Anybody catch this article on ESPN.com?

Tennessee Deer Sporting & Deer Hunting Community Forum

Help Support TNDeer | Tennessee Deer:

stillinscrubs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
340
City & State/Province
nashville, tn
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... id=4975762

Some excerpts below:

Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled "Transition Green" shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.


As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force's recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, the New York Times reported on Feb. 12 that "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."



"Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable."

This is not the only access issue threatening the public's right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

"With what's being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans," he said. "Under the guise of 'marine spatial planning' entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.
 
This stuff won't fly...particularly the part about a potential fishing ban. There's WAY too much money tied into recreational outdoor sports. Anything tied to generating money in this country will always be impervious. All you have to do is sick the lobbyist boys on it.
 
While I hope you guys are correct I am not as optimistic. While I don't think the greens can get fishing outright banned, they can make it a lot harder to fish. It is their goal to ban fishing and give fish rights.

The key is to be aware of what is happening and don't allow them to make it harder and harder to have access to the resource. That will lead to fewer being able or wanting to fish. Once numbers of anglers are decreased then we would be vulnerable.

Anybody catch the Wall Street Journal from Satruday?

Switzerland has lawyers who sue people for the rights of fish. No joke look it up. Imagine being hauled into court because you took a picture of you holding a fish out of water. By the way that is alreaqdy illegal in one US state. Anybody know which one?
 
Nope but good guess. While people who take the huge ones out of the water by pulling them onto boats are getting fined it is still legal to remove small ones from the water to remove hooks. Removing the big ones hurts them a lot more than the little ones. You can also get fined for doing it with large tarpon and no tag in their mouths, but only because it can kill the bigger fish pretty easily. Small fish can be taken out and photographed no problem.

Farthest point from Florida in the lower 48 is a hint.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
No. Washington State.

FRESHWATER: It is unlawful to totally remove
salmon, steelhead, or Dolly Varden/bull trout
from the water if it is unlawful to retain those
fish, or if the angler subsequently releases the
salmon, steelhead, or Dolly Varden/bull trout.


MARINE AREA 2-2: It is unlawful to totally
remove salmon from the water if it is illegal to
retain those fish, except anglers fishing from
boats 30 feet or longer as listed on either their
state or Coast Guard registration are exempt.

MARINE AREAS 5-13: It is unlawful to bring
wild salmon or a species of salmon aboard
a vessel if it is unlawful to retain that salmon.


So you want to practice catch and release fishing you can't hold the fish for a picture unless it is in the water. Crazy rules.
 
Isnt that the case with tarpon? Seems I read something like this about tarpon in the keys area in the past couple years
 
I have thought long and hard about how to respond to your post.

What in your opinion are acceptable limitations of recreational fishing for the benefit of commercial harvesters?

Do you think that we should stop recreational harvest of ocean species to protect the commercial harvest of fish? Would you find that acceptable?

At what point would you be concerned about your access to fishing being limited? What is your trigger for concern?

Why do you think that commercial harvest of ducks, deer, turkeys and other land based wildlife is outlawed? Do you know the history of market or commercial hunting?

Please. At the very least read some of the links as the bottom of the ESPN confessions link.
 
stillinscrubs said:
What in your opinion are acceptable limitations of recreational fishing for the benefit of commercial harvesters?

Do you think that we should stop recreational harvest of ocean species to protect the commercial harvest of fish? Would you find that acceptable?

At what point would you be concerned about your access to fishing being limited? What is your trigger for concern?

Why do you think that commercial harvest of ducks, deer, turkeys and other land based wildlife is outlawed? Do you know the history of market or commercial hunting?

Those are all important questions, but they don't have ANYTHING remotely to do with the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. The problem from the start is that there isn't any "bill" associated with the Task Force (contrary to what ESPN suggested), nor are there any "regulations" on the table, and there's nothing in the plan that has to do with sport fishing. Thus, citing the Task Force interim report and claiming that it means "Obama wants to ban sportfishing" is pretty darn close to outright lying.

bd
 
This is about PEW what don't you get BD?

B.D. said:
stillinscrubs said:
What in your opinion are acceptable limitations of recreational fishing for the benefit of commercial harvesters?

Do you think that we should stop recreational harvest of ocean species to protect the commercial harvest of fish? Would you find that acceptable?

At what point would you be concerned about your access to fishing being limited? What is your trigger for concern?

Why do you think that commercial harvest of ducks, deer, turkeys and other land based wildlife is outlawed? Do you know the history of market or commercial hunting?

Those are all important questions, but they don't have ANYTHING remotely to do with the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. The problem from the start is that there isn't any "bill" associated with the Task Force (contrary to what ESPN suggested), nor are there any "regulations" on the table, and there's nothing in the plan that has to do with sport fishing. Thus, citing the Task Force interim report and claiming that it means "Obama wants to ban sportfishing" is pretty darn close to outright lying.

bd

BD,

I am not going to get into a match with you. You are trained to win your argument at any cost and that has no place in this discussion.

That being said:

This is the report on the task force, by the task force. How can the comments copied from that document not be taken to be read as relating to recreational and commercial fishing?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administratio ... erimreport


2. Within 180 days from the date of this memorandum, the Task
Force shall develop, with appropriate public input, a recommended
framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. This
framework should be a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based
approach that addresses conservation, economic activity, user
conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources consistent with international law, including customary
international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.

2. Human activities that may affect ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems should be managed using ecosystem-based management and adaptive management, through an integrated framework that accounts for the interdependence of the land, air, water, ice, and the interconnectedness between human populations and these environments. Management should include monitoring and have the flexibility to adapt to evolving knowledge and understanding, changes in the global environment, and emerging uses.
3. Current and future uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources should be managed and effectively balanced in a way that:
a. maintains and enhances the environmental sustainability of multiple uses, including those that contribute to the economy, commerce, security, and human health;
b. harmonizes competing and complementary uses effectively;
c. integrates efforts to protect, maintain, and restore the health, productivity, and resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and the services they provide; and
d. recognizes environmental changes and impacts, including those associated with an increasingly ice-diminished Arctic, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Also, the major concern for most recreational angler groups is the statement below, IMO.

This builds on the comprehensive reports of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, which were based on significant scientific, public, and stakeholder input.

Recreational angler groups are terrified of PEW they have lots of money, bad science, and want to close down recreational fishing access all over the globe.

Pews website:
http://www.globaloceanlegacy.org/coralsea/

Here are the nuts and bolts of their plan. Look at the size of the area off limits to recreational anglers.

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/cor ... rk-meeting

Pew's response:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ ... 5B1%5D.pdf

A snippet from the link directly above:
A no-take reserve does not deny the
ocean to others, but it does prohibit all
forms of fishing.


This area is not near a major population center but is a huge angling destination.

Want more info on PEW?

I don't care about your president or your political personal feelings. I am very worried about OUR access to fishing when groups like PEW have any government's ear.

Scrubs
 
Re: This is about PEW what don't you get BD?

BD,

One more thing.

I would guess you listen to NPR like I do. Have you noticed the PEW protect oceans and fish commercials? Ever wonder why they were on the radio now?
 
Re: This is about PEW what don't you get BD?

stillinscrubs said:
I am not going to get into a match with you. You are trained to win your argument at any cost and that has no place in this discussion.

I think you greatly overestimate what legal training is about.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one - we're treading over ground we've already covered in the past.

bd
 

Latest posts

Back
Top