*THE HULL TRUTH is the world's largest FREE network for the discussion of Boating & Fishing. Whether you're researching a new boat, or are a seasoned Captain, you'll find The Hull Truth Boating & Fishing Message Forum contains a wealth of information from Boaters and Sportfishermen around the world.
Welcome to the updated THT!
If you are having trouble signing in, please email feedback@thehulltruth.com with your username and we will help you. We thank you for your patience as we help you access the new site!
Random Quote: It's better to be looking down on the grass, then up at the roots!
Read and weep. Dealing a deadly blow to fishing by executive order. C'mon apologists lets hear it. PETA, PEW, Sierra Club are your new masters and game wardens.
executive orders can be cancelled out with a stroke of the pen by the next president. Whomever he/she is in 2012, they are going to get a hand cramp their first day of office.
Culled out
Obama administration will accept no more public input for federal fishery strategy
EmailPrintComments
67
By Robert Montgomery
ESPNOutdoors.com
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.
AP/Luis M. Alvarez
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."
PHOTO GALLERY
Fisheries In Danger
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.
"Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It's all just an excuse to put us off the water."
In the wake of the task force's framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.
"Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic," said CSF President Jeff Crane.
Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, "There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.
"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.
"Every angler needs to be aware because if it's not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.
"We have one of the largest voting blocks in the country and we need to use it. We must not sit idly by."
Let's everybody use our heads - it's completely unenforceable and there is no way the entire commercial and recreational fishery would be shut down with one executive order. Think of the repercussions to the economy.
__________________ I'm not a boater, but I play one on THT.
Let's everybody use our heads - it's completely unenforceable and there is no way the entire commercial and recreational fishery would be shut down with one executive order. Think of the repercussions to the economy.
You mean like the way they are thinking of the repercussions to the economy on health care, energy, cap & trade, yada, yada, yada......
As soon as they figure out upping the ethonol in all fuel even more will kill the last working outboards, you can bet they will use this as a back door way to accomplish the same thing.
Let's everybody use our heads - it's completely unenforceable and there is no way the entire commercial and recreational fishery would be shut down with one executive order. Think of the repercussions to the economy.
Take a little at a time. If they scare you with shutting it all down, then only shutting half down sounds like a great deal.
[
As soon as they figure out upping the ethonol in all fuel even more will kill the last working outboards, you can bet they will use this as a back door way to accomplish the same thing.[/quote]
I posted a similar thread here a few months ago and was basically lambasted for doing it, I was called something like a right wing, extremist, nutjob.....well here you go....this is the real deal folks....they don't want you running your boats, fishing, hunting, basically having any freedoms at all....they want you to buy overpriced imported seafood from other countries, pay way too much for foreign oil for the few gas engines you will be able to run, and basically do what they say......and no, this isn't all on Obama.....Bush was involved in the law of the sea treaty as well, which gives our regulatory rights to the United Nations...including interior waterways......when you guys all wake up and do your research, and actually read what's going on (I know some of you hear already do, and are well aware of what I'm speaking of), you will have a different take on it......please pass the above posted information on to others.....and let them know what is going on, if you educate them, some will turn.....
These BS closures are just the start. These closures will cripple the industry into a downward spiral that may not ever recover. If they can fracture an entire industry such as this, what's next?
If they can do this to the seafood/fishing industry, why not the cattle and other livestock segments? Since we all know that these closures are being sponsored by the EDF, PEW, etc. etc., does anyone else see a push to dismantle other industries?
These BS closures are just the start. These closures will cripple the industry into a downward spiral that may not ever recover. If they can fracture an entire industry such as this, what's next?
If they can do this to the seafood/fishing industry, why not the cattle and other livestock segments? Since we all know that these closures are being sponsored by the EDF, PEW, etc. etc., does anyone else see a push to dismantle other industries?
They have a plan for those industries as well. Here is a little "global warming" green house garbage tidbit from December 2005. So what's next? If you own 20 acres of undeveloped land (ie, woods & forest) are they going to carbon tax you for the bunny & squirel farts as well?
Quote:
Tax cows, hogs for passing gas, burping? Farmers fear EPA might do so due to methane's impact as greenhouse gas
Dec. 4: Some farmers think a 'gas' tax on livestock would drive them out of business. WNYT's Mark Mulholland reports.
NBC News Channel
updated 4:23 p.m. ET, Fri., Dec . 5, 2008
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if the federal government decides to charge fees for air-polluting animals.
Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which they contend is a possible consequence of an Environmental Protection Agency report after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases amount to air pollution. Livestock emit methane, a key greenhouse gas tied to global warming.
"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the fees.
EPA officials insisted Friday that the lengthy, highly technical report, which mostly focuses on other sources of air pollution, does not include a proposal to tax livestock.
But the American Farm Bureau Federation said, based on federal agriculture department figures, it would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.
The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."
Sparks said Wednesday he's worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.
"We'll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don't have the health standards we have," Sparks said.
The farm groups say the fee would apply to farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions.
EPA officials said the agency has not taken a position on any of the matters discussed in its response to the Supreme Court ruling. And John Millett, a spokesman for EPA's air and radiation division, said there has been an oversimplification of the EPA's document "to the point of distortion."
"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.
The EPA briefly mentions “raising livestock” in its report on ways to regulate greehnouse gases under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Paul Schlegel, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it determined the possible fees that could be imposed by using Agriculture Department statistics on the amount of greenhouse gases that come from livestock and applied it to the EPA’s permitting rules.
Farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the EPA report, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week. Many call it a "cow tax" and say the EPA proposed it.
"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.
Just look at what's been done to Cape Hatteras National Seashore.......Audubon is spearheading that effort.....if this is in fact true it's a sad day for us........
Take a little at a time. If they scare you with shutting it all down, then only shutting half down sounds like a great deal.
Or they just continue to add taxes and fees to the boaters and sportsman that it will no longer be affordable.
EPA says boat motor exhaust is dangerous to our well being = tax
More fish closures are needed to make sure the fish populations thrive, this means more government workers are needed to discuss, monitor, enforce these rules = tax
If you have a boat trailer, that means your fuel economy is worse by pulling it around with your truck = tax
Boat burn a lot of gas = tax
Boat builders use harfull chemicals = tax
etc, etc,etc
Mabye not, I guess thats like saying they would put an extra tax on Coke because it makes people fat. nah
2/3 vote of congress is the only way they are overturned.
wrong.
Bush #2 wiped out Bush #1's no driill executive order with the stroke of a pen.
__________________ 2006 Skeeter ZX24 Bay
2006 Yamaha 300 HPDI
2010 Ford F-150 FX4 5.4
Team: EAT-SLEEP-FISH---~ <)))))<
Trying hard to become a 1%er www.ramseydoor.com www.raynoroverheaddoor.com
2/3 vote of congress is the only way they are overturned.
Wrong. It would take a 2/3 vote of congress to overturn an Executive Order against a President's wishes.
A President, with no Congressional approval needed, can revoke an existing Executive Order at will by issuing a new one that modifies or deletes the previous EO.
Wrong. It would take a 2/3 vote of congress to overturn an Executive Order against a President's wishes.
A President, with no Congressional approval needed, can revoke an existing Executive Order at will by issuing a new one that modifies or deletes the previous EO.
Fishing Coming to an End Near You? 
