Donald Trump speaking
Photo: Gage Skidmore

Within moments of taking office, Trump pledges to roll back measures of paramount importance to anglers

Sportsmen's groups respond sharply to Trump's targeting of Clean Water Rule

Within minutes of Donald Trump being sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, Trump and his team unveiled the President's new stance on energy issues, which made one of its cornerstones the elimination of the Waters of the U.S. Rule which is, to anglers, likely the single most important piece of legislation in existence. For Trump's detractors, the declaration was little more than a confirmation of fears that they have held throughout the campaign and run up to the election. But for Trump's supporters in the fishing and hunting communities, the stance may serve to put an end to hopes that Trump's pledges to conserve and protect lands for hunters and anglers—which many felt were buoyed by his son's avid sportsmanship—were anything more than empty promises.

If you’re an angler and are not familiar with the Waters of the U.S. Rule, or as it is more accurately known, the Clean Water Rule, then you haven’t been paying attention. A long list of groups fought tirelessly to see the rule come to fruition, including over 200 sportsmens groups—such as Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, B.A.S.S., Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Izaak Walton League of America and more—which signed a 2014 letter urging the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to “clarify and restore longstanding Clean Water Act protections for headwater streams and wetlands across the country.”

In time, the EPA and corps did just that via the Clean Water Rule. Put simply, the rule made clear that the almost universally beloved Clean Water Act of 1972 included protections for brooks, creeks, streams, wetlands and other water bodies which feed into America’s larger waterways—eliminating confusion caused by court decisions in 2001 and 2006. The rule not only helped restore protections to streams and rivers of vital importance to anglers, it also restored protections to waterways that provide drinking water for millions of people.

Despite the fact that the rule did no more than clarify existing protections put in place by the Clean Water Act (protections were not extended to any new waters) and that there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that the rule has in any way harmed jobs or industry (if anything, the rule is likely a boon to the over half a trillion dollar outdoor recreation industry), Trump made a declaration of his intention to eliminate the rule his first order of business.

The pronouncement was made through the White House website, which was updated within minutes of Trump’s inauguration, and noted

For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.

Sportsmen’s groups, several of which were some of the strongest advocates for the Clean Water Rule’s establishment, responded sharply.

“The only threat to jobs here are the ones that connected to hunting, fishing, and healthy ecosystems that support fish and wildlife populations in addition to feeding rural economies that rely on outdoor recreation,” John Gale, conservation director for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, told Hatch Magazine.

“Ninety percent of all stream miles in some states are intermittent or ephemeral. These headwater, intermittent and ephemeral waters feed the public drinking water supplies and support native trout fisheries. Moreover, 20 million acres of prairie potholes, America’s ‘duck factory,’ and other wetlands in the lower 48 states critical to migratory waterfowl production are considered isolated.”

Gale continued, explaining that “This rule also goes a step further to protect important agricultural practices by language that provides clarity through specific exemptions to give our country’s farms and ranches operational certainty. That never existed before, and those driven by special interests are doing whatever they can to strip away protections for every American who depends on clean water, whether they are drinking it from the faucet or standing in it while casting to trophy trout.”

Whit Fosburgh, CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership told Hatch Magazine that "Sportsmen support clean water because they understand the critical role it plays in healthy fish and wildlife habitat and our access to great places to hunt and fish. Continued confusion over which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act not only hurts America’s sportsmen and women—and undermines our ability to contribute to the $646-billion outdoor recreation economy—but also prevents farmers, ranchers, and other industries from doing business with transparency and certainty."

President of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Ben Bulis, commented that “President Donald Trump noted yesterday in his inauguration speech that the ‘power’ is going back to the people, not those in Washington, D.C.," adding, "I hope he listens to the 100's of millions of sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts that rely on clean water. We will do everything we can to protect and preserve the Waters of the U.S. and look forward to representing our industry with the new administration.”

