The Middle River Group, LLC

fly fishing, conservation and politics.

Patagonia

Patagonia’s Tough Puff Pants

By

Here is the review I posted on the Patagonia website.

I know these pants are supposed to go under my waders, but I doubt they will stay there. Here in Virginia, we are fortunate to fish and guide year-round. Last year my go-to winter jacket was the Tough Puff Hoody. When I saw these Tough Puff Pants pop up on the radar screen, I figure they would be just the ticket for wearing under my waders. And, of course, they are. But, as soon as I put them on, I knew they were likely to see more daylight than the inside of my waders.

Here’s the deal. Winter weather here in the Shenandoah Valley is changeable. One day it’s 19 degrees at 6 a.m., and the next day it’s 30 degrees. Each morning, usually before sun up, I take my dog out for a stroll as the first cup of coffee is brewing. We go regardless of the weather. Not having to do more than pull on warm, weather-resistant pants (thanks DWR finish) is a joy. Truth be told, most of the time, I keep them on all day. They are not only comfortable, but they are also good looking, so I don’t mind running errands in them. The stretchy fabric means it moves when I do inside or outside of waders, enhanced by the gusset crotch and articulated knees. The durable face fabric resists snags and tears from working around the house or yard.

The deep from pockets are one of my favorite features. Deep front pockets mean things stay put and don’t go missing when you climb in and out of your vehicle or sit and stand up. If you have waders on, you will appreciate the opening’s angle; it makes access to whatever is in them when you do the contortionist thing when you have your waders on. If you know, you know. A few other things I like are the zippered back pocket to keep my wallet secure, the built-in belt to snug them up when loaded with stuff in the pockets, a zipper fly for when nature calls and tapered ankles, so they slip into the waders or boots without bunching.

Can’t think of anything I’d change. They work as advertised.

The Navigable Waters Rule

By

The saying goes something like this, “whiskey’s for drinking and water’s for fighting.” It is typically associated with ownership rights in the west. Still, for many years it has resonated with those of us who deal with the changing legal landscape and battlegrounds surrounding the Clean Water Act.

I’ve been working on or following the Clean Water Act jurisdictional issues for most of my conservation career. In 2003, I was the conservation director for the Izaak Walton League of America. We released a study titled “Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act: Implications of the SWANCC Decision” (copy available upon request.) Since then, there have been many twists and turns, making this one of the most contentious and complicated issues I’ve ever dealt with.

Where are we today?

In April 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” aka the “Navigable Waters Rule.” undoing the Obama administration’s work. As Trout Unlimited noted, “This rule replaces a 2015 Rule, which clarified the extent of Clean Water Act protections for small streams and wetlands.  This new 2020 rule not only reverses the clarifications made in 2015 but further reverses protections that have been in place dating back to the 1970s.”

My friend Sam Lungren, MeatEater’s fishing editor, wrote a terrific article, Patagonia Will Sue Trump Admin. Over Clean Water Act, which not only explains the state of play today but gives a solid review of the history of how we came to the Navigable Waters Rule. As Lungren notes, Patagonia, a company I greatly admire, stepped into the arena and joined with Earthjustice in their lawsuit on behalf of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Tohono O’odham Nation, and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit challenges and seeks to vacate two final rules promulgated by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The first, “Definition of Waters of the U.S.: Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules,” repealed the 2015 “Clean Water Rule” which defined the term “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act. The second, “The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” replaced the Clean Water Rule and its predecessor rules with a definition of “waters of the United States” that, according to the filing, “substantially narrows the waters protected by the Act.”

The filing states; “The Navigable Waters Rule exceeds the Agencies’ statutory authority and is contrary to the Clean Water Act’s text, structure, objectives, and legislative history requiring broad protection of all the Nation’s waters, because its provisions exclude waters from the protections required and afforded by the Act.

“The Tribes also challenge the Repeal Rule and the Navigable Waters Rule as arbitrary and capricious because both rules are contrary to the evidence before the Agencies, including vast volumes of science and technical evidence in the administrative record and the uncontroverted findings made by the EPA and its own Science Advisory Board. The Agencies also failed to explain their decision to reverse prior regulations and failed to consider important aspects of the problem, including the effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems of stripping protections for large numbers of waters, the ecological importance of protecting the excluded waters, and the effects of the reversal on the objectives of the Clean Water Act.

“These decisions are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Threats to our water

Since my early days, I have relied on my friends at Trout Unlimited for their analysis, leadership and advocacy. It is no different in this case.

“The E.P.A.’s new policy comes with a price tag,” Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, wrote in a recent op-ed in the New York Times with National Wildlife Federation CEO Collin O’Mara and former U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service director Dale Hall.

