|
Forums36
Topics40,960
Posts557,927
Members18,495
| |
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
|
6 members (Fishingadventure, gautprod, Tinylake, Knobber, Groundhog7, Jward87),
1,075
guests, and
209
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57 |
The largest spill in fresh water that I can remember was caused by the EPA. That Holier than thow or smarter than the rest or lack of common sense is what bothers me.
Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.
Tracy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96 |
I wonder if the definition of real pollution isn't what some, including myself, consider a sticking point. Who gets to decide what constitutes pollution?
If my ponds discharge fish, including non native or even indigenous species not found in local waterways, cutrine, fluridone, watermeal, duckweed, etc, into a neighbor's pond or even public water, isn't that a type of pollution? But should all "polution" be the jurisdiction of the federal government? This looks like to me what you describe, based on the constitution, that this would be an issue for the states to address if they chose to do so. The federal government should only have power to regulate any polution that goes beyond state boundries and is of a national perspective. A paralell example would be litterbug laws. Do we really want federal laws and federal fines for throwing trash along the roads? A federal trash agency and trash laws? Don't we already have more than enough Federal agencies and laws? After all, trash is a form of polution. This is a state issue and should be controlled by the state and the people that live in that state. But then I am for states rights and a very limited federal government. Governance closer to the people being governed.
Last edited by snrub; 03/01/17 09:58 PM.
John
I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
So long as the local government will act. It's the same as different levels of law enforcement, (local, state, federal)....there needs to be a chain, a series of steps if the local government fails to act, or acts injustly.
If I lived next to you, snrub, and polluted your water with my actions, you would surely seek counsel with the local or state government. But what if they ruled in my favor...would you be satisfied with their decision, or would you pursue other, higher levels of government enforcement? That's my point. There NEEDS to be another level above the local and state. Sure, try to settle it at the state level, but have an agency at the fed, level ready to intervene if the need arises.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96 |
I believe damages are what civil courts are for. Those kinds of things are already accounted for in many existing laws.
If you do something that damages me or my property, you are liable for it.
John
I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Then why do we have a supreme court?
Layers, that's why. Start at the bottom when seeking satisfaction, work your way up the chain.
Again, if you don't receive satisfaction in civil court, are you just going to drop it, or would you go up the chain? It's nice having that higher authority when it works to our advantage, eh? I realize that this is an extreme example,but illustrates my point. There needs to be a final link in that chain, and it needs to be at the federal level.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
Appeals are only heard if the law was not followed by the lower courts. Complicating simple things is a friend to those trying to get away with something. Federal pollution laws should only be protecting neighboring states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
It's those complications that worry me, RAH. Life in general is complicated. I knew that this scenario (wotus) would never fly, because the time isn't right for it to do so yet. But I perceive some would prefer the EPA be disbanded entirely, and I find that idea ridiculous.
Again, I'm all for local and state laws handling things. But when they dont, or wont, there needs to be another authority at a higher level.
Pollution is often perception, in the absence of guidelines. I have firsthand experience in this regard, and found local authority to be clueless, and state authority careless. But once I finally made contact on the federal level, which admittedly wasn't easy, things happened quickly and favorably for me. So I'm in favor of having that federal resource available, as a last option.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,722 Likes: 282 |
Sometimes simple is hard to get to. Last option is great, not first option. We need environmental regulation, but sometimes a bureaucracy gets so entrenched, that a reboot is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Sometimes simple is hard to get to. Last option is great, not first option. We need environmental regulation, but sometimes a bureaucracy gets so entrenched, that a reboot is needed. Totally agree!
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,746 Likes: 294
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame 2014  Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,746 Likes: 294 |
Spark, one could say then that the Supreme Court could be the final arbitrator if local and state issues needed to be escalated.
There really would not need to be a specific federal agency for every single category of dispute.
