Let’s keep this as simple as possible. There are millions of fly fishers here in the United States. Many of us are passionate anglers who care deeply about our sport. If we want productive fisheries in the future, then we need clean water and robust landscapes. Healthy ecosystems are an absolute prerequisite for healthy fisheries. Unfortunately, America’s waters are currently faced with any number of serious threats, including habitat destruction, invasive species and pollution.

Of all the threats to our rivers, streams, lakes and oceans, though, the largest, most pervasive and most dangerous is still anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change.

It should be obvious to every serious angler that we won’t be able to hold on to our productive fisheries, or stellar fishing, if we don’t address the biggest threats to our sport. And the single biggest threat is climate change. Which means that we have to tackle climate head-on.

That makes sense, right? If we want good fishing, we need good fisheries. And if we want good fisheries, then we have to protect them from the perils they face. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

So what’s the problem? Well, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just decided to throw out decades of empirical data and scientific research and declare that climate change isn’t an issue after all.

The EPA wants to roll back the agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which concludes that greenhouse gas emissions — for example, CO2, nitrous oxide and methane — endanger public health and welfare.

To quote EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, repealing the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding would be akin to “driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.”

I should make two points here.

First, climate change is not a religion. It’s a scientific fact based on physics, common sense and truly huge amounts of data. The most respected scientific organization on the planet, the U.S. National Academy Of Sciences, has described climate change as a “settled fact,” while NASA states that “there is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.” Religion stems from faith and belief. Science relies on empirical evidence, observable facts and data. EPA Administrator Zeldin is wrong. Our understanding of climate change flows from science, not religion.

Second, if the EPA revokes the endangerment finding, which is the key legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, America will lose its ability to limit the greenhouse gas pollution that is the single greatest threat to our fisheries and our fishing. The long-term viability of our fisheries depends on our country, and others, cutting greenhouse gasses and controlling climate change. The EPA is trying to make that much, much harder to accomplish.

So what can you do to protect our fisheries? You can click here to submit a comment on the regulations.gov website. Tell the EPA:

• Your name and where you live, and that you’re an American citizen and a proud angler.
• Climate change is a huge threat to our fisheries, our families and our economy.
• We can’t allow partisanship and pseudo-science to trump facts, science and common sense.
• The EPA’s job is to protect our environment.

Please click on the link to submit your comment today. We have one last chance to save our fisheries. Don’t sit on the sidelines while our fisheries are under attack and don’t let the government steal your fishing.

To help make your comments as impactful as possible, take note of the following information the EPA shares on its website.

How to Make Your Comments Effective

Effective public comments often have one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) an introduction where you explain why you are interested in the regulation and highlight any experience with the subject of the rule that may distinguish your comment;

(2) a background section where you clearly identify the relevant part of the regulation you are commenting on;

(3) analysis that lays out your argument and evidence (including with clear citations to any helpful research)—for example, how the action impacts you and what you care about; whether the agency anticipated or estimated these impacts correctly; any unintended consequences of this approach that the agency did not consider; and what additional details from the agency would help you better understand the action;

(4) recommendations describing your suggestions to the agency and identifying specific changes you would advise—for example, providing a different way of addressing the problem the agency may not have considered; and

(5) a conclusion which recaps your main argument and lists your recommendations again.