Trump waterways/wetlands roll back

[Vandy321]

Don't like how we do things? Feel free to leave. We work very hard to keep Rokslide like it is.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Opinions are not welcome here, got it.

You sure you dont work for BHA with a reply like that?

It's not that serious dude, we're not all always going to agree.

 

[Poser]

Full disclosure....I haven't had time to read any of these regs but it's pretty safe to assume that anything coming out of the Trump administration would be exponentially better than if it were coming from one run by any of the Commies on the other side

For the pragmatists, however, legislation is either good or bad.

 

[Mike7]

The relative ease of the EPA being able to regulate or harass individual property owners, seems to have had little to do with private property used by wildlife ultimately getting developed.

And county planning comissions still have no problem turning private land that is wildlife habitat into concrete.

Rather, population growth driven in the US by unfettered immigration leads to the cascade ultimately causing development of wild spaces.

Perhaps this topic should be more on the forefront when assessing the ecological dangers to wildlife and hunting.

 

[carter33]

This is a good thing. If you have any water that flows across your land, the government can control how you improve your land. Water flows from neighbors field into your field, to bad, the government will control how/if you change things. Want a pond, stay away from the local creek/stream/ditch as the water belongs to the government. The current administration is just giving back the control of property to the owner.

I think I get what you’re saying and agree with the gist of it. But I don’t feel people should be able to alter any significant natural water way on there land just because it runs through there property. They should have known this stipulation when they purchased the property. The waterway presumably runs through dozens of people’s property and is part of the ecosystem. People downstream have a reasonable expectation of continuance of the waterway as well.

My other unpopular opinion is just because Trump did it doesn’t make it right either, just as much as him doing something doesn’t make it wrong. I am a trump supporter and will be terrified to see what happens to my invested money if a socialist dem gets elected.That being said I think the whole polarization thing is part of the issue, people seem to pledge themselves to a person or party as opposed to a set of personally established ideals they align with. I’ll vote trump again but I don’t have to agree with his tweeting or arguably unpresidential manner(though I do enjoy his blunt demeanor on occasion).

 

[wyosam]

This is a good thing. If you have any water that flows across your land, the government can control how you improve your land. Water flows from neighbors field into your field, to bad, the government will control how/if you change things. Want a pond, stay away from the local creek/stream/ditch as the water belongs to the government. The current administration is just giving back the control of property to the owner.

"What if your neighbor's water flows onto your property" is the heart of the issue. Do you care at all what your neighbor does to that water before it gets to your property? Whether it is a stream that keeps flowing, a pond, or just the rain water soaking into the ground, things that affect water affect everyone, not just the person that owns the dirt. I live in a place most people think of as pretty pristine, but our water quality is far from it (both surface and aquifer). It isn't big industry dumping chemicals in the river, it is things like nitrate from large tracts of manicured lawns/golf courses, people having poorly installed (from decades ago)/poorly maintained septic systems and things like that. Those are things that involve private property rights, but they also affect everybody else. Without clean water, we have nothing.

How clean water became a partisan issue, with so many sportsmen on the side of dollars over clean water is hard to understand. For many it is a direct affect on their pocket book, which is easier to understand. Then there are those who fall that way based more on following the mantra of whatever political party they prefer. Not saying that is the case with you, just a general observation. People from both sides do it on different topics.

Disclaimer for thread with potential to get politically heated- I have no intent to inflame, just my .02c about my thought process.

 

[Bull_n_heat]

"What if your neighbor's water flows onto your property" is the heart of the issue. Do you care at all what your neighbor does to that water before it gets to your property? Whether it is a stream that keeps flowing, a pond, or just the rain water soaking into the ground, things that affect water affect everyone, not just the person that owns the dirt. I live in a place most people think of as pretty pristine, but our water quality is far from it (both surface and aquifer). It isn't big industry dumping chemicals in the river, it is things like nitrate from large tracts of manicured lawns/golf courses, people having poorly installed (from decades ago)/poorly maintained septic systems and things like that. Those are things that involve private property rights, but they also affect everybody else. Without clean water, we have nothing.

