1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Goodbye fishing, duck hunting, canoeing, accessing

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by wireguy, Mar 13, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Jan 29, 1998

    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.

    Waiting for the 2010 Bassmaster Classic weigh-in to begin, these enthusiastic fishing supporters might not be excited at the one-rule-for-all concept behind the latest scheme for managing the country's waters.
    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

    Editor's Note: You can read the CMSP report yourself at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/091209-Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf
  2. oskerspap12

    oskerspap12 Active Member

    Dec 29, 2009
    These people can go F themselves.......I for one am going fishin any time I like if these bastards like it or not.........come on down to the river,and catch me if you can!
  3. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Oct 28, 2009
    You go, D.P.! Back in the fifties they called them "Sit-ins." We'll call them "Fish-Ins" and if they don't like it, they can go muck up a stump.

    Best regards, Kit Thomas
  4. Beni

    Beni Member

    Apr 21, 2009
    The U.N. will be the downfall of our country and our liberties. I say we get out of the U.N. and let somebody else fund them. Beni
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.