For many, Trump's pronouncement has served as further proof that immediate action is necessary. Todd Tanner, president of Conservation Hawks urged anglers, other sportsmen and anyone else concerned about clean water protections take immediate action to make their voices heard. Tanner noted, “The Trump administration has pledged to fight against the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. That’s a direct attack on sportsmen, and on our kids and grandkids. Anglers should call the White House, explain that fishermen need clean waters and a stable climate, and ask President Trump to support common-sense regulations — regulations like the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule — that invigorate our economy and protect our landscapes.”

Update: Article was updated to include statement from Conservation Hawks.

Comments

Truly disturbing if this comes to pass. I'm sure there are some huge hotels and casinos that could be built on wetlands.... It'll be the best. But the angling will suck.

Wrong. read the facts about the Waters of the U.S. for yourselves. Obummer rammed it down your throats without a real plan.. Another one of his slight-of-the-pen legislation and ignored the will of the people and subject them to these very costly and unnecessary regulations.

John - references/citations for these facts about what's gone wrong with the Clean Water Rule?

Because I've found nothing to indicate it has caused any issues whatsoever, other than for businesses that want to pollute our waterways.

... and I guess those 200+ sportsman's groups that have not just come out in favor of the Clean Water Rule but hailed it as invaluable and essential to the preservation of our outdoor heritage ... I guess they have no idea what they're talking about, huh?

"Despite the fact that the rule did no more than clarify existing protections put in place by the Clean Water Act (protections were not extended to any new waters..."

This is extremely misleading. While EPA claims that the Clean Water Act (previously known as the Waters of the US rule, or WOTUS) does not expand existing rules, the fact is that it completely redefined the way that EPA interprets its own regulations, resulting in a de facto expansion of authority.

While the CWA used to be limited to navigable waters, the new rule had them claiming authority over any water that had a "significant nexus" with navigable waters, which functionally meant any water anywhere in the US. For private landowners, this means that very nearly any action you do on your own property can be regulated by the EPA, in the name of a wetland, real or ficitonal, that they claim exists on your property.

This has been a particularly hard blow to farmers, who are finding themselves beset by EPA letters demanding that they cease various normal farming activities in the name of water that the EPA claims authority over. This despite the fact that agriculture activities are 'specifically exempted' under the CWA rule. There are numerous cases of this, but probably the most famous right now is the case of Duarte nurseries in CA, who has been fighting an EPA action for several years now related to one of his fields. Despite the fact that this field has been in place for decades, EPA decided it was a wetlands, and ordered Duarte not only to stop plowing, but to spend whatever money may be required to 'restore' it to EPA satisfaction. When it was pointed out that plowing was an agricultural activity, and thus exempt, the EPA argued that what Duarte was doing was not plowing, but instead creating 'mini mountain ranges' in his field, thus destroying the wetland.

More on this story can be found here: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7b469fe4-62c3-4ea9-9ce2-be... A little searching will reveal that this is far from an isolated case.

No one in this country can credibly argue in favor of polluted streams and rivers, but neither can we allow one government agency to unilaterally drive entire segments of the economy into the ground based upon scant evidence of the possible existence of water that may or may not reach that stream eventually, in a wet year.

Many of us who work in agriculture have felt continually attacked over the past 8 years as we have watched the lofty goals of EPA and other agencies morph into mere political agendas. While I do not disagree with the need for environmental regulation in our society, I cannot help but view the repeal of CWA as good riddance to bad rubbish.

The link you provided links to a senate report by a Majority Committee, meaning it is quite partisan in its views. I'm not doubting that this program will cause problems for some landowners, but water quality affects EVERYONE in this country. Water is not "owned"; it is shared. We need federal oversight, or private interests will do what they always do: destroy the environment for personal gain.

I appreciate your response. I realize that the link I provided is partisan, as is every public statement made regarding this issue. Regardless of political leanings though, the facts remain. It is a fact that the Army corps of engineers, using the EPA's new interpretations of their rules, claimed that plowing a long extant field was not a farm practice, but instead willful destruction of a supposed wetland. (If you have a Pacer account, I can provide the case number). A few years ago, the same EPA rules would have prevented the agency from doing what they are doing. Do you think it is right that an agency can simply re-interpret their rules to unilaterally grant themselves more authority?