I'm not saying to abolish the EPA entirely, but does it need to be an "8 billion dollar" agency if it's only purpose is to resolve conflicts that couldn't be resolved at the state level?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 908 Likes: 8
Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 908 Likes: 8 |
'animals' done growed up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,794 Likes: 71
Hall of Fame 2014
|
|
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,794 Likes: 71 |
None of us want dirty water, none of us are pro-pollution, but it is interesting to note for perspective...that it is the Feds...who are the biggest single polluter in the United States. Yes "the fox guarding the chicken-house" pollutes the environment worse than anyone in America! And since we are discussing waterways guess who the third largest polluter of US Waterways is? You guessed it, "the final chain", the US Federal Government is the 3rd largest polluter of US Waterways. Third largest polluter of US Waterways
Fishing has never been about the fish....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,182 Likes: 29
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,182 Likes: 29 |
I am not trying to get overly political, and I will not take offense at this post getting removed if I cross a line.
At least the EPA has the ability to stand up to multi-national muti-billion dollar corporations that are trying to ravage local resources. Let's see an under-staffed state agency resist without caving in to pressure (or taking a payout). The federal level can barely withstand it. The EPA is a necessity to maintain balance between big business and citizenry.
That is the point of the desire to dismantle the EPA entirely. It is to allow business to do what business does best: eat resources like a giant caterpillar and leave behind a big pile of poo in the name of the almighty dollar. The Trump administration believes that America was great during the era when there were no restrictions on business so we can compete with countries like "Jina" and India, because you know, we envy their economic growth and ignore what they are doing to their environment and resources to get there.
I suppose if you are rich enough, you don't have to be anywhere near where the messes are being made, and that is why the Trump administration does not fear the repercussions of their actions. I fear we will be sent back to the days of dead lakes and rivers that catch on fire just so we can be great again.
It is tough to be a Republican and a conservationist/steward these days :-(.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Awesome post, liquidsquid! If it gets the thread shutdown, just know one guy here gives it a thumbs up.
It's not always easy having liberal tendencies while reconciling the need for profit,either.
Last edited by sprkplug; 03/02/17 10:02 AM.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Spark, one could say then that the Supreme Court could be the final arbitrator if local and state issues needed to be escalated.
There really would not need to be a specific federal agency for every single category of dispute.
I'm not saying to abolish the EPA entirely, but does it need to be an "8 billion dollar" agency if it's only purpose is to resolve conflicts that couldn't be resolved at the state level?
I get you, Sunil. And I agree to a point. I do think the EPA needs to be mindful of its core mission, that being issues that cross state lines, but I also maintain there's room in there to assist with intra state policy, on some level, also. Groundwater aquifers do not respect state boundaries.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 951 Likes: 39
Ambassador
Field Correspondent Lunker
|
|
Ambassador
Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 951 Likes: 39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,746 Likes: 294
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,746 Likes: 294 |
'animals' done growed up. What up, my Brother!!????
Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,493 Likes: 266
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,493 Likes: 266 |
You guys sound like EPA - everything is connected so we can control it. Having worked in this area for 30 years I could tell you some shocking stories. Like the guy who was threatened with fines and jail because he dug a postholes for a fence in his back yard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
I don't doubt you for a minute, ewest. I also don't doubt that the more outrageous the story, the more air time it gets. Resulting in it being held up umpteen times as "proof" of how the agency can't do anything right, and needs to disbanded immediately. There are absolutely instances of abuse of power, but I'll bet for every overreach by the epa, there are far more instances where they accomplished what they were originally intended to do.
