New Fishing Rules?!
- Thread starter ahill
- Start date
November 2010 can't come quickly enough.
Take Back AMERICA in 2010
Fight organized crime: Re-elect no one...
Take Back AMERICA in 2010
Fight organized crime: Re-elect no one...
This affects everyone on this Site! Take note and pass this along. What's next destroying all live stock due to emmissions?
Got to say that this article is very short on specifics of what is being proposed and without specifics tough for me to get heated up. What I can say, and this applies only to Canada - I don't get a vote in the US 
- is that we have a really serious problem with the salmon fishery on the coast of B.C. Entire runs are collapsing and others are at historical lows. And all user groups and a lot of industry have to take responsibility- commercial, aboriginal, and recreational users, logging, mining, development and fish farming industries.
I for one would be happy to reduce/restrict my recreational fishing [and I put in over 200 hrs. fishing last yr.] to be part of the solution. All these different players are not going to come together voluntarily so it seems to me government has a legitimate role here to bring these interest groups to the table, get them to come up with solutions and failing that to impose them.
I want my grandchildren to be ensured a sport salmon fishery.
- is that we have a really serious problem with the salmon fishery on the coast of B.C. Entire runs are collapsing and others are at historical lows. And all user groups and a lot of industry have to take responsibility- commercial, aboriginal, and recreational users, logging, mining, development and fish farming industries. I for one would be happy to reduce/restrict my recreational fishing [and I put in over 200 hrs. fishing last yr.] to be part of the solution. All these different players are not going to come together voluntarily so it seems to me government has a legitimate role here to bring these interest groups to the table, get them to come up with solutions and failing that to impose them.
I want my grandchildren to be ensured a sport salmon fishery.
I agree, no details on the policy and its direct impact on sport/recreational fishing. I am a conservationist at heart and respect the resouce. I follow the rules and buy annual fishing licenses in 2 states and now likely 3. Our money spent on tackle, bait and licenses goes to support the fisheries and law enforcement of said fisheries. It works.
I don't get the issue. I have read concerns about grouper and snapper in SE waters, but if cap and tax get rammed down our throats, I am not sure how many days most of us here will fish anyway? I can afford my fuel costs at current prices. Double them and we stick to lakes for a while.
We need to follow this and if it gets crazy, write the pres and congress.
The salmon fishery is complex because of the river impacts from hydro power and adjoining land use practices to the spawning ground streams, water quality and temperature of streams adjoining clear cut areas and so forth. It is one messed up fishery.
Lastly, I got a laugh when enviro groups use the words ban and resource in the same sentence. Resource implies use. Ban, well does not. We all need to be stewards of the resources, but if the espn article comes to pass, only the elite will be allowed to take their kids fishing while the rest of us eat salmon cakes....
I don't get the issue. I have read concerns about grouper and snapper in SE waters, but if cap and tax get rammed down our throats, I am not sure how many days most of us here will fish anyway? I can afford my fuel costs at current prices. Double them and we stick to lakes for a while.
We need to follow this and if it gets crazy, write the pres and congress.
The salmon fishery is complex because of the river impacts from hydro power and adjoining land use practices to the spawning ground streams, water quality and temperature of streams adjoining clear cut areas and so forth. It is one messed up fishery.
Lastly, I got a laugh when enviro groups use the words ban and resource in the same sentence. Resource implies use. Ban, well does not. We all need to be stewards of the resources, but if the espn article comes to pass, only the elite will be allowed to take their kids fishing while the rest of us eat salmon cakes....
I'm also in favor of conservation of our resources. The thing that scares me the most is the decision makers having a preconceived idea on closures without any scientific study to base their decision upon. From everything that I've read on the snapper/grouper closures they don't really have any hard data with which they base their rulings. Someone with the idea that we shouldn't be able to fish just because they don't think we should sitting in power does unnerve me. Let's get some unbiased studies and if there are problems we can deal with them in a fair, manageable way.
I also purchase fishing licenses and don't mind doing so. In fact I would even agree to a higher cost if we could be assured the money would be going to helping preserve our fisheries as well as our rights.
Just my 2 cents.
I also purchase fishing licenses and don't mind doing so. In fact I would even agree to a higher cost if we could be assured the money would be going to helping preserve our fisheries as well as our rights.
Just my 2 cents.
Strike,
What bothers me is we use to really rely on the states to lead in fishery management and enforcement with the Feds primarily focusing on federal matters. I use to be an environmental planner and worked in Fla. In my job I bumped into the Game and fish guys from time to time on the science side. My undergrad degree is in biology and a number of my buddies went into fishery management. They specialized in limnology. I am bothered by the science being pushed aside for an agenda. If the science supports a closure or bag limits or what ever, then I get behind it. With the current adminstration the agenda is more important than the science.
