Environmentalists generally regard people as the enemy, but that is a mythology only held by urban fundraisers working for environmental corporations. In actuality, sportsmen are some of the biggest protectors of the environment. They are even more protective of the environmental than the US Environmental Protection Agency, they are just more practical and not motivated by the latest political fads.
Photo credit: Brendan Burns.
Link: Sportsman's Alliance for Alaska.
One of the latest political fads involves a mine in Alaska - the EPA is against it after a tertiary analysis, disagreeing with the Army Corps of Engineers, while a bipartisan group of Senators, including one from Alaska, have proposed the Regulatory Fairness Act to keep the EPA from being an unelected legislative superpower, more powerful than the rest of government.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been overruled before. Throughout the 1990s, they wanted to improve the levees in the south and delta of the US and were blocked by environmental lawsuits and the EPA. After Hurricane Katrina hit and some levees failed in New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers was sued, but they were absolved in court. They had not been able to build to their own recommended specifications.
The Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014 would prohibit the EPA from using its Clean Water Act Section 404(c) authority to restrict permits at "any time" using the belief that a particular development will have an "unacceptable adverse effect" on America's waterways or fisheries. The hunters and fishers lined up against it believe the Pebble Mine gold and copper project would impact the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery in Bristol Bay. As is often the case with environmental issues, the arcane wording and nature of competing federal constituencies have been intentionally designed to allow or block projects based on how the political wind is blowing. In this case, the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the government body that issues dredging and filling permits for mines, did an impact analysis and was willing to issue a federal discharge permit, which will not be possible while this remains under review.
The EPA says it might destroy up to 94 miles of salmon spawning streams and 5,350 acres of wetlands, lakes, and ponds in the Bristol Bay region and in February, the EPA began the 404(c) process to block the project. A bipartisan group of Senators responded with proposed federal legislation that would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to block projects in what they perceive as an arbitrary yet binding scenario.
Lined up against the project are not the usual anti-business groups that raise money blocking business. It is instead groups like the American Fly Fishing Trade Association and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, all composed of members who know more about the actual environment than Sierra Club or the EPA could ever dream of knowing.
"The legislation these Senators are supporting runs directly counter to one of the top priorities for hunters and anglers from across the U.S.," said Scott Hed, Director of Sportsman's Alliance for Alaska. "We've heard from thousands that Bristol Bay is worth protecting; now is not the time to halt the EPA's thorough process in protecting this sportsman's paradise."
The good news is, lawsuits and their automatic delays mean this is another difficult decision the administration can avoid making.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- "You're quote mining. When it comes to environmental risk, energy emissions from CO2 are back at..."
- "Of course they aren't. These are scientific terms Hank Campbell and you can't just interpret them..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Young adults ages 18 to 26 should be viewed as separate subpopulation in policy and research
- University of Tennessee study finds saving lonely species is important for the environment
- Post-operative radiation therapy improves overall survival for patients with resected NSCLC
- Active, biodegradable packaging for oily products
- Medicare costs analysis indicates need to decrease use of biopsies as diagnosis tool for lung cancer