Lefties poised to stop fishing/hunting

[DJD]

Hey thats racist! Oh wait...

I hope not! Never can tell in this day of political correctness.

[apb]

Just a little update to the "story" that DH posted:

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...eve&id=4982359
Firestorms get started in a variety of ways, especially on politicized issues.
ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest article in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them -- it was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary.
And while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

[Tim_T]

Here is another look:

www.theoutdoorwire.com


Can't Walk But Will Tread On Water
Public opinion polls demonstrate that absolutely no one believes the current administration can walk on water. In fact, it seems that many Americans believe the current administration has a track record of bad ideas.

It seems, however, our peerless leaders are forging forward with another bad idea. OK, it's not as bad as health care or the economic stimulus plans- at least not yet - but bad enough to keep their streak of bad ideas intact.

The Obama administration's now suggesting we use the United Nations principles of zoning of coastal and inland waters. Anything using a UN model almost instantly conjures up rules that bad guys ignore while they're being used to curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens.

In this instance, the law-abiding citizens are anglers.

When I heard this administration speak of "fundamentally changing" water management in the United States, I heard "so long fishing". There is more than a little evidence to indicate justification for those concerns.

And the $82-billion dollar fishing industry's not exactly overjoyed at the idea of a management theory based on restriction of access.

In the United States, the right to fish is definitely one of those "unenumerated rights" we consider covered by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Personally, I think it's covered under "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" and I'm not too jacked-up at the idea of blue helmeted fishing patrol officers wagging their third-world fingers under my nose and telling me "sorry, off limits." Especially when I'm hoping to wet a line in my own small pond.

That's why the new Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force has the fishing industry and recreational anglers concerned. This group of policy wonks says they're going to benefit the fishing public by "managing ecosystems in their entirety rather than by individual uses such as fishing, shipping or oil exploration."

The "entirety" referred to here means all waters, fresh and salt, public and, yes, private.

Based on the Marine Life Protection Zones model in California, that sounds as suspect as PETA offering me a recipe for blackened catfish.

Whenever a governmental group gets together these days, you can bet it's overloaded with people whose idea of conservation begins with "first, remove all human access....".

The official line for this is "marine spatial planning."

According to the United Nations, that means "a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process."

Personally, that kind of language gives me the creeps. When I hear phrases like "one global sea" - I imagine Elton John starting to sing "Circle of Life" - followed shortly thereafter by signs that tell me the old fishing hole is now considered part of some government protection area.

Plainly stated, the idea of "one global sea" instead of managing each bit of water by the American user-funded conservation model seems a bit bass-ackwards to me. Our systems have preserved our waters, lands and wildlife considerably more effectively than our global brethren. Other models, to use the description used by Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs at Shimano are "the lowest common denominator."

And President Obama's assurances that he will follow the guidance of former presidents who have protected the rights of recreational fishermen don't do much for my discomfort.

His ties to environmental groups with anti-use policies -and a proven propensity for taking "we're smarter than you so we're changing the game" actions regardless of the will of the majority, unfortunately, don't do much to assuage concerns.

Neither do the nine proposed regional planning areas:

Alaska/Arctic Region (Impacting Alaska)

Caribbean Region (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands)

Great Lakes Region (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Gulf of Mexico Region (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas)

Mid-Atlantic Region (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia)

Northeast Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont)

Pacific Islands Region (Hawaii, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Guam)

South Atlantic Region (Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina)

West Coast Region (California, Oregon, and Washington)

Other than having the same basic molecular compound, the waters encompassed in these nine groups are as dissimilar as you could imagine.

For some reason, I'm not altogether comfortable with much of anything in the draft of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. But that's probably just me. -and individual tackle manufacturers and the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and a host of other recreational fishing-focused groups.

As is the custom in emotion-based legislation, there are overstated examples of conflicts, and it seems the study is determined to create solutions to problems that - like global warming - might not really exist.

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and U.S. Recreational Fishing and Boating Coalition have made their concerns known to the administration. Jeff Crane, CSF president said "some of the potential policy implications of this initial framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers."

Those same anglers contribute billions of dollars annually that support fisheries conservation and, as Crane says "are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic."

