# WOW-Another threat to our GSL marshes!



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

So, our esteemed legislature decided to pass a law this year that allows for more pollution to be dumped into the GSL marshes. They do this in insidious ways that fly under the radar, but the result is the same. In this law (SB110), the sewer plants get to *override the federal water quality standards* if they feel that they don't pose a down-stream risk. The new law denies the public the opportunity to challenge their actions or to participate/comment in a public meeting about the relaxed pollution loads going into the marshes. In the new law, they get to appoint a panel to determine whether or not they can change the water quality standards&#8230;it also makes it nearly impossible to use local experts that specialize in GSL water quality issues. This means that dirty, nutrient-rich effluent can be sent right out to the wetlands and we can't stop them. 
The sad thing is that the EPA had given the state to ability to implement the federal water standards, and things were going along fine, but with this new law the EPA may have to step in and handle things themselves. The public and the Utah DWQ (Dept of Water Quality) is essentially pushed out of the process so that the local sewer plants can do what they want. So much for our state being trusted to do the right thing with our public waters, marshes and lands. 
Why, why, why do our state legislators continually do these things? Well, *because they can*, and they have no fear of EVER losing their seats in the Utah legislature. They don't give a rat's patoot about our state-owned wetlands, wildlife, or waters. We elected these fools, now we get the results.
R


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

when will it end and i feel sorry for the kids coming up. they will not have any marsh to hunt. sad deal


----------



## Bret (Sep 7, 2007)

unbelievable. I feel everything I love is being attacked by our "leaders" at every turn. disgusted.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> when will it end and i feel sorry for the kids coming up. they will not have any marsh to hunt. sad deal


Chin up, Amigo! The Fat Lady ain't sung, yet.

Bottom line is that like you, today's hunters and anglers must get involved in politics. (Yup, just like when you have a busted sewer line - somebody has to crawl down there and make the necessary repairs.)

Watch what happens in the months between now and the elections.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Again I will say, vote the idiots who have overstayed their welcome out. Vote for the other candidates to level this BS out already. Or you can vote the same and leave your kids with developed, closed, polluted, unhealthy lives. Being conservative has nothing to do with destroying our natural resource which is what our republicans of this state seem to believe. if the EPA gets involved they'll scream federal overreach, in reality it is their actions nearly every time that cause "federal overreach". Don't want he EPA stepping in, keep things clean and safe in the first place. Want better managed federal lands? Stop voting to cut their budgets and fix the issues within the agencies. The great "conservative" leaders in this state can vote and choose to fix the issues they are constantly b******* about, but instead they keep the uninformed public in an uproar over problems they themselves create.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

rjefre said:


> Why, why, why do our state legislators continually do these things? Well, *because they can*, and they have no fear of EVER losing their seats in the Utah legislature. They don't give a rat's patoot about our state-owned wetlands, wildlife, or waters. We elected these fools, now we get the results.
> R




Obviously, our state reps do not represent the people of Utah. They don't represent our country, either. Doesn't matter who they truly represent - it ain't us.

Doesn't really matter who we vote for. More important by far is how many of us will stand against. Our only hope is in our numbers.

So I'm thinking let's increase our numbers. Yes, we live in a Republic. But it's a Democratic Republic. Hunters and anglers are a small demographic. Hunters and anglers and hikers and back country skiers and mountain bikers and climbers and photographers and biologists and tourists is a much bigger number. Yes?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Yes, you would think that, as a group, the hunters, fishers, hikers, bikers, bird watchers, etc, would hold some sway. We all have a bunch of similar goals and we all love the outdoor opportunities that Utah has. It is tough to get all of these folks together on a topic, but oh man, if we just could...we just might have a voice in how our crappy "leaders" behave. 
Duck and goose hunters are facing huge losses and will suffer major changes to the way we hunt and the way birds migrate through here...so you would think that we could get more folks to act on the wetland's behalf. I truly have hopes that we can save some of what is left, but it will take time and effort. The easiest effort is just this: try not voting for the guys that are in the legislature right now...just do something different. 
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> Yes, you would think that, as a group, the hunters, fishers, hikers, bikers, bird watchers, etc, would hold some sway. We all have a bunch of similar goals and we all love the outdoor opportunities that Utah has. It is tough to get all of these folks together on a topic, but oh man, if we just could...we just might have a voice in how our crappy "leaders" behave.
> Duck and goose hunters are facing huge losses and will suffer major changes to the way we hunt and the way birds migrate through here...so you would think that we could get more folks to act on the wetland's behalf. I truly have hopes that we can save some of what is left, but it will take time and effort. The easiest effort is just this: try not voting for the guys that are in the legislature right now...just do something different.
> R