How clean water became a partisan issue, with so many sportsmen on the side of dollars over clean water is hard to understand. For many it is a direct affect on their pocket book, which is easier to understand. Then there are those who fall that way based more on following the mantra of whatever political party they prefer. Not saying that is the case with you, just a general observation. People from both sides do it on different topics.

Disclaimer for thread with potential to get politically heated- I have no intent to inflame, just my .02c about my thought process.

This is my point too. We all live downstream, and more often than not, people live downstream of us. If that means I give up some of MY personal liberties on my ground to assure others abide by the same rules, MY personal stake is improved for it, and I'm happy to relinquish those liberties. Other folks are entitled to their opinions as well.

And to the comment about private land getting developed pushing critters to the public lands, that argument holds water til the first shot is fired at that animal. Loss of habitat means less reproduction of those animals, and lower game populations overall.

 

[*zap*]

Trump 2020.

 

[Akwoodchuck]

The sarcastic newscaster in my head:

"Good evening. People posing as 'sportsmen' and 'conservationists' are now cheering for...."

*checks notes*

"....more toxic crud in the water...."

 

[Austink47]

This deregulation will impact different regions very differently. This has potential to be a disaster in the arid south west, where there are very few rivers, and lots of seasonal drainages that flow into them. Sure there was overreach. Did changes need to be made? Yes. Did the baby get thrown out with the bath water? From my perspective yes.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Intent and execution of power are always different. EPA was weaponized long ago and been ripe with abuse,

I hate to see the roll back of the laws though, I think some where great and needed but hated the EPA, and juridical abuses more.

 

[ODB]

Can't believe that other "Rogen" thread was locked down. Unbelievable. I was a moderator at the Alaska Outdoors Forum for years. It wasn't easy, and I know things get heated and sometimes intervention is warranted, but there has to be some leeway.

These issues are too important to not talk about.
If we end up a Socialist nation, there won't be a Rokslide Forum, because there won't be guns or legalized hunting!
Hyperbole? Think again!

Agree 100%. Yet the Rogan/Pot thread rolls on...

the sanders thread was directly related To hunting via the (D)s position on gun/hunting rights...

dunno...

 

[WV Mountaineer]

"What if your neighbor's water flows onto your property" is the heart of the issue. Do you care at all what your neighbor does to that water before it gets to your property? Whether it is a stream that keeps flowing, a pond, or just the rain water soaking into the ground, things that affect water affect everyone, not just the person that owns the dirt. I live in a place most people think of as pretty pristine, but our water quality is far from it (both surface and aquifer). It isn't big industry dumping chemicals in the river, it is things like nitrate from large tracts of manicured lawns/golf courses, people having poorly installed (from decades ago)/poorly maintained septic systems and things like that. Those are things that involve private property rights, but they also affect everybody else. Without clean water, we have nothing.

How clean water became a partisan issue, with so many sportsmen on the side of dollars over clean water is hard to understand. For many it is a direct affect on their pocket book, which is easier to understand. Then there are those who fall that way based more on following the mantra of whatever political party they prefer. Not saying that is the case with you, just a general observation. People from both sides do it on different topics.

Disclaimer for thread with potential to get politically heated- I have no intent to inflame, just my .02c about my thought process.

Clean water is not a partisan issue until people make it one. It is beyond any rationalization in my mind on how that could even be implied

 

[Poser]

Clean water is not a partisan issue until people make it one. It is beyond any rationalization in my mind on how that could even be implied

In 2020, everything becomes a partisan issue apparently. Earlier in this thread I was accused of questioning this legislation simply because it originated from the Trump administration. We also had a comment simply plugging “Trump 2020” with no comment on the deregulation. Presumably partisan? Some will support this simply because it originated from the Trump camp. Others will criticize it simply because it came from the Trump administration. I’m simply trying to find out if it’s good or bad as it relates to hunting and fishing. I suspect it’s bad, but I’m not entirely sure. It’s either good or bad. The fact that it came from a certain administration should make no difference but the butt hurt is real on both sides.