To your other points, I agree that some oversight is necessary, and have never said otherwise, I simply argue that regulatory authority should not be limitless. However, I must ask that you reconsider the notion that private interests "always destroy the environment for personal gain". I realize that this is the popular opinion of the media, but as a person who derives my livelihood directly from the land and the environment around me, I find that statement incredibly offensive on a personal level.

Finally, anyone who thinks that water is not owned has little understanding of water law in this country. Water, or the rights to use it, is absolutely owned by a variety of entities and individuals, both public and private. The proper function of the EPA is to regulate the effect that this has on our lakes and streams. Instead, they are claiming authority over any and all water, including underground. In the case of Duarte, they are not even regulating an area where a wetland currently exists, just where they think one should be.

To GhostTown... I'd say that was throwing out the baby with the bath water. I was sympathetic to your argument with you right up until... Bad rubbish? What is bad rubbish is the Intent of Trump to devalue anything that doesn't produce a profit. I suggest you might want to be careful what you wish for....

I just spit my coffee out while laughing. A report led by Jason Chaffetz. That bought-and-sold piece of shit from the Utah delegation has exactly zero credibility left. Move on, folks.

You obviously didn't read, so credibility must be a non-starter for you.

Oh, I read enough. Chaffetz is a known liar and miscreant. He's a shill for energy and extraction companies. His unabashed agenda is maximizing access for industry to both public and private lands. Whether that means transfers of national forests or other public lands to the state for sell-off or removal of 40+ year old regulations that preserve our clean water and fisheries, so be it.

And as far as reading goes? It took all the way to the first page to find the first lie (that the CWA was originally drafted to only protect navigable waters -- an outright lie) and then the first big lie about the Clean Water Rule comes on page 2:

"The final rule significantly increased the federal government’s jurisdiction under the CWA."

Another outright lie.

As I said, Chaffetz is bought-and-sold and has a well-deserved reputation for constantly spreading lies and inaccuracies in order to serve the needs of his corporate masters. Don't be fooled.

If you think Chaffetz actually wrote this report, you are a fool and don't know how things operate in Washington. Seems you've already been fooled.

No, in fact it shows that you don't. Chaffetz is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As such, he may not write the report, but he determines the committee's agenda, instructs on what reports should be written, selects witnesses and experts for testimony and reports and, essentially, has control over the contents of that committee's reports.

Nice job... You shut down that Alex Large guy very nicely. He just didn't have a clue what he was talking about... I agree with you about Chaffetz... He's a nasty piece of work who only cares about himself and whatever he can get. "Bought and paid for" fits him perfectly!

This is the mentality that got Trump elected, nothing that happens before he is impeached and removed should surprise anyone. Anyone who expected any less was a fool.

Thank you! Trump is doing great all the dirty work which he will Gladys take credit for. Republicans are great destroyers! First chance they get and puppet Pence is pitching for the GOP!

Jesus dude. Once you bust out with the "Obummer" nonsense, your points are automatically invalidated. Grow up and stop hating so much.

I'll say it again, John. Once you bust out with the "Obummer" playground speak, your arguments are invalidated. People do not take seriously somebody who speaks like they're 10-years old. Why do condone the poisoning of our water source? What is your justification for doing so? Why so defensive? Do you hate the outdoors and our wonderful environment? Money over matter?

In the spirit of full disclosure I am a Canadian. So it goes without saying that I have been very concerned watching Trump's rise to power. I didn't think that it would only be 2 days after inauguration that my fears would be realized. Myself and 5 friends do an annual trip to Montana in the summer as much for the scenery as the fishing, as we have our own blue ribbon trout streams here in British Columbia. It is looking more and more likely that we will be spending our time and thousands of dollars North of the border.

This happens regularly. The moving and migration of wetlands. They will move a wet land and build a new one a couple of blocks away or a few miles away. Its standard practice. Has been happening around here PDX for years.