More than one million jobs are the result of recreational fishing, but there is little - if any- recognition of that fact in the draft plan. Not recognizing and evaluating recreational fishing's impact on our overall economic engine is foolish. The idea that engine could be shut off by a bad recommendation and a single signature on an Executive Order should concern us all.

Seems it's time for the silent majority to kick up another fuss - while there's still time.

--Jim Shepherd

[Tim_T]

My main reason for posting that was to show that there are a wide range of views on what all of this will mean. Unfortunately there is spin on both sides of the issue confusing what is going on.

If I remember right you are associated with fisheries somehow. If so, prehaps you can give us your take on this and what it really means.

Andrew

Andrew, I am not associated with fisheries, I am an outdoor writer.

[apb]

Andrew, I am not associated with fisheries, I am an outdoor writer.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew it was something to do with the outdoors.

Andrew

[Redskeeter]

So lets say the current administration does somehow, with a whole lot of luck pass such an idiotic bill as to ban recreational fishing.
#1. How many of you will actually stop fishing? Me I will continue to fish.
#2. With out license fees, how will the pay conservation officers to stop us from fishing?
#3. Talk about bankrupting local governments. How much will local governments have to spend on prosecuting us "criminals" that continue to fish. Oh did I mention I will continue to fish and will plead not guilty thank-you.

[roadrunner]

Obama has to do this to appease his extreme left wing base because they thought they would come in and roll over everyone and they are finding that the silent MAJORITY is finally speaking out in volumes and they know they are in huge trouble if the base is disenchanted and does not vote.

[Tim_T]

Another take from www.outdoorwire.com:


Is Recreational Fishing Being Banned?
Editor's Note: Over the past week, comments regarding the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force have kicked off a heated discussion regarding unjustified rumor-mongering and an unvarnished bias against the administration by the "right-wing media". Today, a response from the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

A recent national opinion piece has ignited a firestorm concerning the efforts of the Obama Administration's Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and its involvement in implementing a policy of "marine spatial planning" that could ultimately effect the management of and public access to the nation's natural public resources. The column comes three weeks after the closing of the public comment period by the Presidential task force and on the heels of the historic fishermen's rally at the Capitol on February 24 coordinated by the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and its allied groups.

Recent press releases issued by some sportfishing industry and angling conservation groups have expressed dismay at the unwillingness of administrators to listen to their recommendations. None of this comes as a surprise to the RFA. More troubling is that some of these same insiders have shown a willingness under past administrations to accept use of executive privilege in managing coastal access while fruitlessly participating in the new administration's new bureaucratic task force process.

"The goal of the key players in the process, specifically the Pew Environment Group and its minions, is to attempt to implement through Executive Order what they had failed to accomplish through the legislative process," said Jim Donofrio, RFA Executive Director. "We welcome those organizations who feel disenfranchised by the task force to join us in working to prevent what is the usurpation of the management of this nation's fisheries, oceans, coastal waters and the Great Lakes for ideological reasons," Donofrio said.

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force led by the White House Council on Environmental Policy was established by President Obama on June 12, 2009. According to the Presidential memorandum, the task force was charged with developing a national policy for the protection, maintenance and restoration of U.S. oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes. "It will also recommend a framework for improved stewardship and effective coastal and marine special planning," the White House said in June.

The same month the task force was established, Donofrio was invited to testify before congress in opposition to legislation sponsored by California Democrat Rep. Sam Farr (H.R. 21), a bill which would establish a new national policy for our oceans. In a release issued last fall, Donofrio said the RFA was unnerved by glaring similarities of the new report and Rep. Farr's H.R. 21, the Ocean Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act (aptly referred to as Oceans 21). "This appears to be an attempt by the Executive branch to circumvent the established legislative process and enact policy that failed as legislation 5 years in a row," Donofrio said, adding "RFA believes enacting laws through Executive order and proclamation sets a dangerous precedence."

Oceans 21 has failed to gain Congressional support because of its ability to restrict access to public resources while creating a new bureaucratic hierarchy with unprecedented power to regulate fisheries and implement ocean zoning without oversight or public input. The RFA has been in the forefront of exposing Oceans 21 and is a leader in preventing its passage. On June 18, 2009, the RFA was the only national fishing organization that testified before Congress in opposition of the bill.

