Obama may ban fishing by executive order

[ScottA]

No it's not a conspiricy theory.

From ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

[peternap]

It showed up in my syndicated feeds today. Obama can sign what he wants. He ain't my President and never has been.

[fishing_guy]

How outlaws are made...

If they try to ban fishing in Minnesota, there would be a revolt.

The Coast Guard decided to institute its passenger vessel rules for fishing guides on any Minnesota waters.  Never mind the fact that we haven't had a guide related death on Minnesota waters for the 30+ years I've lived in the state.  It would have forced the guides into expensive liscenses, and burdensome regulations.  The age  and physical requirements would have put many out of business.  The rules were somewhat relaxed after the outcry.

It is incidents like these that make everyday Americans  leary of their own government.

[peternap]

How outlaws are made...

If they try to ban fishing in Minnesota, there would be a revolt.

The Coast Guard decided to institute its passenger vessel rules for fishing guides on any Minnesota waters.  Never mind the fact that we haven't had a guide related death on Minnesota waters for the 30+ years I've lived in the state.  It would have forced the guides into expensive liscenses, and burdensome regulations.  The age  and physical requirements would have put many out of business.  The rules were somewhat relaxed after the outcry.

It is incidents like these that make everyday Americans  leary of their own government.

That's pretty much what I was saying without saying it

[glenn kangiser]

"Executive signing orders" are unconstitutional.  This is crap.  I think it's time for buckwheat to leave the Whitehouse .....

[Windpower]

I think the out come will be more along the line of more regulations (a lot more)

and of course Federal Fishing licenses to pay for the increased 'services'

I think a nominal $100 per year fee would be a good start -- more of course for threatened species

gotta pay for those wars somehow

[pagan]

glenn,

oooooootay!

[peternap]

glenn,

oooooootay!

It's always hard to tell just how Glenn Feels.

[muldoon]

Peasants may not take game from the Kings forest.

[Pox Eclipse]

No it's not a conspiricy theory.

Yeah, it is. 

There is nothing in the Marine Spatial Planning commission report that threatens to ban all fishing by anglers, and to suggest that it does is just hysterical fear-mongering.

Management of natural resources is a legitimate function of government.  The aquatic biosphere as a resource belongs to all, and no one has the right to claim a right to exert their dominance over it that would result in damaging it. 

Without regulation, we will love our rivers to death.  To whit: combat fishing on the Kenai River in Alaska:

It is entirely appropriate for the government to temporarily limit or ban fishing on rivers that are threatened by overuse.  To claim an absolute right to fish whenever and wherever you please is not only childish, but completely unsupported by the Constitution and the principles of representative democracy.   You have no right to contribute to the destruction of a resource that is owned by all.

[StinkerBell]

I miss combat fishing....Ahhh Alaska how I miss you.

[muldoon]

Pox,

I understand where your coming from; nothing ruins a good bout of hysteria like a little reason.  The text of the order does not state "all fishing will be banned" and I'll grant you that.  Thats why all the articles I have seen on this are it "could" or it "may" and the like.  The order is quite vague, and that is what has people concerned.

The united states is currently about 30% "public land".  I have watched for years as access to it was slowly taken away from us piece by piece, rule by rule, drip by drip. You got your road-less areas, your wilderness areas, your buffer zones, your sensitive areas, your endangered species habitat, your wetlands, your tributaries to waterways that may be home to sensitive or endangered species, your gates, cameras, Forest Service cops, Fish & Game cops, and endangered bull trout, burbot, sturgeon, grizzly, lynx cat, caribou, gray wolves, riddley sea turtles, etc .....

Most restrictions here are ostensibly for fish and wildlife habitat management and other environmental concerns. How could any reasonable person possibly be against such laudable things? But you look around one day and realize you are effectively locked out.  While I do not think the executive order will indeed block all fishing, I dont discount the notion either.

So why did this need an executive order and not a bill through Congress?  Who is behind this legislation?
Here are the lobbiest that pushed for it
http://docs.nrdc.org/legislation/leg_08112401.asp

Environmental transition recommendations for the Obama administration, prepared by 29 environmental organizations including NRDC in November 2008.

http://docs.nrdc.org/legislation/files/leg_08112401a.pdf

Page 15-5 of that report:

6. Support the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the establishment of a system of Ocean Heritage Areas

Such reauthorization should set the stage for the establishment of a national network of Ocean Heritage Areas that comprise a significant portion of the Federal EEZ and include a range of allowable uses, from no take zones to areas where some uses (e.g. recreational fishing) could be allowed.

Who is asking for this?  Whats the structure?  The order is very vague and that the details will be left to committee.  Who wrote the above?  Who is going to be on the committes that define the rules? 
GREENPEACE - IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE - LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
AMERICAN RIVERS - CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
CLEAN WATER ACTION- DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE - EARTHJUSTICE -
ENVIRONMENT AMERICA - ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND - FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY - NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL - NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL - OCEANA
OCEAN CONSERVANCY - PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - POPULATION CONNECTION
POPULATION ACTION INTERNATIONAL
RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY - SIERRA CLUB - THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
--

I'm still skeptical, I dont think those or ANY lobbiest should be defining policy.  I think the states each have Fish and Game structures in place to define bag and catch limits.  I think generally that it works.  I see no reason to embrace more federal restrictions or licensing. 

[fishing_guy]

I'm still skeptical, I dont think those or ANY lobbiest should be defining policy.  I think the states each have Fish and Game structures in place to define bag and catch limits.  I think generally that it works.  I see no reason to embrace more federal restrictions or licensing.

Like I said before in my other post, there is stuff to be feared in orders like these.

The Coast Guard is supposed to be limited to "navigable waterways".  We have 2 posts on Minnesota.  One in Duluth (Great Lakes) and one in the Twin Cities(Mississippi, Minnesota and St Croix Rivers).  There is also one close by in La Crosse WI.  They also inspect boat manufacturers, which we have a few of here in Minnesota.  My best friend retired from the Coast Guard several years ago. 

Somehow, along the way, they got it in their minds that inland lakes(of which we have 15,000+ here) also constitute "Navigable waterways".    They supercede the state laws which had been in effect previously.  I see this whole thing as a power grab by the federal government at the expense of states rights.

Will they outlaw panfishing in Minnesota in my lifetime?  I doubt it.  Will they in my children's?  I have less doubt. 
There are too many groups which view fishing in the same light as hunting. 
The state DNR does a pretty good job of regulating catches in our state.  That includes fishing on Superior for Salmon, Lake Trout and other "Migratory" species.  I trust them and their limits.  Also If there is an issue, they are usually on top of it locally.  We don't need some bureaucrat from the Federal government telling them what to do.  How do you think our deficit got as big as it has become?

[ScottA]

I feel it's part of the U.N.'s Agenda 21 plan. It's also another power grab by the feds to hijack states rights. Most likely the the initial bans will be small in scope but they could be easily expanded. The feds have record of constantly expanding power and blocking public access to BLM lands. This is not much difference. We have a wildlife refuge near here that you may not enter at all without a permit. It is posted with keep out signs all the way around it. The signs where placed by the US fish and wildlife service. this area used to open to public hunting about 15 years ago. Now you can't even go for a walk in the woods there.

[pagan]

Once it's protected and "public" no taxes are paid on it, thus everybody sees their property taxes go up to offset the lost taxes. This is just another method of forcing people into the "wage slave" workforce. If you're a small scale farmer, you might make enough to feed yourself and even have a little income for buying things you cannot make yourself, but you'll probably never make enough to pay your property taxes.