The story of the "cattle rancher" who dammed up the creek to make a "stock pond", only to stock it with fish, and build a dock, comes to mind. The guy was blatantly in the wrong, yet the media ran with his version of the story, and the public ate it up.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 908 Likes: 8
Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 908 Likes: 8 |
Makes you wonder why beavers are allowed to do that very same thing and yet the creeks flow on. Maybe hiring a couple beavers to do the job would have left that guy in the clear with the creek still flowing on it's merry way. But obviously that guy deserved being fined $75,000 per day. Only a wealthy beaver could have afforded that penalty. Ah, animals, if you're not here, you have competition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207 |
You guys sound like EPA - everything is connected so we can control it. Having worked in this area for 30 years I could tell you some shocking stories. Like the guy who was threatened with fines and jail because he dug a postholes for a fence in his back yard. I have to agree Sir. It seems this nation is at a crossroads where two people's exist, the Statist's and the Rugged Individualist's. For the life of me I don't understand why the tool developed to make the two sides get along cannot be used. The Constitution has a clear roadmap on how to handle our water and environment issues. There is no EPA in this document so it is illegal to have one. There is a tool within the tool to have an EPA, it's called an Amendment. The Statist's do not have the votes for such an Amendment so the rule of law has been broken for their convenience. This Nation has continued to break the rule of law for all manner of other causes but I'll stick to the topic at hand. Under our Constitution we have the individual State to handle EQ and if two States have a dispute we have the courts. It's really quite simple and if one side or the other wants another solution, get the votes for an Amendment and change it. This exact recipe has been followed for a number of other Amendment's but some just want what they want and they want it now so we find ways to change the meaning of law for instant gratification. I keep reading Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution and for the life of me the EPA is not mentioned once as an enumerated power of the Federal Government. Statist's will say that the commerce clause makes it viable but Statist's seem to find NO limit to the commerce clause. Ah well, back to my man made pond which was built on land that has NO fish in it indigenous to the actual land it was built on. Hmm any man made pond, that has fish added to it, has not one fish indigenous to the actual land that the new pond was built on. twist twist twist the law till you get what you want. I really like MI, we have as clean of water as the people who live here want. When I'm not happy about that I'll just move to another State that is up to my standard. It's so damn simple.
I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Dud, since we're comparing beaver activity to that of humans, do suppose it's vanity, ego, or selfishness that drives the Beaver to construct his dam under threat of a $75,000 per day fine?
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57 |
The fact is the epa just got to big and overbearing. It was time to rain in their power. They got to where they could do anything they wanted and you had better have had a pot full of money if you were going to fight them in court. How much money would it cost to fight them to the Supreme Court. So, I am one who is happy about their funds being cut. Maybe now they will have to concentrate their time and money to the larger polluters. And leave the post hole diggers alone.
Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.
Tracy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
I'm certain there was more to the post hole story, but I agree they should concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57 |
I have to agree Sir. It seems this nation is at a crossroads where two people's exist, the Statist's and the Rugged Individualist's.
For the life of me I don't understand why the tool developed to make the two sides get along cannot be used. The Constitution has a clear roadmap on how to handle our water and environment issues. There is no EPA in this document so it is illegal to have one. There is a tool within the tool to have an EPA, it's called an Amendment. The Statist's do not have the votes for such an Amendment so the rule of law has been broken for their convenience. This Nation has continued to break the rule of law for all manner of other causes but I'll stick to the topic at hand.
Under our Constitution we have the individual State to handle EQ and if two States have a dispute we have the courts. It's really quite simple and if one side or the other wants another solution, get the votes for an Amendment and change it. This exact recipe has been followed for a number of other Amendment's but some just want what they want and they want it now so we find ways to change the meaning of law for instant gratification.
I keep reading Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution and for the life of me the EPA is not mentioned once as an enumerated power of the Federal Government. Statist's will say that the commerce clause makes it viable but Statist's seem to find NO limit to the commerce clause.
Ah well, back to my man made pond which was built on land that has NO fish in it indigenous to the actual land it was built on. Hmm any man made pond, that has fish added to it, has not one fish indigenous to the actual land that the new pond was built on. twist twist twist the law till you get what you want. I really like MI, we have as clean of water as the people who live here want. When I'm not happy about that I'll just move to another State that is up to my standard. It's so damn simple. Good post...... 
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57 |
|
![[Linked Image from i108.photobucket.com]](http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n22/arvomaki/misc/I_subscribe.gif)
.gif)
