# Fisherman....Speak out! Great Lakes in danger



## waymon (Apr 25, 2014)

This is terrifying if this happens. I can't imagine the reasoning behind defunding the Great Lakes Protection Fund. So much of the central part of the county live off this water.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...eported-trump-cuts-to-epa-great-lakes-program


----------



## msfcarp (Jun 6, 2006)

The reasoning is Trump has to find a way to fund his $54 billion increase for defense spending.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

msfcarp said:


> The reasoning is Trump has to find a way to fund his $54 billion increase for defense spending.



There is a large wall that needs to be funded also.


----------



## bobberbill (Apr 5, 2011)

Make his kids spend their own money to travel the world instead of ours. That's a start. 52 billion to make new war ships, while we fight battles in the deserts. Right on track. I think we have plenty of Reps and Senators from all around the Great Lakes to make some noise. Hopefully this will backfire like everything else, so far.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

It probably just trumps way of paying back the Great Lakes states. He only won by less than 78,000 combined votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Thanks to the union guys.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Not scary. What has it done in the first place....lake has been overun with invasives more amd more. Overplanting of lake trout...studies on salmon showed nothing we didnt know amd gave data that wild controdicts itaelf on natural reproduction...


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

The EPA has been around for quite a while now, look at the condition of the Great Lakes.

Just what exactly has the EPA been doing for the Great Lakes?


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

-Axiom- said:


> The EPA has been around for quite a while now, look at the condition of the Great Lakes.
> 
> Just what exactly has the EPA been doing for the Great Lakes?


Not a huge fan of many of the examples of EPA overreach. However last I checked in the 70's the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland was on fire and Lake Erie was dead. Still have problems but not like pre EPA days.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

andyotto said:


> Not a huge fan of many of the examples of EPA overreach. However last I checked in the 70's the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland was on fire and Lake Erie was dead. Still have problems but not like pre EPA days.



There is certainly a need for an EPA like authority but the current incarnation is just plain corrupt & out of control.


The effectiveness of the current EPA is dubious at best, it's been around a pretty long time now, we wouldn't have the environmental issues we have if it was an effective agency.


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

-Axiom- said:


> There is certainly a need for an EPA like authority but the current incarnation is just plain corrupt & out of control.
> 
> 
> The effectiveness of the current EPA is dubious at best, it's been around a pretty long time now, we wouldn't have the environmental issues we have if it was an effective agency.


I hear ya.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

waymon said:


> This is terrifying if this happens. I can't imagine the reasoning behind defunding the Great Lakes Protection Fund. So much of the central part of the county live off this water.
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...eported-trump-cuts-to-epa-great-lakes-program


This is a good thing. EPA is a giant waste of tax dollars. It needs to be completely revamped and could easy protect the Great Lakes for 1/100 of the budget.


----------



## waymon (Apr 25, 2014)

Lumberman said:


> This is a good thing. EPA is a giant waste of tax dollars. It needs to be completely revamped and could easy protect the Great Lakes for 1/100 of the budget.


I disagree. There is so much the EPA does to protect nature and people. There is serious history to back it up. Unfortunately we will now see the damage that will be done.


----------



## Jim_MI (Jul 9, 2012)

The EPA has accomplished great things since its inception, but like all Federal programs, there is never a notice of "Mission Accomplished, let's all go home". My wife worked in a federally funded research institute. At the end of each year there was a scramble to purchase unnecessary supplies and equipment, with the sole goal of spending every penny of appropriated funding. There was no way to return unspent money! Carrying a cash balance forward was an admission that you didn't really need it in the first place, which meant less money allocated next year. Horrible system with incentives for "success" rigged in favor of waste! Multiply that up through all federally funded programs and pretty soon you realize that a total rebuild is necessary. And every rebuild starts with a demolition phase.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## freshwater drum (Mar 17, 2007)

Ranger Ray said:


> Thanks to the union guys.


Most of us union guys saw enough of our manufacturing jobs go away under Obama that i dont believe we were the reason it was so close. Hillary would have been another 4 years of the same Obama bs.


