| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rabbit
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 3835
Location: FLOUR BLUFF
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chef Lefty
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 4659
Location: The First Sandbar (a.k.a. Flour Bluff)
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: Public's 'right to fish' shifting under Obama? |
 |
|
From Yahoo...
The Obama administration has proposed using United Nations-guided principles to expand a type of zoning to coastal and even some inland waters. That’s raising concerns among fishermen that their favorite fishing holes may soon be off-limits for bait-casting. In the battle of incremental change that epitomizes the American conservation movement, many weekend anglers fear that the Obama administration’s promise to “fundamentally change” water management in the US will erode what they call the public’s “right to fish,” in turn creating economic losses for the $82 billion recreational fishing industry and a further deterioration of the American outdoorsman’s legacy.
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | I call shenanigans on that one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Central Scrutinizer
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 3582
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Public's 'right to fish' shifting under Obama? |
|
|
| Chef Lefty wrote: | | many weekend anglers fear that the Obama administration’s promise to “fundamentally change” water management in the US will erode what they call the public’s “right to fish,” |
And here we all thought that the squabbles between the surfers, spearfishers, and jetty fishers; or conflicts between the waders and shoreline blazers; or just the occasional pot-lickers were bad, now this?!?!
We had better all band together before there will be nothing left to fight about......  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramblin' reels
Finger Mullet
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 21
Location: Close to Lake Erie right now !!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landlocked beachbum
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 5811
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sent mine, thanks.
What a load of crap man!!!! 
_________________
Dave
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits". Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 3973
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I still keep wondering that if "they" DO try to close areas of fishing around here on the Texas coast WHO IN THE HECK are they going to get to enforce the new regs? Our game wardens, although they do a bang-up job, are stretched pretty thin.
TSA?
HA!
and what, are they going to impose SANCTIONS on the state of Texas if we don't accept the new rules?
seriously! how would they enforce closures way down here?!
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | Thanks for the Memories, Ranger Rick. |
| ziacatcher wrote: | | However I bet if you were fishing naked Ranger Rick would have a problem with that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cricket
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 586
Location: North Padre Island, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:47 am Post subject: CCA initial response |
|
|
This is CCA's initial response to the question is Obama trying to outlaw fishing?
For the most part yes, we have been on top of this issue since day one but can’t find anyone in his administration that will listen to us. CCA represents the recreational angler and the Obama administration doesn’t care, obviously about the recreational angler. It’s pretty scary to think that this guy can change everything w/ a flick of the pen. Right now nothing is set in stone. Our lobbyist are fighting for us on the hill right now, and when I know more I will let you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Windy Day
Pony Mullet
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Corpus Christi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ltorna1
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 17 Apr 2009
Posts: 3240
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, here is the only line where "recreation" is mentioned.
"Establish the national oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes policy and an implementing framework
in an Executive Order. The order should state that it shall be the policy of the United States to
protect, maintain, and restore marine, estuarine, and Great Lakes ecosystem health in order to
fulfill the ecological, economic, social, nutritional, recreational, and other requirements of
current and future generations of Americans.
Nobody is pushing to end recreational fishing. Not even the big scary Obama administration.
_________________
...if my boss ever finds this forum I'll be unemployed... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jebsays
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 523
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a conflict between calling for an ecosystem-based management edict and the following proposed solution: "... and not allow scientific uncertainty to postpone protection of the resources."
In my opinion, that statement undermines the entire proposal. You can have one or the other - not both. Both allows you to do whatever you want to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jebsays
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 523
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ltorna1 wrote: |
In fact, here is the only line where "recreation" is mentioned.
"Establish the national oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes policy and an implementing framework
in an Executive Order. The order should state that it shall be the policy of the United States to
protect, maintain, and restore marine, estuarine, and Great Lakes ecosystem health in order to
fulfill the ecological, economic, social, nutritional, recreational, and other requirements of
current and future generations of Americans.
Nobody is pushing to end recreational fishing. Not even the big scary Obama administration. |
Why does it have to explicitly say recreational or "ban"? Can you not close an area to recreational fishing without calling it a ban or addl. limitation on recreational fishing?
If an area is deemed an "ocean heritage area", for whatever reason, and that eliminates access and use of the area for whatever purpose (which impacts the recreational fisherman), would it not be considered a "ban" on "recreational fishing" without calling it as such? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Central Scrutinizer
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 3582
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ltorna1 wrote: |
In fact, here is the only line where "recreation" is mentioned. |
Truth be told, recreation shows up 3 times, while recreational only shows up once..... 
BUT, if you want to get the information straight from the source, please see:
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/091209-Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf
instead of the white paper from all the "Green Groups" that has everyone so up in arms.
Intorna1 is correct though, in that this document never explicitly calls for any outright bans on fishing....but the devil is in the details and some of the details do point towards "The Heavy Hand of the Feds" by consolidating regulations under Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. It's a teeth-pulling read (like most regulatory-speak), but there are a few places that raise an eyebrow, but I will let you decide for yourself.
.......(Edited)
The more I look into this, the more I think that the fuse on this story is summed up in the tag line that is now appearing all over the internet:
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens!!!
Uhhh, yea... That would mean the mandatory "Public Comment Period" has passed. It took place earlier this year. The "report" is now due at the end of March. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Finsonpins
Flour Bluffian in training
Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 286
Location: Corpus Christi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramblin' reels
Finger Mullet
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 21
Location: Close to Lake Erie right now !!!
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the concerns is if the use of marine protected areas (MPA's) is included in the in the final draft of the administrations Ocean Policy:
"The MPA precedent for this and other potential widespread North American recreational fishing closures began with the recently established Papahānaumokuākea Hawaiian National Monument. Papahānaumokuākea covers 140,000 square miles of ocean—an area larger than 46 of the 48 continental states. This monument was established through Presidential action using the Antiquities Act. Although recreational fishing in this area of the Northern Hawaiian Islands was already minimal because of its great distance from Hawaii’s main islands, the establishment of the monument included a complete closure to recreational fishing throughout the entire monument. This action set a dangerous precedent for future MPA designations".
10th paragraph: http://www.keepamericafishing.org/pacific_
ocean.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Permit
Flour Bluffian in training
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 275
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a joke....I've heard some outlandish s*it from this administration and now this.....wow....
What exactly has this campaign for "hope" and "change" accomplished....what has this Obama administration actually accomplished thus far?? Anything?? Did his stimulus package work?? Did his cash for clunkers program work??
What has he and his admin done for this country?
_________________
CONSERVATION IS KEY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