 

[Okhotnik]

In 2020, everything becomes a partisan issue apparently. Earlier in this thread I was accused of questioning this legislation simply because it originated from the Trump administration. We also had a comment simply plugging “Trump 2020” with no comment on the deregulation. Presumably partisan? Some will support this simply because it originated from the Trump camp. Others will criticize it simply because it came from the Trump administration. I’m simply trying to find out if it’s good or bad as it relates to hunting and fishing. I suspect it’s bad, but I’m not entirely sure. It’s either good or bad. The fact that it came from a certain administration should make no difference but the butt hurt is real on both sides.

I sincerely wish Trump could be an environmental warrior like Obama and his EPA

 

[*zap*]

The thread title of "Trump" vs EPA is partisan and sure seemed like a dig on the POTUS so my post was definitely partisan. As far as commenting on the regulations and their effects I really have not put the time into it nor do I care to put the time into it to make an educated response. I am certainly not going to change my vote in the presidential election due to an epa regulation imposed during any presidents tenure. There are much more important issues that I base that decision on like being able to exercise my God given rights and stopping the slide of the USA to progressive/socialist ideals. Frankly if "Trump" was not in the title I would not have commented.

 

[Poser]

The thread title of "Trump" vs EPA is partisan and sure seemed like a dig on the POTUS so my post was definitely partisan. As far as commenting on the regulations and their effects I really have not put the time into it nor do I care to put the time into it to make an educated response. I am certainly not going to change my vote in the presidential election due to an epa regulation imposed during any presidents tenure. There are much more important issues that I base that decision on like being able to exercise my God given rights and stopping the slide of the USA to progressive/socialist ideals. Frankly if "Trump" was not in the title I would not have commented.

The title of the thread is “Trump Waterways/wetlands roll back” not “Trump vs EPA”. I have no idea where you got that title from. Is there something partisan about attributing these changes to the Trump administration from which they originated? Also, it’s not even an EPA vs Trump scenario if you look at the EPA statement on the subject matter, you’ll actually find them towing the line as they were directed to make these changes.

Go back and read your post. You made a lot of assumptions about this thread and you admitted to only posting because Trump’s name was in it (bizarre). No ones asking you to change your vote. Trump works for you and it is quite acceptable to criticize a person who works for you and it still perfectly ok to vote for them even if you are critical. Where does this whole “you have to be 100% on board with Trump or you don’t support him” sentiment come from? This should never exist in politics in any form and, if it does, it’s straight cult of personality.

For example: “One should blindly support legislation from a presidential administration.”
Yes or no?

 

[*zap*]

Exactly, it was Trump in the title and not the EPA.
I was referring to the reference of Trump in the title vs not referring to the epa in the title. My response was in part due to your previous post of "We also had a comment simply plugging "Trump 2020” with no comment on the deregulation. Presumably partisan?" and the fact that I felt the thread title was itself partisan so you really should expect some partisan responses.
Now, as I said earlier if the title was 'the epa rolls back' I would not have commented at all. But I felt like adding my $.02 even thou it was not on the original topic of which I am very uninformed. I hope that explains this better and remember to vote for Trump in November... .

 

[Akwoodchuck]

Trump voters can be very like heroin addicts in the way they both get so cranky and defensive when asked to quantify exactly WHY they need their shit....

 

[wthunter]

Don't like how we do things? Feel free to leave. We work very hard to keep Rokslide like it is.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Wow, I think you just proved his point. I don't think what he said was over the line. Lighten up...

 

[WV Mountaineer]

In 2020, everything becomes a partisan issue apparently. Earlier in this thread I was accused of questioning this legislation simply because it originated from the Trump administration. We also had a comment simply plugging “Trump 2020” with no comment on the deregulation. Presumably partisan? Some will support this simply because it originated from the Trump camp. Others will criticize it simply because it came from the Trump administration. I’m simply trying to find out if it’s good or bad as it relates to hunting and fishing. I suspect it’s bad, but I’m not entirely sure. It’s either good or bad. The fact that it came from a certain administration should make no difference but the butt hurt is real on both sides.

I agreed with you and understood your Opening post to be as you say.