Sure as hell don't need this right now.

It's not just about anglers. Everyone needs clean, safe drinking water. If this administration gets its way, we'll all be drinking our water from plastic bottles.

Maybe you didn't vote for Trump, but you might be a NRA member and they endorsed Trump big time.

When all hunters who are also a member of the NRA, will cancel their membership of the NRA until this action is overturned. That might help all of us.
I don't own a gun, I just practice catch and release.

Good luck NRA member's

It's always interesting, and a bit disturbing, to see how members of the agricultural community—or folks who ally themselves with ag communities—are so eager to blame the EPA or the USFWS for all of their problems, and yet so reluctant to examine the role of the Farm Bureau, the major seed & fertilizer companies, the people who pull the strings of the commodities markets, the packing houses, etc., in the economic plight that many family farmers & ranchers now find themselves in. Big ag has been selling you out for more than a generation, and over and over again, you re-elect their shills to Congress. I don't get it.

I appreciate your ad hominem attack on me based on my profession, as well as your straw man argument. At no point did I blame the EPA or any government agency for "all of my problems". Nor did I make mention of any economic plight on my, or any other farmer or rancher's part.

I could spend paragraphs explaining, in great detail, all of the problems that I have with packers, commodities brokers, etc. (Seriously, give me a reason, I dare you). However, none of those issues are germaine to the discussion at hand, which is specific to our differing opinions on whether or not recent EPA policy changes, and/or their potential repeal, are a good thing. Every statement and reference I have thus far made has been in that context. At no point have I criticized government in general, I simply have a different viewpoint than you on this specific issue. Sorry.

Since you brought it up however, I can't speak for all farmers and ranchers, but I can tell you why I vote the way I do. It's pretty simple really. Despite the fact that I disagree with monopolization in the packing industry, as well as allowing speculation in the commodities markets, vaguely written agency regulations and litigious ngo's present a much more critical threat to my livelihood. The more ambiguous the regulation, the easier it is for someone with a political agenda to bend it to their will. Additionally, for every poorly worded regulation, there is an 'environmental' group ready to sue over it. While their donation base provides them funding for full time lawyers with which to combat evil people like me, I have no such resources. Thus, in the case of a lawsuit, it is almost assured I will lose, regardless of the merits of the case. Therefore, it is in my best interests to have agencies with regulations that are as explicit and unambiguous as possible, coupled with personnel that do not have preconceived notions of the type of person I am, simply because I am a rancher. That is my goal when I vote, regardless of party.

Sorry if that edged into rant territory. If you take what is written in the article above at face value, then certainly you will feel that the Clean Water Rule is a good thing. Personally, I think we've all been taking the things we are spoon fed by our chosen media sources a little too readily of late. Isn't it at least conceivable to anyone here that someone with a differing opinion than yours is not inherently evil, stupid, or otherwise unworthy of merit?

"Isn't it at least conceivable to anyone here that someone with a differing opinion than yours is not inherently evil, stupid, or otherwise unworthy of merit?" This is the best sentence of the entire exchange . I think we all need to really delve deeper into the facts before we make any statements or accusations. I was here to read everyone's thoughts because I don't know what to think . Ghost town is correct before you make a judgement make sure you know the facts . TAKE SOME TIME TO REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING OR OPPOSING

It's very rewarding to stumble upon a publication (hatchmag.com) and see thoughtful commentary about an issue that I am regretfully uninformed on. I started looking for backpack reviews and found myself ankle-deep in an issue into which I may like to get waist deep. GhostTown asked for an excuse to write paragraphs, and, unless others can point to better sources to understand this issue from both sides, I'm at least one other person in the ether who wants to read about it. I so rarely read internet comments that are worth a damn that this article has encouraged me to be more proactive about my interests in conservation, while also being thoughtful about the potential ramifications of conservation-only efforts. I was attracted to fly fishing because of the thoughtful and kind people I found myself around; thanks, GhostTown, for perpetuating that stereotype.