“When the E.P.A. stops protecting these streams and wetlands, states will have to foot the bill for regulatory oversight; many states may decide not to step in at all. When developers fill in wetlands, local communities will be on the hook for cleaning up more frequent flood damage. When headwaters are polluted, cities downstream will pay to treat their drinking water.”

Check out TU’s Clean Water Rule Update: April 2020 for more details. Read, Changes to the Clean Water Rule have big impacts on the ground for a look at why the rule is bad news for those of us who love our small stream fishing.

Patagonia | Saving the water

By

Patagonia is putting its marketing clout behind a new effort to champion water that is near and dear to our hearts.

In his article It’s All Home Water: Oregon Steelhead, Steve Duda shares the story of Jeff Hickman, a guide, outfitter and activist. Hickman’s love and concern for wild fish and the water they call home is as much a part of him as fishing is.

“Fly fishing is not only what I do for a living,” he says, “it’s my sanity.”

I can relate to Hickman and his world view because it mirrors my own. More importantly Hickman’s style of activism is on point.

 “This is not doom and gloom,” he says. “This is not me saying that the world is over, let’s all give up and get drunk. We’re at a tipping point and we all need to stand up and speak our minds and talk about what’s important to us. I think a complaint is worth a lot more than people give it credit for. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, man.”

The entire article is worth the time to read. And if you would rather just look at the pictures, there is an accompanying photo essay: Steelhead Green

Source: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/home-water-oregon-steelhead/story-79709.html

Patagonia leads again.

By

image courtesy of Patagonia

Patagonia says “let’s be first.” This time to save the planet. 

This past week Patagonia came out with a new mission statement:

“Patagonia is in business to save our home planet.”

“We’re losing the planet because of climate change, that’s the elephant in the room. Society is basically working on symptoms. Save the polar bear? If you want to save the polar bear, you got to save the planet,” Chouinard says. “Forget about the polar bear, they’re toast anyway. So I decided to make a very simple statement, because in reality, if we want to save the planet, every single company in the world has to do the same thing. And I thought, well, let’s be the first.”

Patagonia will focus on three key areas: agriculture, politics, and protected lands.

They can count me in.

image courtesy of Patagonia Provisions.

Read about it here > Patagonia’s new company mission is to save the planet

What I use: Patagonia’s Tough Puff Hoody

By

PC: Patagonia

Guiding in the fall and winter is a challenge for me when it comes to comfort.

Here in Virginia, with its variable weather, planning a day on our spring creeks takes a little ingenuity. 35 degrees at 7 a.m. can swing to 60 degrees by 2 or 3 p.m. that same day.  And add a little moisture to the equation and the gear bag starts to fill up.

I’ve got my suite of work-arounds, but it usually means I wind up taking more than I need for the day.

I was in the shop the other day (Mossy Creek Fly Fishing for those who don’t know) saw the Patagonia Tough Puff Hoody and decided to give one a try.

Here are some of the features that make it a standout:

  • It stretches. That means it moves when I do. When I reach out with the net, having my jacket go where I go is very helpful.
  • I can push the sleeves up. There are two times when this is especially helpful; when I reach into said net in the water and when the temp outside warms up a bit but I’m not ready to give up my coat.
  • DWR fabric. That is Patagonia’s water repellent fabric finish. Sure, I look at the WX before every trip, and if it is going to be a deluge (read full rain gear) for the trip we will likely pass or dress accordingly. But ’round these parts showers, either rain or snow, pop up with little warning and that extra protection comes in handy.
  • Abrasion resistance. Sometimes, you just have to push through the “pucker brush” to get where you need to be. And my fleece and Nano Puffs show it… A little “up-armoring” is welcome.
  • Breathability, wicking and warmth. If you are active, and guides are, then you can work up a sweat. Wicking the moisture away and having breathable fabrics can really increase the comfort level at this time of year. Conversely, when you are standing around reading the tea leaves in a fly box or waiting for a fish to stick its nose up, having some insulation is plus, a big plus.
  • A hood. Sure, it is called a hoody for a reason, and the hood comes in handy to regulate comfort. While my Kromer works fine, a little extra insulation for the neck and noggin sure is nice.
  • Pockets. Four big ones. Two at chest level, big enough for fly boxes and two more at the waist for fly boxes or what have you. And they all zip.

The one thing I really like: Having my hemostats handy. The tool I use most often when I am guiding is my hemostat. While you can’t see it in the image I grabbed from Patagonia, there is a tab below the left hand chest pocket to attach a zinger or, in my case, keeping my hemostat securely at hand. Priceless.

One thing I would add: a zippered inside pocket.