What bothers me is we use to really rely on the states to lead in fishery management and enforcement with the Feds primarily focusing on federal matters. I use to be an environmental planner and worked in Fla. In my job I bumped into the Game and fish guys from time to time on the science side. My undergrad degree is in biology and a number of my buddies went into fishery management. They specialized in limnology. I am bothered by the science being pushed aside for an agenda. If the science supports a closure or bag limits or what ever, then I get behind it. With the current adminstration the agenda is more important than the science.
Doc Stressor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Homosassa, FL
- Model
- Seafarer
The ESPN article is nonsense. There are a lot of conspiracy rumors going around on the internet that has been picked up by people with political points to be made.
We are finally seeing some push back:
http://www.examiner.com/x-37128-Cha...3d9-ESPN-claims-Obama-is-about-to-ban-fishing
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003100048
There is no way that a standing US President is going to ban fishing.
We are finally seeing some push back:
http://www.examiner.com/x-37128-Cha...3d9-ESPN-claims-Obama-is-about-to-ban-fishing
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003100048
There is no way that a standing US President is going to ban fishing.
I hope you're right
It's not any suprise that the Messiah (Barry O) owes the tree huggers big time. I hope you are right. However, NC has shut off fishing in certain areas of that state. The possibility is there from the feds, and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.
Doc Stressor said:
It's not any suprise that the Messiah (Barry O) owes the tree huggers big time. I hope you are right. However, NC has shut off fishing in certain areas of that state. The possibility is there from the feds, and if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.
You need to read the attached link. This is the response to Obama's directive on Ocean and Great Lakes planning. It is boring as crap but you can clearly see where recreational fishing stands in the author’s eyes. Just below whale dung.
I am all for better regulation but this is just another layer on top of the dysfunction bureaucratic garbage we already have. Notice that nothing is abolished only added.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... -Force.pdf
I am all for better regulation but this is just another layer on top of the dysfunction bureaucratic garbage we already have. Notice that nothing is abolished only added.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... -Force.pdf
Wow, that is the kind work I use to do... cant believe it :lol: A few things popped out in my head. Some of this stuff, using GIS sptatial based analysis could and is likely already being done by scientist studying whales, manatees, sharks, you name it. That is no big deal in terms of mapping where these species roam and so forth.
The weird thing that popped up throughout the plan to plan document is the idea of managing conflicting uses. What I do not undertand is I did not know that there are all these use conflicts out there. Most times when I go fishing offshore these days there are but a handfull of boats on the water. I did not realize across the hundreds if not thousands of square miles of water that recreational fishing would pose a use conflict to anybody but perhaps the military? I am really wondering what all these conflicts are out there on the water beyond the hassles encountered at the boat ramps when either putting in or coming back for the day :lol: Now there are some use conflicts there....
In Florida after 9-11 they, the feds closed off a large area east of Cape Canaveral to marine traffic, fishing and so forth for national security reasons. I fish out of the Cape a couple times of year when I am lucky and the closed off areas are no big deal to me. Now it would become a big deal if they started closing off more and more areas.
Anyway, this is something we should all follow and watch for sure, but the plan to plan is not an action oriented document closing fisheries anytime soon.
The weird thing that popped up throughout the plan to plan document is the idea of managing conflicting uses. What I do not undertand is I did not know that there are all these use conflicts out there. Most times when I go fishing offshore these days there are but a handfull of boats on the water. I did not realize across the hundreds if not thousands of square miles of water that recreational fishing would pose a use conflict to anybody but perhaps the military? I am really wondering what all these conflicts are out there on the water beyond the hassles encountered at the boat ramps when either putting in or coming back for the day :lol: Now there are some use conflicts there....
In Florida after 9-11 they, the feds closed off a large area east of Cape Canaveral to marine traffic, fishing and so forth for national security reasons. I fish out of the Cape a couple times of year when I am lucky and the closed off areas are no big deal to me. Now it would become a big deal if they started closing off more and more areas.
Anyway, this is something we should all follow and watch for sure, but the plan to plan is not an action oriented document closing fisheries anytime soon.
There are actually 15 different uses of marine activities listed on page 2 of the article posted that could come into conflict.There is so much balance that is needed in the marine environment it is really sad that people are making this into a political issue thinking the current administration is trying to shut down recreational fishing.I would sit here and spew out some rather sound arguments but it is not going to change certain minds.
Why is it after reading that I get the feeling the federal govt. is looking to take the state govts. out of the picture at some point. Is a federal recreational fishing license in our future? It would mean bug bucks for the feds no?
Fishing Limitations
Every day Obama slaps the face of Americans. Seems there's always a new group he sticks it to. When he said he was going to "fundamentally change America", he meant it.
Every day Obama slaps the face of Americans. Seems there's always a new group he sticks it to. When he said he was going to "fundamentally change America", he meant it.