Voting in a few Democrats couldn't hurt. All these Republicans want to do is rape and pillage our environment, sell off our public lands, pollute our air and water. Every single anti-environment measure both at the state and national level has been promoted by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. One would think outdoorsmen would wise up, but I don't see that happening much.


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

I'm afraid that Utah has the worst elected officials in the West and as long as there is an (R) beside their names nothing will change. Change in Utah happens at a glacial pace I'm afraid. I just listened to the Meateater podcast they did at the BHA rendezvous and the advice they gave was to become a single-minded voter. Ask every politician what their stance is on these issues that are important to outdoorsmen and don't vote for them if they don't have the right answer!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

We need to pull this (conservation) out of partisan politics. Conservation is not a partisan issue.

Vote against every incumbent. Purge.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> We need to pull this (conservation) out of partisan politics.* Conservation is not a partisan issue*.
> 
> Vote against every incumbent. Purge.


Absolutely incorrect. Every single "Nay" vote on SB110 came from Democrats. Republicans supported it 100%. I know because I checked. It's clear to me that conservation is indeed a partisan issue in Utah, and even nationally. If you think not, check the public record and get back to us.

Remember that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. If we want to promote conservation of our resources, we must hold our Republican officials accountable. Voting for Republicans is voting for more SB110s, Stream Access bills, etc.

No need to purge Democrats, they support our interests. I had a nice conversation via PMs with a frequent poster a few years ago (you know who you are). I advised him the switch party affiliations at that time. He said he wanted to work for change within the Republican party. I told him it wouldn't work. Guess how that worked out.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It is super frustrating to know that the vast majority of our Republican Utah legislature would fight to protect our right to keep and bear arms, yet they *don't give a crap* about protecting the areas that we might use these firearms to hunt in. So the question becomes this: do we vote against these jack-wagon republicans because they are raping and pillaging our wetlands, or do we vote for Dems that may not fully support our gun rights, *but can be depended on to care* about our state-owned wetlands? As a registered republican and past delegate, I can safely say one person can't work within a party to affect change. But...a bunch of waterfowlers acting in unison and in concern for our duck marshes and wetlands might be able to have a voice in the Utah legislative cesspool. First thing is to get these fools voted out so we can have more evenly distributed representation. These jacks have absolute power right now, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our Utah wetlands, and our duck hunting heritage are at risk!! 
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

You frame the question well, R. What is the greatest threat to our hunting, fishing, access to public lands, clean air, water, etc? Is it Republicans who kowtow to the NRA, using scare tactics to distract us from their nefarious deeds and so secure votes, all the while acting against our interests, or Democrats "comin' for our guns"? Are hunters and fishermen dumb enough to fall for the 2A BS spouted by the NRA? Have Democrats passed any anti-gun legislation in the past 8 years? Has anybody had trouble buying guns or ammo except for hysteria induced supply shortages?

It's time sportsmen take an objective look at who's on our side and who makes every effort to screw us year after year. Get informed, not fooled. Then make your voices heard. Or not, and prepare for more of the same.


----------



## Waterfowl Ace (Jun 22, 2016)

Finnegan said:


> We need to pull this (conservation) out of partisan politics. Conservation is not a partisan issue.
> 
> Vote against every incumbent. Purge.


:thumb:


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Waterfowl Ace said:


> :thumb:


Brilliant, Ace. First post, too.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

paddler213 said:


> Are hunters and fishermen dumb enough to fall for the 2A BS spouted by the NRA? Have Democrats passed any anti-gun legislation in the past 8 years? Has anybody had trouble buying guns or ammo except for hysteria induced supply shortages?
> 
> It's time sportsmen take an objective look at who's on our side and who makes every effort to screw us year after year. Get informed, not fooled. Then make your voices heard. Or not, and prepare for more of the same.


