Recreational fishing may be in danger

[golfballs03]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by FRW

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]

" 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]

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...eve&id=4982359

ESPN Outdoors editor's response.

[GrouseMan77]

They will have to pry my fly rod from my cold, dead hand!

[Knothead]

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."

[FishNHunt]

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]

Originally Posted by Owl

" 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]

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]

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."