http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/sal****er/news/story?id=4975762 here's your hope and change!!!!!! those **** is supposed be salt water (without the space)
He loves to piss people off dosent he!! And by the way he's pissing the wrong people off if you know what I mean!!
I don't think they could ever make that happen, but it sure is a scary thought. OBAMA: One Big *** Mistake, America.
Is the link suppose to take me to something related to your thread topic? It doesn't Have NO idea what you're talking about.
There is always an open period for comments when government is trying to address an issue. Right now, in MD, we have an open period to make comments on proposed changes to the hunting and trapping regulations. It will close after a period of time. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/comments/Hunt_Proposal.asp Now, I read through this interim report, and cannot find where they even suggest prohibiting fishing for this nation's citizens. Perhaps one of you can find it in there. http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/sal****er/news/story?id=4975762 let's see if ths works.... just another reason that this entire administration needs to go....
Nope..link won't work for some reason, but if you go to ESPN outdoors, it's in the list on the right... living in the land of 10,000 lakes, this would really suck. Not that it would be any different for the rest of the country. The really bad thing is that they're talking about billions of dollars in revenue lost, millions of jobs, tourism in many states would pretty much dry up... and they claim to be the party that's out to help the little guy???
Bruce, I sped read the 38 page whitehouse Task Force Report and could not find anything related to the Obama camp saying anything about prohibiting fishing.
Sorry, I had to copy and paste the story....my link wouldn't work either. Never mind...GA's link works down below.
the part i find disgusting about this is that it even made it to his desk... it should have gone straight to the recycle bin without a second thought... no president can be so stupid as to piss off all the outdoorsmen in this country... if fishing is axed, how much longer before hunting is???
You do understand that a "ban on fishing" never made it to his desk, right? This "ban on fishing" is just an extreme "what if" that was made up by special interest groups. MD went through this very thing with regard to Rockfish (striped bass) and there was a whole lot of made up BS about that and we actually did stop allowing the keeping of caught Rockfish but did not ban fishing. Of course, now the Rockfish has made an enormous comeback and all of the folks that were complaining about government intervention to save the Rockfish are making money off of it.
It doesn't say it directly, you are correct on that. However, when it states things like this on page 15, #2. "Human acivities that may affect ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems should be managed using ecosystem based management...", to me, it says that if there are activities that the NOC decides has an impact on the water, then it will be managed. How do you manage these activities? I wouldn't think it to be too much of a stretch that they would limit or eliminate access to these waters. Where the limitation or elimination starts to affect more than just the folks who live on the coasts or the Great Lakes is where it states things about the rivers being connected to the oceans, and also in the broad reaching statement "Great Lakes ecosystem". If you looks at a map of the Great Lakes watershed, it's huge. It reaches far from the coasts of the lakes. The fact that they are including river systems means that they could include, for example, the Mississippi River system, which runs from MN to LA. That's North/South. East/West, it's pretty well spread out with all of the rivers that feed into it, and the lakes that feed into them. The lakes in that region, as well as the rivers could be included in this policy. This would allow the lockdown of the central part of the country. If you take into consideration the Columbia River Basin, that covers most of the NW, allowing the lockdown there. I'm not a geography major, so I'm not going to cover anything else, but those come to mind off the top of my head. So, while the exact phrase of banning or limiting fishing isn't there, the implications of the open wording in this document would allow the government to do just about anything they wanted to, under the guise of protecting the Great Lakes, oceans, or coastal regions. Adding to that the fact that the Enviro-extremists were working their butts off to get this to the President before the public had their fair chance to respond to this, it just makes one a little nervous. We've seen limitations put in place on lakes like Lake Tahoe, as example, where there are laws about what kind of motor you can use, areas where you can use them, no wake zones for 600' from shore, etc. and can see where if this would go into policy, it isn't that much of a stretch to see where it could affect every body of water in the country.
Or you can manage human activities like these. The real stretch is to claim the government will ban fishing. That's just laughable. http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/12976
the federal government has no interest in banning fishing, look more towards pleasure watercraft and certain fertilizing/ landscaping tactics The revenue that the US gets from fishing permits/stamps and other taxes is amazing