Shmukler, appropriate name.

It seems to me that your articles in hatch are supporting your ideology. Seems as though you have a vested interest in the " climate change" agenda. Used to be "global warming" until that was debunked.

Normally I don't respond to anything, but your one sided agenda, yes, agenda, has been very obvious after multiple articles. After I googled you and found out that you are tied into the liberal, grant writing, federal funded self perpetuating machine it became obvious that you are typical liberal who knows all, and that will better serve us peons with your vast knowledge and save us from the perils that be.

My take is you don't. You spout off about the 98% of scientists that support global warming. Actually, that number is fabricated. You are one of the "98%". You have skin in the game. Any of the readers can google the info and tell you that you are not factually correct. I could go on and on.

For the readers, This is Chad's homepage at Rutgers. Check out some of the "research" that is mostly funded by you and me. Enough said.

Anti Shmuck, I wish you would take a moment to think about what your statement implies...that professors at universities who make VERY modest salaries and who basically devote their lives to learning and understanding the natural world are somehow more likely to be the ones providing 'alternate facts' to support their own financial gains than the other side. I'm sure the oil/energy industry who, as a matter of public record lobby against any legislation that would impede their pursuit of profit, have "no skin" in this game! And by the way if anything 98% is probably the low end. Once you weed out the ultra minority of scientists that are on Oil Industry payroll, its more like 99.999%. This debate is long, long over and denying it is really akin to flat earth mentality. Not to mention the only political entity on earth that denies 'climate change' is the US Republican party. Step out side your small world for once....

Chris, I have thought what my statement implies. According to you, professors at universities make a VERY ( your emphasis) modest salary. I guess your and my definition of modest are different. According to an article in the WAPO ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/04/07/heres-wh...) they made ~ $127K. And that data is 3 years old. That's not modest to most Americans Chris.

I have worked in academia, not as a professor, but as a research assistant when I was in university. Ever heard the phrase "Publish or Die"? You either turn out research to obtain funding for grants or it dries up. And in the the "climate change world" your major funding comes from the federal gov't. So tow the line and skew the data, otherwise, guess what? No more funding. Surprise, surprise.

You state the debate is long, long over. According to who? You and your fanatical zealots who spout that you are right and any opposing opinion is wrong, i.e., flat Earthers. You sound like a typical Liberal who calls anyone a racist who has a differing opinion.

I truly believe, that you believe us nasty humans are destroying the planet at the expense of the poor lonely, voiceless masses in order to line the oil companies pockets.
Good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. Let me ask you, what are you personally doing about it if your as concerned and self righteous as seem to be be?

Do you walk or bike to work? Do you take cold showers? Do you minimize travel, reuse plastic bags? Drive a Prius when you have to drive? Just wondering. Or do you just spout off on the internet telling everyone the sky is falling.

If you were really serious and committed, you'd be an activist over in China and or India, the worlds worst polluters. My guess is that would mean you's actually have to get out of your chair and do something. So maybe, you should step out of YOUR small world for once.

