Recreational fishing may be in danger

[golfballs03]

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/s...ory?id=4975762

[ChemEAngler]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TightLines

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? I don't have a license, but I do have a learner's permit.

[flyred06]

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]

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]

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]

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/doc...rce_FINAL2.pdf

[FRW]

Originally Posted by Bfish

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]

Next thing you know they will be trying to take our tanks away.