----------



## hawgeye (Mar 3, 2011)

Jim_MI said:


> The EPA has accomplished great things since its inception, but like all Federal programs, there is never a notice of "Mission Accomplished, let's all go home". My wife worked in a federally funded research institute. At the end of each year there was a scramble to purchase unnecessary supplies and equipment, with the sole goal of spending every penny of appropriated funding. There was no way to return unspent money! Carrying a cash balance forward was an admission that you didn't really need it in the first place, which meant less money allocated next year. Horrible system with incentives for "success" rigged in favor of waste! Multiply that up through all federally funded programs and pretty soon you realize that a total rebuild is necessary. And every rebuild starts with a demolition phase.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


My brother in-law works for the DEQ, boss gave him his work the first day. He finished the work and handed it in at the end of the day. His boss handed it back and said that's a weeks worth of work, see me on Friday. He said what do you want me to do play solitaire all week? His boss said I don't care what you do, that's a weeks worth of work. That's why all these government departments need to be looked at. That's the issue, I'm all for the DEQ and EPA but they need to be ran like a business, not like a free for all!


----------



## WoodyMG (May 29, 2013)

Everyone has their "thing" they think the government should force others to pay for. I hold the Great Lakes near and dear to my heart for fishing and hunting, but I also know we can't afford to pay for everyone's pet project. Every government program not in the enumerated powers needs to be cut and reformed in to a more efficient form of itself, imho.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

There is absolutely no reason why the individual states cannot create & enforce laws protecting the environment the only difference is that the states can only enforce laws within their borders.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It might be the best thing that could happen to the great lakes if the feds shut down the lake trout hatcheries. The states just have to purchase or lease them from the feds so that they can raise more silver fish.


----------



## Getaway (Jan 17, 2001)

-Axiom- said:


> There is absolutely no reason why the individual states cannot create & enforce laws protecting the environment the only difference is that the states can only enforce laws within their borders.


Bingo!


----------



## Stand By (Jan 23, 2015)

-Axiom- said:


> There is absolutely no reason why the individual states cannot create & enforce laws protecting the environment the only difference is that the states can only enforce laws within their borders.


Can't even do that. They tried to restrict dumping of bilge water by heavy freighters and the courts ruled it violated interstate commerce. So you would think a FEDERAL body like the EPA might take an interest? Of course they would just stick to the Canadian side.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Is there still significant damage in the area of that leak? I have a friend downstream of the Allegan dam who dont seem to have any damage.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

fisheater said:


> Axiom,
> This is not intended as a "gotcha". Pipelines are inspected by air daily. I know because there is a county where the review process is very slow, and permits are very expensive. I exclude these costs, but provide budget numbers. Many times property owners ask us to proceed without a permit. The pipeline company inspects Saturday and Sunday as well. They will have law enforcement shut down non- permitted construction activity in their easement. While I agree, based on what happened at the Kalamazoo River, that inspection is at the very least in need of improvement.
> I think what we have learned, is regardless what party is in power. We are at the mercy of the the agency employees whom implement policy. Use Mr. Dexter as an example. "The golf course developer and chief" has many dealings with such employees. Perhaps he believes there is an ideological bent to EPA that requires a purge, via cutting programs, and jobs. Living in Michigan, I didn't think that the new fuel economy standards were good for the economy, or really for the environment.
> I don't get enjoyment when people lose their jobs. Many of the programs being cut, I would rather see continued. It has been a long time since I thought a President could make a difference for a better country. I hope this President can help this country to a better place. There are a whole lot of people trying to see he fails. Time will tell. Peace and tight lines.


Based on the body of evidence accumulated-to-date, it would appear the the principle individual influencing his success or failure is the guy looking back at him in the mirror every morning. Placing family members in key positions of authority, requiring security clearance issuance; refusal to release tax returns;publicly stated serial lies and insults directed at real and imagined political opponents; routine obfuscation; and a public speaking style peppered with "carnival barker" superlatives is pretty interesting "stuff" for a chief executive- one might be inclined to conclude it is groundbreaking! What ever happened to the publicly promised post-election lawsuits directed at the women who "falsely" stated that he sexually harassed them? I see the military service branches have gotten on-board, aping his behaviors! Ahhhh, national leadership at its finest!

Maybe, we just have different standards of behavior expectations for a President.


