biologists....not that that always matters....I concede.

    In Ontario, there is also a wonderous piece of legislation called the Drainage Act....which basically is the empowerment of the province to create waterways...or alter existing waterways to suit agricultural needs. This INCLUDES enclosing 'those pesky small creeks' as needed because there in the way of development.

    The Fisheries Act should have protected these smaller...and in many cases, indirect fish habitats and because Fed Law supercedes Prov law, there shouldn't be an issue...but it didn't....and here is where the re-write mentioned above came in. Despite science effectively proving the value of small and intermittent streams...development won the day....and proving impacts became harder for biologist whom ALSO had budget/staff cuts (nice 1-2 punch by the fed government).

    There is so much more to say on this and this could easily be a complete dissertation on Biology vs. Legislature... but suffice to say....GET BEHIND the TU work now before its too late. They have experience in this on both sides of the border...and know what they do (despite the Plan having only one picture of what could be construed as a head water stream). The alternative to what they are suggesting....is pavement or creeks in tubes/pipes UNDER pavement.

    By the way...I am not a TU member...and never have been. I have worked with TU on projects, yes...and sat across the table from them as I reviewed projects they proposed (as a Fed regulator). I know well...I think...both sides of the story...and I'd rather be on the side of caution...than EVER on the side of development.

    Always keep in mind...and I have said this 1000 times to developers or agriculture or...or...or...on the side of streams...."waterways are not inconveniences that you need to solve".

    Just sayin' is all.

    King Joe Outa Here!

  4. Likes shotgunfly liked this post
  5. #4

    Default Re: Small is Important

    I am in support of the Congress taking this power away from the EPA because ultimately the EPA will be deciding who can and can't graze cattle, raise a garden or even mow your grass because it may affect the quality of run-off water (intermittent stream). Worst case these decisions should be left to the states to decide as the EPA no longer has the citizens best interest at heart.

    Dave
    I was going fly fishing until my wife suggested it, now I can't tell who is outsmarting who!

    Being "one with nature" requires a knowledge of what animals are living nearby and a weapon of sufficient magnitude to give you at minimum an equal chance of survival. No one has an invisible aura that animals can detect and sense your good intentions.

  6. Likes saucebox11, CutThroat Leaders, alexs liked this post
  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Strathroy, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    271

    Default Re: Small is Important

    Would it be that simple....so pastoral...so innocent and all Kumbaya...I'd agree. BUT it typically is not. This is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. WE feel the right to do what we want with the resources near us...and be damned the consequences downstream, downwind or even around the corner.

    Is it a right to put a feedlot and basically a beef-plantation on a headwater stream?

    Is it a right to graze cattle in creeks?

    Is it a right to mow your lawn...to the waters edge because them pesky reeds just don't look right?

    Is it a right to plant a garden in a floodplain because dang, that dark soil grows great tomatoes.

    I suppose I should have asked all of the above like this instead "Is IT right to..." ....because really, all the above IS a right. Ya know what they say...give an inch and they'll take a stream...i mean...mile....a mile of stream...wait, what?

    I like to believe the majority of people will do the right thing...but too many times...I've seen contrary....and ONE 'I didn't think it would matter'...is the Exxon Valdez. Its the uncappable underwater well head off the west coast. Its California San Francisco Bay (love the neon green and red inland bays), its the farmer that dumps his pig manure into a creek because, well, the solution to pollution is dilution.....its...its...its.

    I'm just saying...been der, don dat here in Canada. The Tragedy of the Commons rules here and we are perhaps blessed with lots of good waters and woods. THis does not...never does...mean, we take it lightly or for granted. Legislation....is needed...smart legislation....and no legislation...as I already said....the alternative is pavement.

    King Joe Outa Here!

  8. Likes shotgunfly liked this post
  9. #6

    Default Re: Small is Important

    Yeah right, and climate change, global warming or global cooling (not sure what the current politically correct name is) is based upon honest, non-manipulated facts!

    Obama EPA Chief: Pollution is Racist



    Dave
    I was going fly fishing until my wife suggested it, now I can't tell who is outsmarting who!

    Being "one with nature" requires a knowledge of what animals are living nearby and a weapon of sufficient magnitude to give you at minimum an equal chance of survival. No one has an invisible aura that animals can detect and sense your good intentions.

  10. #7

    Default Re: Small is Important

    I agree with King Joe also as it's up to us all to keep watch on what's happening as The Small Feeder Streams are also The Start & Part of all The River Systems to Keep The Waters Clean & The Areas always Pristine.
    There are always laws made & passed however from time to time they are broken as there's cracks in The legislation which protect some from being prosecuted.
    A typical example is about 10-15 miles from here where Mining Companies literally removed The Mountainsides thus removing all The Vegetation like what happened in Idaho with The Hydrauliking years ago whereas if I cut a tree down in my backyard without approval I can be Fined,double standards ???
    Brian

Similar Threads

  1. What is the MOST important aspect of a fly?
    By busbus in forum General Fly Tying Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 07:46 AM
  2. Rod weight.. really that important?
    By petee in forum Fly Rods
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-17-2013, 10:04 AM
  3. New or Used - Is the warranty important
    By alfordjo in forum Fly Rods
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-26-2013, 03:46 PM
  4. How important is a reel?
    By greenfish4 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-01-2012, 09:04 AM
  5. Important Rod question...
    By wlb06 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-26-2008, 08:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •