PDA

View Full Version : Recreational fishing may be in danger


golfballs03
03-09-2010, 02:21 PM
Under potential policies "which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource."

Kind of a startling piece:
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

ChemEAngler
03-09-2010, 04:44 PM
Once again proof that the people who are supposed to represent the American people are not doing so. Also proof that there are more crazy organizations out there wanting to push their agenda regardless of the facts, and some politicians are giving them a platform to do so.....

TightLines
03-09-2010, 04:57 PM
The thing is that game wardens have to contend with the certain sure knowledge that every single hunter, and a lot of fishermen are hunters too, has arms, and knows how to use them. I would imagine that game wardens will soon be wanting combat pay, that is if they can find anyone fool enough to take the job. You cannot put city boys out in the swamps and expect to accomplish much. I wonder if "game warden" is good for bait? If Obama moves forward with this, a lot of people will break the law. A lot of them will do so armed. Now add that to how many Game Wardens actually are a bit overzealous in their profession. Creeks and streams will run red with blood. It won't be a pretty thing.

Remember! "You can sure get lost in the Louisiana bayous".

Also! I have a genuine limited edition Zebco reel here for the low price of $799.99. Assembled with the rod will only cost you $899.99, as the reel is the serial numbered part. Buy it now, and we'll include a 10 pack of 1/4 lead sinkers, a 19.95 value. Get them before they're banned!!! Must have State Fishing license to buy, we don't need any non-licensed fisherman out there with this fish killer. They might catch a trout out of season, and the next thing you know, no one will be allowed to fish!!!

PS Just go word from our distributors that prices will be going up tomorrow by 20%, better buy now. Limit 6 packages of tackle per person.

Speck Lover
03-09-2010, 05:34 PM
Also! I have a genuine limited edition Zebco reel here for the low price of $799.99. Assembled with the rod will only cost you $899.99, as the reel is the serial numbered part. Buy it now, and we'll include a 10 pack of 1/4 lead sinkers, a 19.95 value. Get them before they're banned!!! Must have State Fishing license to buy, we don't need any non-licensed fisherman out there with this fish killer. They might catch a trout out of season, and the next thing you know, no one will be allowed to fish!!!

PS Just go word from our distributors that prices will be going up tomorrow by 20%, better buy now. Limit 6 packages of tackle per person.


Will you accept a three-part out-of-state check? :confused: I don't have a license, but I do have a learner's permit.

flyred06
03-09-2010, 05:51 PM
Can this president do anything else to spit in the publics face. His agenda is so far off the american people it is not even funny anymore. I do not want to get on a soap box here so all I will say is to all the vets out there who fought for our freedoms we thank you. We need you guys in office and thank God we only have 4 year terms for presidents in this country. Thank you again vets.

FRW
03-09-2010, 06:05 PM
It almost seems like this group looks for stuff to p*ss people off. I wonder how the union guys in MI, OH, PA, WI, MN, IL who voted for this guy and helped put him off are going to feel about this idea. A lot of them fish and hunt, and probably a goodly number put food on the table by doing so. If they can stop fishing how long will it be before they go after hunting? How many more jobs will this kill especially in small towns like Townsend and Grayling, MI two places that I go to that depend a lot on tourism for their livelihood. I don't think this group in DC has any understanding of or interest in the average everyday working person in this Country. I also wonder how groups like TU, who have been nothing more than useful idiots for the environmental Left for years, are going to feel when the realize they have been had.

Bfish
03-09-2010, 06:10 PM
From the response above, it plainly obvious that very few have actually read the proposed act. It is not an expansion of any agency current powers. It is just an effort to codify that the various agency that may affect marine resources to coordinate efforts vs doing it as stand alone. It is also a protectionary measure against foreign commercial fishing fleet.

Read the proposed act, you be surprising disappointed in the lack of antifishing it contains.

gmreeves
03-09-2010, 06:21 PM
I think this article was very poorly written. The author should have at least pulled referecnes out of the report to back up his allegations. The piece read just like your basic political fear mongering. Like I have heard numerous times from Glen Beck, "Trust but verify." Make up your own mind instead of being led blindly by special interest groups, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.

Warning! Warning! Warning! If you plan to read the following Interim Report, please do so at your own risk. This report should only be read while laying down. Please do not try to operate large machinery while reading this report.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf

FRW
03-09-2010, 08:36 PM
From the response above, it plainly obvious that very few have actually read the proposed act. It is not an expansion of any agency current powers.


I have worked in the environmental industry for over 20 years. Much of that time has been spent doing Wetland Delineation, watershed protection, Superfund site cleanup monitoring and storm water work. I can tell you from experience that the most innocent looking words can become sledgehammers in the hands of the right bureaucrat with the support of the right groups. I have read some of the text and I don't like what I see. Wetlands regulation may be the best example of what you can do with innocent sounding words. In the 1987 Manual it clearly states that the federal government only has jurisdiction over navigable waterways. Seems pretty straight forward right? Navigable is after all a pretty definable term. That is until a Corps of Engineers Bureaucrat gets a hold of it. Then it becomes any water that is any way connected to any navigable body of water. Look at the map of any watershed and you will see that can get to be a pretty expansive definition. But it gets worse. What about the mud hole in a field? That is jurisdictional also because when it rains the mud hole might overflow and the water might make its way into a stream that is part of the watershed of a navigable river. This is not theory this is a reality that I have dealt with more than once. I have seen construction of a playground on church property stopped because of just such a mud hole that the church created when they used the dirt as fill for their parking lot. The old Manual also stated that the wetland in question had to be over 1 acre in size to be jurisdictional, not if the Corps didn't want it to be. The new Manual is even worse. The joke in the environmental community is "any land can be a wetland if you try hard enough". There is a whole section called problem wetlands that basically says just that. Even if your site meets none of the requirements outlined in the Manual it can still be a wetland if it has special properties as outlined by the Corps. The last delineation I did I actually determined it was not a wetland by standard, but listed it as one because of the special circumstances in the problem section. Surprisingly the young woman I was working with at the state level let it pass as non-jurisdictional because she didn't feel she could justify the argument in adjudication if called on to do so. Score one for our side.

I know this is a long post, but I take very serious any government regulations no matter how benign they look at first or on paper, and wanted to point out why. They are always written so they can be interpreted in many ways and there is always a bureaucrat or judge available to interpret it in a way friendly to the feds and their enviro-whacko friends. I have had a government lawyer actually admit to me that the EPA Superfund regs were written knowingly in violation of the historical precedent of protection under ex post facto law, but federal judges have ruled in the case of CERCLIS that is acceptable.

I would prefer the management and regulations stay in the hands of the states. There is no reason why states can't band together in regional groups to deal with the issues surrounding the waterways they share without the feds stepping in and nationalizing it. If mediation is necessary fine, but not nationalization. As for the international issues read the text of the U.N. Law of the Seas Treaty, it is not very kind to national sovereignty. It has also never been ratified by the US Senate as required by the Constitution, but I distinctly remember reading twice on the first page of this interim report that the federal government was going to abide by the rules of the Treaty anyway. We won't even go into climate change which was also mentioned

I love to fly fish and want the places I fish to be protected from over fishing and poor management practices, but I do not trust this bunch in Washington. I know who they answer to and it is not the fishing community, nor the average American citizen.

GrouseMan77
03-09-2010, 08:49 PM
Next thing you know they will be trying to take our tanks away.

golfballs03
03-09-2010, 08:58 PM
I think this article was very poorly written. The author should have at least pulled referecnes out of the report to back up his allegations. The piece read just like your basic political fear mongering. Like I have heard numerous times from Glen Beck, "Trust but verify." Make up your own mind instead of being led blindly by special interest groups, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.

Warning! Warning! Warning! If you plan to read the following Interim Report, please do so at your own risk. This report should only be read while laying down. Please do not try to operate large machinery while reading this report.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf

The final report hasn't been issued yet. The article doesn't say that there will be new regulations that hurt recreational fishing. It says the Task Force has quit receiving public input. Some in the industry, including Shimano, and organizations such as the CSF and the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition have voiced their concerns over the potential regulations and how they pertain to recreational fishing. I think they are looking for provisions that assure recreational fishing is not lumped in with commercial fishing when restricting areas from human use. They are worried that groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group (who they also believe are the impetus for this Task Force) will have too much influence over the new regulations, which is troubling considering the anti-fishing bias they have shown in the past.

The point of this article is to offer a heads up regarding this executive order and it's potential impact on recreational fishing. There are so many executive orders that get signed by the President that many don't receive any outside scrutiny before they are enacted. If it's a concern to you, you can contact your Congressman and voice your concern. It's an issue that can be addressed by Congress and they can prevent such measures from being enacted. Of course it will help to see what their actual proposal will be before it's signed.

golfballs03
03-09-2010, 09:15 PM
They are always written so they can be interpreted in many ways and there is always a bureaucrat or judge available to interpret it in a way friendly to the feds and their enviro-whacko friends.

Yes, I worked for several years on Capitol Hill and have seen first hand how bill language is crafted in order to seem innocuous yet end up having much larger implications

Owl
03-10-2010, 05:00 PM
" It is also a protectionary measure against foreign commercial fishing fleet. "

What foreign commercial fishing fleet operates up American rivers?


You may not see blood in the creeks......but it's almost as if they want to push until they see where the breaking point is for liberty-minded Americans. I'd suggest they stop pushing, but what do I know?


Kudos to the posts on this thread. There really is somewhere you can still find folks with common sense.

Grannyknot
03-10-2010, 05:55 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/columns/story?columnist=bowman_steve&id=4982359

ESPN Outdoors editor's response.

GrouseMan77
03-10-2010, 06:00 PM
They will have to pry my fly rod from my cold, dead hand! :mad:

Knothead
03-11-2010, 10:09 AM
This administration reminds me of the world's funniest joke, "I'm from the government and I'm going to help you."
The second is, "This won't create much paperwork.":biggrin:

FishNHunt
03-14-2010, 08:02 PM
I have read the artical and still can't figure out exactly all the wording.

I would like to give an example of what can happen if the "voting public" DOES have a say in how recreational hunting is done.

I doubt that not many of you bear hunt and even less lion hunt. I would also guess that many are even repulsed by the very thought of killing such a regal, majestic, beautiful creature. I understand, and will tread lightly with my words.

In Washington state the bear populations is the highest in the lower 48 and Oregon is close behind. In these two states bear hunting is strictly limited to baiting and or stalking. The bear population is not held in check because the "voting public" mostly from the large cities like Seattle and Portland desided that hunting a bear with hounds was "unsportsman like". The states hands are now tied and they must hire payed government hunters to kill off large numbers of bears on lands owned by timber companys because bears like to nibble on the tops of young trees and they destroy many trees marking their territory. The state is loosing much revenue because they will not allow hunters to run their dogs to control this issue. State bioligists have lobbied for years to reinstate hound hunting but, the vote of the public over rides sounds manangement practices in the name of political correctness.

California no longer allows the hunting of mountain lions with hounds and as far as I can find does not allow lion hunting by, the public period. Once a lion creates a problem payed government hunters use the ONLY known practice to hunt them down and destroy them.... hounds. This is again due to the fact that the "Voting" public did not like the thought of houndsmen chasing a mountain lion, treeing it and quickly dispatching it.

New Jersey has a major black bear problem and the state agencies and the public have begged for a season but, one single man... the govenor, vetos the rights to protect the public every time the issue is brought to hand.

I don't believe that the general public should be able to over ride the sound judgement practices of years of biological studies to control populations. This is all done in the name of political correctness.

If the practices that the bioligists and state agencies implement endanger the publics well being or are causing more problems than good then they must be addressed and revised. Let the people who know how to manage the wildlife do their jobs.

Bfish
03-14-2010, 10:25 PM
" It is also a protectionary measure against foreign commercial fishing fleet. "

What foreign commercial fishing fleet operates up American rivers?

Hmm, it is document for the OCEAN Policy Taskforce, hence the commercial fishing issues. No where in the document does it mention anything about rivers (although the Great Lakes being an international shipping area is also considered ocean).

ahutch71
03-15-2010, 12:11 AM
Threads like this crack me up. For about eight years, every one of my left-leaning friends talked like it was the end of the world, and that we'd never recover from all of the awful things that the Bush administration had done. Now, for the last 14 months, all of my right-leaning friends are talking like it is the end of the world, and saying we'll never recover from all of the awful things that the Obama administration is doing. Just like we wouldn't recover from Clinton. Or Bush and Reagan before him. Or Carter before him. See a pattern developing?

I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan. Some years, the water would be high and when October and November storms came in a lot of places would get washed into the lake and destroyed. "The high water is here to stay" people would say, so everybody would build seawalls at $200 a foot, and pay to move their places back from the water's edge. Then over the next 10 years the water would drop, and everybody would talk about how low the water was, and how Chicago was pulling too much water out of the lake, and say "the low water is here to stay", so everybody would build new, lower docks at $200 a foot. And so the cycle goes on, and on, and on.

The great thing about this country is that it shifts back, and forth, and back, and forth. But nothing much ever changes, because people don't like change very much and they push back against it - by voting one way or the other.

So, depending on your persuasion, the water is either rising right now, or it's falling. Build your seawall or lower your dock accordingly. I, personally, will be out fishing.

Knothead
03-16-2010, 07:43 PM
California has also had a rise in mountain lion attacks on humans due to the lack of fear of humans. I saw a bumper sticker last summer, "If you think you can trust the government, ask an Indian."