----------



## wishin (Jan 3, 2008)

Based on some of the responses here this thread is digressing. So back on point. Think about this for a minute. A few years back a number of drought pron states were trying to suggest that water from the Great Lakes should be made available to them and a consortium of states around the area basically shut that down. Why then do we believe that funding for these beautiful body's of water should be funded primarily at the Federal level? We have enough states and 1 country surrounding the great lakes that could take up that slack and not miss that federal money at all. Problem with these surrounding states is they have grown so use to drinking from the Federal trough. We have a funding crisis at the federal level and it's time the states pull up there big boy pants and state thinking for themselves. If that doesn't happen we have no ground to stand on if and when that water starts getting diverted. Me personally I would rather the Great Lakes States take more responsibility for this great resource. I can think of many Federal programs that could be terminated to ease the 19 Trillion and rising in dept but that's grist for another mill.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

wishin said:


> Based on some of the responses here this thread is digressing. So back on point. Think about this for a minute. A few years back a number of drought pron states were trying to suggest that water from the Great Lakes should be made available to them and a consortium of states around the area basically shut that down. Why then do we believe that funding for these beautiful body's of water should be funded primarily at the Federal level? We have enough states and 1 country surrounding the great lakes that could take up that slack and not miss that federal money at all. Problem with these surrounding states is they have grown so use to drinking from the Federal trough. We have a funding crisis at the federal level and it's time the states pull up there big boy pants and state thinking for themselves. If that doesn't happen we have no ground to stand on if and when that water starts getting diverted. Me personally I would rather the Great Lakes States take more responsibility for this great resource. I can think of many Federal programs that could be terminated to ease the 19 Trillion and rising in dept but that's grist for another mill.


'

Your statements touch on a philosophic perspective difference that has existed for decades since Howard Tanner and Wayne Tody submitted a position paper to the National Marine Fisheries Service prior embarking of coho plants in the sixties. NMFS personnel never responded...and the rest is history.

The numbers look better in the present and recent past, now that TFM's patent has expired and a domestic production facility exists, other than Bayer plants in Germany. That said, at least through a conversation I had with a high ranking State-level fishery official in 2008, the Federal government representative agencies USFWS/USGS have routinely played the Sea Lamprey management funding "card" when individual states start posturing about moving in a direction that deviates with "the play book" set by the GLFC for salmonine management.

This is self-explanatory as it pertains to the remainder of your statements:

https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/protecting-great-lakes-water/


----------



## gtokid1 (Oct 21, 2008)

We all should look at the past performance of the EPA before we make them the go to group.

https://stream.org/epa-pollutes-river-uses-scare-tactics-take-control-colorado-town/


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

gtokid1 said:


> We all should look at the past performance of the EPA before we make them the go to group.
> 
> https://stream.org/epa-pollutes-river-uses-scare-tactics-take-control-colorado-town/


 They mitigated the mine waste with, what was hoped to be, a temporary fix. But since they are quite limited in what they can actually do they were forced to take half measures. Those mitigation efforts failed,catastrophically. They did not cause the mine water. They mitigated an abandoned mine only to break their own dam. This would have never happened if they were able to properly address the problem in the first place. 

They were the little Dutch boy with their finger in the dike only the repairman never came for fear of what a superfund designation would do to tourism. Lessons can be learned all around.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Here is the DePaul University Cost-Benefit Analysis for permanent closure of the SAG:

https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-development/Documents/DePaul University Study on Terminating Lock Operations.pdf

There were four category headings within which closure costs were assessed (see Table 2.) My favorite was the last category heading:

*4. The effects of lock closure on the value of the river as a conduit for real-estate development and as a cultural, recreational, and tourism amenity.*

EPA has been "engaged" wih private industry, as well as the municipality/State for repeated failure to engage in comprehensive water quality improvements in large sections of the system which are heavily polluted with a variety of contaminants including human waste associated with heavy rainfalls and/or illegal discharge. YES, this is prime real estate!

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2016-mwrd-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

http://progressillinois.com/posts/content/2012/04/18/illinois-moves-forward-mandate-clean-waterways

http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategoriz...cle_67e24d8a-bbcf-507b-9ff6-bd4af55c56c9.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._1_sewer-system-plant-manager-clean-water-act

https://www.epa.gov/il/chicago-area-waterway-system-chicago-river


----------



## lakeerierobalo (Aug 9, 2005)

The larger problem with the EPA/ All Government Agencies Involved is the fact that they don't work together at all. Computer systems are not linked and agendas for the agencies most of the time create unneeded red tape to get absolutely nothing done for the end users!


----------

