This is a CRAZY article, you fishermen should read it...

stdreb27

Active Member
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/s...ory?id=4975762
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.
One sign at the United We Fish rally at the Capital summed up the feelings of recreational and commercial fishermen.
This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.
That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.
"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.
"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."
Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.
Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.
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.
Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced "Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy." This document makes repeated references to "overfishing," but doesn't once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.
Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with "facts," in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.
That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.
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."
Click here for archive
Morlock fears that "what we're seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There's no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.
<too long to post>
 

reefraff

Active Member
Seems to me Obama is out to set an unbreakable record for the number of things a President can screw up. I would have never believed someone could make Jimmy Carter's presidency look good but here you go and this fool has only been in office a bit over a year.
 

fishtaco

Active Member
I really can't see a state like Oregon that makes millions off fishing licenses and salmon tags going along with something like this. Sounds like the type of thing that could be tied-up in court for a long time.
Fishtaco
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3242617
I really can't see a state like Oregon that makes millions off fishing licenses and salmon tags going along with something like this. Sounds like the type of thing that could be tied-up in court for a long time.
Fishtaco
Hasn't a lot of the salmon runs in Oregon already been closed or was that in Washington?
If they would cut their the taxes in half Oregon would be a fantastic place to live.
 

bigarn

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3242610
Seems to me Obama is out to set an unbreakable record for the number of things a President can screw up. I would have never believed someone could make Jimmy Carter's presidency look good but here you go and this fool has only been in office a bit over a year.
I agree 100% ... Resignation before his term is finished is now the "American Dream"!!
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3242629
Hasn't a lot of the salmon runs in Oregon already been closed or was that in Washington?
If they would cut their the taxes in half Oregon would be a fantastic place to live.
Our local spring Chinook run is supposed to be near record levels this year so it should be a good season. The power of a 40lb Chinook on lightweight gear is pretty fun, but I usually throw them back because the redneck in me much prefers eating catfish, panfish and bass, deep fried of course.

Fishtaco
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3242617
I really can't see a state like Oregon that makes millions off fishing licenses and salmon tags going along with something like this. Sounds like the type of thing that could be tied-up in court for a long time.
Fishtaco
Half of me thinks there is no way this is just fearmongering. The other half of me says is it really that unreasonable an idea for a left wing looney after all he's trying to destroy the healthcare industry as we speak. A far greater atrocity than banning fishing...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3242654
Our local spring Chinook run is supposed to be near record levels this year so it should be a good season. The power of a 40lb Chinook on lightweight gear is pretty fun, but I usually throw them back because the redneck in me much prefers eating catfish, panfish and bass, deep fried of course.

Fishtaco
I love catfish but fresh smoked salmon it aint.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3242686
Half of me thinks there is no way this is just fearmongering. The other half of me says is it really that unreasonable an idea for a left wing looney after all he's trying to destroy the healthcare industry as we speak. A far greater atrocity than banning fishing...
DUDE, THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO PUSH HEALTH CARE THROUGH
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3242695
Feeds my fuel of hoarding my ammo before he restricts firearms!

Just did my ammo inventory, short 45 colt and nobody has it in stock. Need to stock up on 357 and 44 too. trying to wait until I can get it all at once.
Still need to get reloading dies and supplies.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Here's a link to the actual resolution:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/doc...rce_FINAL2.pdf
Everything I read sounds like they want to improve the ecological aspects of the waterways that surround the US, and also the internal waterways. I think its more about cleaner water and protecting fish stocks to ensure that they will be around for generations (as some blogger stated on the ESPN site). If you think about it, the Federal Government already regulates the amount of fish that are allowed to be caught in our waterways. That's why you have limits on snapper, drums, king fish, etc. when you fish offshore. If someone can find wording in this document that specifically states they want to restrict or prohibit fishing in US waterways, I'd like to see it.
 

aquaknight

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3242881
Here's a link to the actual resolution:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/doc...rce_FINAL2.pdf
Well, you can see the angle they're taking right off the bat. From Part 1, Section A.)
A national policy that ensures the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, enhances the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserves our maritime heritage, provides for adaptive management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change, and is coordinated with our national security and foreign policy interests.