Okay Anti Shmuk,

To your first point. Yes agreed 127K salary is more than the average American income but it is on the higher end of what 90 or so % of people in this country make. What we are talking about here are people who make orders of magnitude greater incomes, the top .1% (thats an exponentially different scale of income). Not tens of thousands of dollar differences, but multi-million and billion $ differences). People that have money to drive legislation, to set up think tanks, to support media outlets that publish propaganda and who work together to drive those ends. Again so I ask you...Do you really think that thousands of unconnected scientists making $127K a year, people that are generally happy with that kind of income, who have a curious interest in the subject, who are generally concerned with the welfare of others, are more likely to be putting out the propaganda? Or would it be more likely the oil industry who has direct profit loss by drilling less is more likely to put out propaganda? Do you think oil industry execs have their jobs for very long if their stock goes down? No, because people won't invest in that energy company and the board will fire them... Let's consider that this scenario you propose is correct. Let's say a University (or a handful or even a whole bunch of universities) are so worried about their grants to research climate change that they fudged some data to get more money (the same universities who are also getting grants from the oil industry to do other research, btw). Are all of the geology/geography depts in all the world's universitties doing this? To what end? Are they all corrupt? How come virtually all science labs doing research across the world that have the same general conclusions? Are they all part of your conspiracy theory? How about many other institutions like the Pentagon (certainly no bastion of liberal mindedness) preparing for climate change complications? I mean who can we trust here , anti shmuk? Who? Just this minority oil industry and their representatives who they helped get into public office?
Second point about the process of academia and acquiring grants. Yes of course there have been issues there. There easily could have been some scientists who have sensationalized data for the purposes of getting some more money for their research or win a bid against some peers (again orders of magnitude less money than oil industry are working with) . This has absolutely no connection to this 'argument'. These rather few instances that have been repeatedly harped on by the 'right' wing American media still have nothing to do with the basic tenets of science that undermine the narrative of the climate change denial community. Why is it so hard to understand we are digging up all the carbon that has ever existed on earth and pumping it into the atmosphere at rates way beyond what the Earth can do to put it back. We have a measurable chemical alteration in the atmosphere and more heat is trapped. Stop the insanity! And don't talk about natural cycles, its a tired nonsense rebuttal. If you have any understanding of geologic time you would understand that things don't happen this rapidly and in such short time spans as a 100 or so years (with out a supervolcano or an asteriod impact, etc). And those cycles are fairly well understood and this current warming period in no way fits....
Now as for personal use. I'm not a tree hugger (though I respect what some of those people are trying to do). I do what is reasonable with in the settings of our established society. I try to curb my carbon foot print (solar panels, recycling, efficient cars, reduced consumerist mentality, etc) to the extent that I might be an example to friends and acquaintances, but no, I am not doing enough. But I would (and you would), if those changes were made easier by policies that allow these behaviors to be cheaper and more accessible (not blatantly denied /dismissed). The point is that changes we need must come from govt. Govt policies will make what we need to do (if its not already too late, which I wont get into on this one) realistic. We have the technology to do what is necessary and it will only get better and cheaper as it is implemented. And if it doesn't and it's not, at least we tried for the good of the next generation. There is no insidious agenda here, anti shmuk. It's about doing what is right.
I hate this vitriolic back and forth. I am sure you are a reasonable person who knows much about the subjects you are into, but on this issue you missed the boat. I wish I understood the compulsion to disregard the obvious in favor of playing for a team. People these days take an all or nothing approach to politics (not that global warming should be a political issue). I am sure we have a lot in common (since we both are posting on such a specialized website.), I am sure I'd have a lot of respect for you if we met.. I ask you, on this one subject, take a look at it out side the Fox news narrative. Look at it from the perspective of the rest of the world. It doesn't have to be about tribalism (us vs them). Its not a 'liberal' thing (whatever that even means). Please consider it.

chris,
well said. It is about doing the right thing. I'm afraid the next four years are in for a big loss environmentally. Trump just recently by-passed a law requiring oil companies to stop burning off methane gas rather than capturing it. This is just the beginning. Pray that it won't be eight!

Chris,
I truly hate the vitriolic back and forth myself. And I won't get into the politics as to why I think that has escalated.

I personally think we as Americans have a lot more in common than we do differences.

I am for clean water, clean air etc. Of course. No rational person would be against clean air and water. Unfortunately, your argument takes sides as though it's us against them. That's a no win argument as you have already drawn the battle lines . I'm an avid fisher and outdoors mans. But I'm also for limited gov't over site concerning what and who regulates our actions. I believe that should be up to the individual states, and or local municipalities. As that is more representative of THEIR needs and wants.

And, in the long run, doesn't amount to much, as the world will keep turning, and you, I, and are progeny will be dust in the wind.