"Recreational fishermen have been watching fisheries management in this country literally get hijacked by preservationists," Donofrio said this week in response to the national news headlines indicating the president was going to ban recreational fishing. "I don't think this president would consider banning recreational fishing outright, but it's clear to us that the Obama Administration would like to severely restrict recreational fishing." Donofrio said RFA and others are troubled by the number of staffers within the Administration who have direct ties to Pew.

RFA said the good part about the recent headlines is that people are opening their eyes to the fact that "the fisheries management system is broken" and in need of repair. "Are we concerned about realities regarding the task force? Yes we are, and that's the hijacking of H.R. 21, a bill that would set up such an incredible bureaucratic infrastructure that Americans would indeed have a hard time finding fishing opportunities," Donofrio said.

Records show that groups like Pew and the David & Lucille Packard Foundation have used funds to support implementation of marine protected areas, denying public access to large areas of coastal waters. "Years ago, Pew and Packard had a dream of creating blanket marine reserves across the country through the legislative process, but that quickly fell apart when Congress wouldn't support it so they moved into the states," Donofrio said. "True, they found certain governments like California very supportive of efforts to institute blanket closures, but they never gave up their goal of getting us all off the water by whatever means possible," he said. Donofrio explained that Pew-funded groups worked hard to push rigid "overfishing" language into the Magnuson Stevens Act during the 2006 reauthorization debate.

"Essentially, Pew was able to create these de facto reserves which make fishing opportunities so incredibly hard. Take for example red snapper and other important snapper/grouper which are off limits to recreational anglers in the south Atlantic despite rebuilding progress," Donofrio said. "Pew's stacked the task force deck, and they've even got one of their Pew Fellowship award-winners as head of the fisheries service, it's certainly troubling."

Dr, Jane Lubchenco, who the President appointed to run NOAA Fisheries in 2009, is also a past member of the Pew Oceans Commission, the steering committee of the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative, and a director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, SeaWeb, and Environmental Defense all of which are Pew funding recipients. Dr. Lubchenco also serves as Trustee Emerita of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

"Dr. Luchenco currently sits atop a growing number of appointees who are pushing an agenda of ocean zoning, catch shares and Draconian regulatory actions that are severely hindering our ability to fish with resulting negative impacts on the economy and significant job losses," said Donofrio who pointed out that it's been this apparent "takeover of fisheries management" which led to the fishermen's rally in Washington DC on February 24 which drew an estimated crowd of over 4,000 fishermen in support of the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act (H.R. 1585 and S. 1255).

[DJD]

Looks like these folks think this is a problem and thats their business. Reading things like trying to circumvent the process or administration staff with too many ties to certain groups that they are trying to regulate or help disturbs me.

But don't scream to loud at anything this administration does because your tagged a racist....typical crap from left wingers.

[apb]

Personally, I really do not see anyway that any administration would try to ban fishing, especially now. Its a $80 billion+ industry, that provides jobs for many people. You really think that a politician would try to ban fishing and loose all of that tax revenue? Not going to happen.

...But don't scream to loud at anything this administration does because your tagged a racist....typical crap from left wingers.

Can you show me a post on here where someone does that cause I don't recall seeing any.


Andrew

[Tim_T]

Personally, I really do not see anyway that any administration would try to ban fishing, especially now. Its a $80 billion+ industry, that provides jobs for many people. You really think that a politician would try to ban fishing and loose all of that tax revenue? Not going to happen.



Can you show me a post on here where someone does that cause I don't recall seeing any.


Andrew

Andrew, I believe it would be political suicide, but some of this makes me uneasy. Especially the no public comments issue.

Also, I don't think Don (DJD) meant that would occur on this site, I think he meant in general.

[DJD]

Personally, I really do not see anyway that any administration would try to ban fishing, especially now. Its a $80 billion+ industry, that provides jobs for many people. You really think that a politician would try to ban fishing and loose all of that tax revenue? Not going to happen.



Can you show me a post on here where someone does that cause I don't recall seeing any.


Andrew

LOL yeah I was referring to the potus admin not this site. I just get ticked off at how this admin seems to have played such a strong hand by using (yep I say using by design) a black man to do their bidding.

Now when anyone does not agree with their policies the race card gets played. Happened on here many times and more then likely by the worlds biggest racists to begin with. Of course it happens on the national stage a well.

Oh well hopefully we will vote this poison out before it kills whats left of what made this country strong.