Paddler-
While I agree with a large majority of your post, the statement "have Dems passed any anti-gun legislation in the past 8 years" is very misleading. It is true that the Dems have not been able to pass said legislation. That said IT IS NOT because national Dems are pro-gun, IT IS because the GOP has stopped their anti-gun legislation in its tracks. We're it up to the national Democratic party, we would go the way of England and Australia in a heartbeat! Don't believe it...listen to what it's leaders (Pelosi, Schummer, Feinstein, hell Obama too) say and would do if given the chance. I may not agree with the incessant use of "draconian gun control" wording that the NRA constantly parades out, but the danger is very real nonetheless. It will only get worse if Clinton wins in November and gets to stack the Supreme Court with more Ginsbergs.

All this aside, it is difficult to see GOP politicians fight for the 2nd Amendment, yet roll over on the environment and Federal Lands "Transfer". My thought is that you try to effect change in the primaries where it is possible to vote out "tenured" GOP representatives. This at least puts other GOP representatives on notice and doesn't make a bad thing worse by voting in Dems that disagree with so much of what "conservatism" is all about. Of course if there were a Dem that was for the 2nd Amendment, the environment, and against lands transfer, I'd vote for them in a New York minute, but I can't seem to find one anywhere.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Well said. It brings us back to the terrible conundrum. Our local elected representatives just can't seem to get to the point of appreciating that we have wonderful state-owned public wetlands that need to be protected. They are steadfastly protecting our 2nd amendment rights but don't seem to get the connection about having a place to use those guns in the field.

Now there are rumblings from members of our legislature that they want to get rid of the special fund made possible from Great Salt Lake industry royalties and fees that are supposed to go toward protecting our sovereign state lands (GSL, Utah Lake, etc). They have already raided it for other uses in the past. If this gains any more traction, *I will be putting out an alert to duck hunters to help out*. Dang, this is getting old.
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

MWScott72 said:


> Paddler-
> While I agree with a large majority of your post, the statement "have Dems passed any anti-gun legislation in the past 8 years" is very misleading. It is true that the Dems have not been able to pass said legislation. That said IT IS NOT because national Dems are pro-gun, IT IS because the GOP has stopped their anti-gun legislation in its tracks. We're it up to the national Democratic party, we would go the way of England and Australia in a heartbeat! Don't believe it...listen to what it's leaders (Pelosi, Schummer, Feinstein, hell Obama too) say and would do if given the chance. I may not agree with the incessant use of "draconian gun control" wording that the NRA constantly parades out, but the danger is very real nonetheless. It will only get worse if Clinton wins in November and gets to stack the Supreme Court with more Ginsbergs.
> 
> All this aside, it is difficult to see GOP politicians fight for the 2nd Amendment, yet roll over on the environment and Federal Lands "Transfer". My thought is that you try to effect change in the primaries where it is possible to vote out "tenured" GOP representatives. This at least puts other GOP representatives on notice and doesn't make a bad thing worse by voting in Dems that disagree with so much of what "conservatism" is all about. Of course if there were a Dem that was for the 2nd Amendment, the environment, and against lands transfer, I'd vote for them in a New York minute, but I can't seem to find one anywhere.


I don't believe the Democrats want to go the way of Australia. They want to ban assault weapons, or high capacity magazines, etc, but will not go after guns often used for hunting, home defense, target shooting, etc. Still, I think they are a bit misguided. I would simply reclassify guns instead of banning them. I've mentioned my idea before, and even had it published in the Trib. I would make all centerfire, semiautomatic guns that accept detachable magazines Class 3. More extensive background check, registration, letter from your local LEO, $200 tax per weapon, etc. Note that this would apply to all long guns and handguns, and would be retroactive. So, you could own anything you can now, but would need to qualify to own the above guns. The nice thing about this is that it's narrowly focused, so wouldn't affect waterfowlers, big game hunters, etc. SBEs, pumps, etc, would not be affected.

Republicans have been very politically adroit at scaring hunters into voting for their candidates by claiming the Democrats want to take our guns. It's truly a shame that outdoorsmen buy this BS and actually vote against their own best interests. Maybe one day we'll wake up and think about these issues logically instead of reacting out of fear and prejudice.


----------