Cheer Mate

Well, if you read over your last comments you'll find all the vitriol is from you. The continual use of the the term "you liberals this or that" is just name calling. You argue and nit pick about salaries of scientists while denying there is a change in the environment of the planet. And how can you possibly say you are an avid outdoorsman while voting for a man who is devoted to money and exploitation of the things you say you love? Then you say it is "the liberals" who have drawn the battle lines and made it "them or us"? So anyone who opposes what you support (Trump) is the being antagonistic and the problem? That apparently means any resistance to what you think is being a bad person... Really? I will agree with your last sentence though. We will all be dust in the wind. But perhaps sooner than you might like.... Either because the environment is destroyed by your man or he has fried us all in a nuclear war. It just flat out amazes me is that you apparently believe Trump is there for you... Or for America.

Ok Chris, Not going to get into the finer points you brought up as it's late and the super bowl is on tomorrow and I'm off to bed. That being said, even if everything you and the sky is falling skeptics is true, which I firmly believe is B.S., What are the supposed actions of the Paris Accord and all the other actions proposed by the IPCC going to accomplish?

ABSOLUTELY nothing!!!! Other than a redistribution of wealth.

If you could convince me otherwise, I'd welcome it.

Cheers, Mate

Lay off infowars, buddy.

This was a clear over-reach by the federal EPA. Just think about it - federal EPA control over the smallest little creeks and tributaries in every little township, village and county? Crazy! Additionally, there is nothing constitutional about this directive. At the local government level, we fought hard to squash this. This over-reach had nothing to do with clean water and everything to do about furthering more federal government control over local entities. State and local governments still have the right to pursue any of these regulations, but it will be done with local, common sense input and not by the behemoth that has become the federal EPA. Well done President Trump!

Congratulations...two of Trump's most loyal lapdogs, from Washington State, have just been appointed to help in the EPA transition. You get what you vote for, even years down the line.

It's worth remembering that Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership actually get lots of $$$$ from Donald Trump Jr and both of these groups have said nothing but positive things about Trump and his cabinet picks.

I’m an avid backcountry elk and deer hunter myself and I fear and will strongly oppose everything that President Trump will try and do to undermine America’s public lands, Wilderness and wildlife legacy.

I encourage my fellow ‘sportsmen’ to boycott Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Since these two groups started getting big $$$ from Trump Jr. their budgets have increased by 2000% and $1.5 million respectively, and the organizations have totally lost their way.

Hey, I'm an avid fisher, hunter outdoors man. Sounds like spoiled grapes to me. Get over it. You lost the election. If you want to change things in your favor, campaign in in your community, If people agree with you, they'll vote with you. If not, you lose. Suck it up. That's democracy.

Or, if you are like the "tolerant" liberals you seem to represent, you could riot "protest" and destroy and burn property in the name of promoting tolerance. Huh?

I generally don't like to sink to disparaging comments, but you might want to change your depends.

Thank you for this fine article. I am grateful to know that other outdoorsmen and women are concerned about the current administration's over reach and insensitivity to the challenges we face in protecting our planet and especially the habitats of the creatures we love to hunt and fish. Its gonna be a long four years.

Read it, and weep. "So Rob Bishop, R-Utah, slipped some language into the rules stating that, for purposes of this Congress, the value of all federal lands shall be assumed to be zero. That’s zero dollars, for federal land that might have valuable resources on it. That way, if Bishop later wants to write a bill transferring federal land in Utah to the state so officials can then sell it off to an oil company or something, he won’t have to offset the loss to the Treasury by raising a tax or cutting a budget item somewhere else.
That high-pitched whirring you hear is Teddy Roosevelt spinning in his grave." SALON:
28 Jan 2017

Hey Scmuck,

At again.... You're progressives roots are shining through brilliantly.
Come out of the closet Dude, Admit your livelihood depends on government grants to perpetuate the "climate change" agenda.

The health aspects associated with this will be like releasing a plague upon the country. We need the public to remain public, the waters must be continually be protected. There can never be another river on fire in Cleveland or the beaches along lake being closed be cause the water is not fit to swim in.
I believe the only way to get attention is to get Congress to be invited to visit these pristine areas and see what they will be destroying.

Pages

MORE LIKE THIS