 |
|
|
| 10/16/2009 8:42:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Ducks Unlimited rep responds to article
To the Editor:
In his Sept. 29, 2009, article, "Feingold's clean water bill swims into strong currents of opposition," reporter Richard Moore does his best to confuse readers as to the nature of the current clean water legislation. I was disappointed to see what was clearly an editorial piece published as "investigative" journalism.
Mr. Moore cites opinions offered by a coalition of agricultural special interest groups. As an avid waterfowler and senior Ducks Unlimited volunteer (including past Wisconsin state chairman), I guess I was a little more swayed when Field and Stream ranked the Clean Water Restoration Act as the number one issue affecting sportsmen today.
According to the Clean Water Act as it stands now, 98 percent of the country's waters are defined as not navigable. "Navigable" waters are all that are protected by current legislation. Do we really believe that 98 percent of our water should not be protected?
Of course not.
Whether we're using our waters to hunt and fish, for flood control, irrigating crops, or to filter our drinking water, clearly defined protections are just common sense.
I should also note that I am definitely a conservative, private property rights kind of guy, as evidenced by my correspondence to and conversations with the DNR regarding the new shoreland regulations.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, Wisconsin waters deserve the protection originally intended by the Clean Water Act. I want to make sure that the hard work being done today by DU and many other fine organizations, both public and private, means something 20, 30 and 50 years from now.
We have worked too hard protecting local habitat to let this moment slip through our hands.
Don't let corporate interests confuse you as they apparently confused Mr. Moore.
Bruce B. Deadman
Volunteer senior advisory vice
president, youth and education
Ducks Unlimited Inc.
Denmark, WI
|
Comment on this story
|
|
|
|