Gag me seriously...
I also found this very interesting from the end of pg 14 to 15....
Decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes should be informed by and consistent with the best available science. Decision-making will also be guided by a precautionary approach as reflected in the Rio Declaration of 1992 which states in pertinent part, &#8220;[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation&#8221;; and
c. Actions taken to protect the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes should endeavor to promote the principles that environmental damage should be avoided wherever practicable and that environmental costs should be internalized, taking into account the approach that those who cause environmental damage should generally bear the cost of that damage.
So basically even though science may not agree with their views at the moment, they will not make that an excuse. Though they will probably fudge the numbers anyways
...
Originally Posted by bionicarm

http:///forum/post/3242881
If someone can find wording in this document that specifically states they want to restrict or prohibit fishing in US waterways, I'd like to see it.
That's the thing, you won't be able to. From what I gathered on that link, it's just basically asking to grant them the power to do what they see fit. I think that's the issue. They will never come out and say that they are proposing to ban fishing, just the powers that will allow them to.
Sorry but a bunch of tree-huggers shouldn't have that power. Just like I don't think a bunch of oil-barons should be in charge of where and how many off-shore oil rigs there are.
 

jackri

Active Member
Out of all the money generated from liscenses and tackle sales for conservation it just amazes me the scientific approach isn't good enough.
Our game and fish departments do an amazing job at seasons, limits, sizes ,etc to ensure we have resources to enjoy in the future and change it as needed. We don't need anything like this set in stone.
They are trying to ban lead in fishing lures because it's "toxic". The only way lead is toxic is ingested by birds (mostly). Several tons of lead to an average size lake makes no impact on the water quality -- it's only through ingestion and it's the birds that pick up small lead shot or split shot sinkers.
I think the fact that lead is plentiful, cheap and easy to work with is the problem. People can't have a cheap way to produce sinkers, jigs and lures (heaven forbid). On top of that 10% of every fishing related item has a 10% Excise tax on it (along with some archery items) that go towards conservation, boat ramps, and etc.
Owning a tackle company everytime I hear about banning lead or fishing just ticks me off -- not from a business standpoint (it still does) but from a basic freedom to take your kid and go fishing for the day on a couple of bucks.
If people can have a right to the internet, housing, health care, cell phones (yes gov't programs for poor people to have cell phones now) maybe I should have the right for gov't to leave me the frack alone to go fishing in a responsible matter.
For anyone out there that thinks gov't can fix their personal problems (they can't) -- just know you've given up personal freedoms for the try.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by jackri
http:///forum/post/3242903
Out of all the money generated from liscenses and tackle sales for conservation it just amazes me the scientific approach isn't good enough.
Our game and fish departments do an amazing job at seasons, limits, sizes ,etc to ensure we have resources to enjoy in the future and change it as needed. We don't need anything like this set in stone.
They are trying to ban lead in fishing lures because it's "toxic". The only way lead is toxic is ingested by birds (mostly). Several tons of lead to an average size lake makes no impact on the water quality -- it's only through ingestion and it's the birds that pick up small lead shot or split shot sinkers.
I think the fact that lead is plentiful, cheap and easy to work with is the problem. People can't have a cheap way to produce sinkers, jigs and lures (heaven forbid). On top of that 10% of every fishing related item has a 10% Excise tax on it (along with some archery items) that go towards conservation, boat ramps, and etc.
Owning a tackle company everytime I hear about banning lead or fishing just ticks me off -- not from a business standpoint (it still does) but from a basic freedom to take your kid and go fishing for the day on a couple of bucks.
If people can have a right to the internet, housing, health care, cell phones (yes gov't programs for poor people to have cell phones now) maybe I should have the right for gov't to leave me the frack alone to go fishing in a responsible matter.
For anyone out there that thinks gov't can fix their personal problems (they can't) -- just know you've given up personal freedoms for the try.
What kind of tackle do you make? That would be one of my dream jobs, right behind apprentice millionaire and talent scout for Hooters
 

jackri

Active Member
I used to make a lot of saltwater jigs, lures and sinkers -- bought lead by the 55g drum from the local scrap yard but ran most of it out of the area. Used to pay .10 - .25 a pound for descent stuff and ended up being .60 a pound for so-so quality lead.
Was kinda fun -- made my own jigs, painted them, had customers in all 50 states and about 15 countries but took about a year and a half off and now starting over without that portion makes it a little slower going just dealing with hooks and lures now but it was kind of a pain keeping track of the excise tax on top of sales tax and what constituted excise tax.
Although at the end of the day the gov't takes about 1/2 your profit but it's a fun industry if you're into fishing and I got hooked up on a really great trip up in Alaska halibut and ling cod fishing.
I also did a lot of custom work so that was kind of fun working with peoples ideas and creating molds to bring new products out.
As far as I know I'm about the only one who used to do jigs over 24 oz.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by jackri
http:///forum/post/3242919
Fun stuff like this
Looks like something you see in a Barbie tackle box
J/K
Looks like cool tools
Years ago a friend of my parents used to customize store bought lures. He had some crazy looking stuff but they worked pretty good for him.
 

jackri

Active Member
Much more fun to make a couple of 24 oz jigs for the same price of 500 1/64th oz jigs plus you get bigger fish :)
 
Top