|04-16-2003 09:49 AM|
It's the chicken little theory, legislation is harder to pass then everyone thinks.
Unless you actually see the sky fall don't worry about it; because some one said it was.
|04-16-2003 09:44 AM|
I read the TU Spring magazine cover to cover last night, not a word in it on this legislation that I could see.
I did have my reading glasses on, so I doubt if I missed it.
|03-16-2003 10:31 PM|
More laws will fix everything.... enforce our current ones.
Of course that would idle 50% of the would be politicians and lawyers in this world.
|03-16-2003 06:33 PM|
I WILL LOOK UP THE STATUS, MAYBE TONIGHT.
|03-11-2003 10:59 AM|
Nice thing about laws both old and new is that the enforcement never really takes hold.
We need less laws and more enforcement of the current ones.
Of course if that were to happen the politicos, lawyers, etc would not be able to justify their jobs.
|03-11-2003 10:17 AM|
No word yet....
Hal, haven't heard a word yet on either HR5396/5395 or S2964.
All you get in responses is, "At least we are doing something..."
That's all we need - more ineffectual laws, and a waste of taxpayer's money on a bureaucracy and methods that won't do a thing for us.
All politicians are a waste of time. Regardless of party. A pox on them all! Don't trust any of 'em.
|03-10-2003 10:55 AM|
Any body hear what happened at the federal level on this ?
Wasn't it suppose to be voted on in house and senate committees in February, per the TU letter I received ?
I will look it up when I get a chance through our legal search systems.
Will be off line most of this week from FFF, work is hot right now, as we said in the USAF, "we are in a world of hurt", when we were deployed on a special mission or alert.
|02-11-2003 09:19 PM|
Be careful what you wish for.....
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you JUST MIGHT GET IT!
I have done a cursory review of the 133-page senate bill for "protecting" us from ballast water discharge. Don't get me wrong, this is BADLY needed, and I personally thought we had this protection by now.
The bill defines: "INTRODUCTION.- The term 'introduction' means the transfer of an organism to an ecosystem outside the historic range of the species of which the organism is a member."
Hmmmm. - Let's see. Browns came from Western Europe, steelies and chinooks/cohos from the Pacific northwest, and they aren't native to the lakes - - - I wonder if they are legal???? (Not by THIS definition!)
I also have some "hangups" with their defined flow-through methodology for cleaning of ballast to 95% - if we only put 5% of the zebra mussels in the lakes, would we still have problems??? YOU BETCHA! (But this is technical, based on my technical experiences.)
I have hangups with the sampling methods for verification, as well - based upon my education and tech. background, the techniques called out are EARLY PRIMITIVE!
And the mailings from TU (according to Hal) support this bill. Guys, I hope I am wrong on this. But what I see doesn't look good. Not trying to be nasty, but who are the good guys anymore????
Looking for guidance and words of wisdom, I am disillusioned.
|02-11-2003 06:14 PM|
It's called the "Chicken Little Syndrome".
Little thing was so worried about everything that he wasn't paying attention while they plucked and deep fried him.
|02-11-2003 05:15 PM|
I bet 95% that will not be passed, actually I will bet all my fishing equipment on that....the "new" fishery is developing, those purists cannot take it away.
Don't worry too much, it is a huge step to what we already have created to end this....not likley it will happen!
All cleared up in my opinon!
|02-11-2003 03:52 PM|
Put it to rest....
Just to make sure this is all cleared up I wanted to share my most recent corresondance with TU. Here it is.
John - Got some info from our Midwest Office. Briana Meier was a former TU intern working on special projects for the Midwest Office. One of her projects was to gather input from local TU councils and other fishery organizations about a newly proposed Great Lakes United native fish policy. After compiling the information, she sent it back to GLU. Briana is gone, but GLU has come up with a revised draft policy which I've attached along with a letter from our Upper Midwest Conservation Director about the issue. Our Midwest Office notes that the latest attachment remains a draft GLU policy only. It is not a draft TU policy, nor is it being considered for adoption by TU.* You can distribute to whomever is interested. The Midwest Ofiice will do any follow-up if necessary.* Thanks for your interest and concern.
Here's the response and attachment:
Thanks for contacting me about the Great Lakes United Action Agenda. I have been helping GLU develop the Native Fish Restoration portion of the Habitat & Biodiversity section of the Action Agenda. The recommendations that have been developed do not necessarily reflect the positions and views of Trout Unlimited. Our role in this has been to solicit input from groups across the Great Lakes basin and develop a set of recommendations based on that collective input. A set of the draft recommendation are attached.
The recommendations are currently in draft form and are open for comments and input. The recommendations regarding stocking of non-native trout and salmon are definitely the most contentious so far. GLU and a few other groups take a relatively hard-line view in favor of phasing out stocking of non-native fish. Trout Unlimited's view is more moderate. We would oppose any stocking of non-native trout or salmon where it either would interfere with native trout rehabilitation efforts, where natural reproduction of non-native trout and salmon already provide a sustainable population, or if stocking were being done in place of improving habitat or water quality. We recognize that the pacific salmon, steelhead, and brown trout are now part of the Great Lakes ecosystem and it would be a mistake to try and remove them. But stocking should also be done judiciously and with habitat restoration and native species rehabilitation in mind. Frankly, I think the ideal would be where stocking were unnecessary because the Great Lakes were able to support self-sustaining trout and salmon fisheries.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Upper Midwest Conservation Director
222 S. Hamilton St., Ste. 3
Madison, WI* 53703
|02-07-2003 06:20 PM|
Since sending it in is in question, and more than likely your senator will never see it.
Save yourself the trip to the PO and put it in the circular file.
Doesn't it make you wonder how TU is asking for $$$ all the while yet, theyspend a ton of money on junk mailings. Perhaps if they saved the $$$ on them they would ask for less $$.
It's almost like the US government and their $300 hammers.
|02-07-2003 02:31 PM|
I can look up the actual legislation and will.
Until you actually read the law and all terms and conditions all bets are off as to what is included and excluded, and even after the law is passed until it is challenged and opined in by the federal or states court you still may not know what the actual intent is. I deal with this every day in my real job.
|02-07-2003 01:43 PM|
Hal and mjyp:
I don't know if this includes the area I was speaking of. That's the problem with these things ("mailers") is you can't see the underlying legislation.
I do know that there is legislation pending (has been for the last couple of years) in congress "to prohibit ballast discharge in the great lakes".
The problem with these laws is you have to read it to understand what "riders" have been added.
Sorry - I don't know what is included. I DO know that dumping of ballast SHOULD have been outlawed decades ago, and I am in favor of it.
Since I am not an attorney, I don't feel qualified to remark on legal matters. (I know Hal will agree with me on this!)
But if I read the actual legislation, however, I would comment on my interpretation of "what it says".
|02-07-2003 01:28 PM|
|removed_by_request||Got the same thing 2 weeks ago. They probably send it out to all members. At least that is my best guess.|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|