Obama Administration to Propose Ban on Sport Fishing

[Dreamweaver]

Looks like we really are in Bizarro world.

A sweeping oceans and Great Lakes management policy document proposed by the Obama Administration will have a significant impact on the sportfishing industry, America's saltwater anglers and the nation's coastal communities. The draft policy, the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, issued on September 17, will govern federal Pacific and Atlantic Ocean waters and Great Lakes resource conservation and management and will coordinate these efforts among federal, state and local agencies. This past June, President Obama created the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, led by the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to develop a draft national policy and implementation strategy for conserving and managing the United States ocean territory and the Great Lakes.

"In regards to recreational fishing specifically, it is a long-standing policy of the federal government to allow public access to public lands and waters for recreational purposes consistent with sound conservation including the nation's wildlife refuges, national forests, and national parks and should be reflected in a national policy for the oceans and Great Lakes. In fact, the use of public resources by recreational anglers is essential to the conservation model used in this country for fish and wildlife management," said ASA Ocean Resource Policy Director Patty Doerr.

Doerr further said, "As with any good federal policy decision, discussions about measures that may restrict public access to public resources must involve an open public process, have a solid scientific basis and incorporate specific guidelines on implementation and follow-up. We are very concerned about the abbreviated 90 day timeline which forced the Task Force to issue this policy document prematurely. The implications of such a policy are vast and nationwide. Therefore, the review process should be very deliberate and go well beyond the 30 days public review and comment period which started on September 17." The Task Force's Interim Report is currently under a 30-day public review and comment period.

Since 1950, with the passage of the Sport Fish Restoration Act, anglers and the sportfishing industry have provided the bulk of funding for fisheries conservation and management in the United States through fishing license fees and the federal manufacturers excise tax on recreational fishing equipment. According to NOAA Fisheries, saltwater anglers contribute over $82 billion annually to the economy. Despite taking only three percent of the saltwater fish harvested each year, the recreational sector creates nearly half the jobs coming from domestic saltwater fisheries.

http://www.asafishing.org/newsroom/news_pr100509.html

[Ought Six]

Why not? They have essentially closed down almost all public lands to offroading, a long-standing recreational use. The precedent that 'damaging' uses of public trust lands and waters can be banned, so no one should be surprised by this. Shooting and hunting on public lands will be next. Unsupervised scuba diving off the coast will follow one day. Boats will be restricted to designated traffic channels. Within our lifetimes I expect that *any* off-trail recreational use of public lands will be illegal, and much the same policies will be in effect in public waters. It is all part of the 'rewilding of America'. Google it.

[SSG Rex]

Public land. I could swear that means "belonging to the public", something like belonging to the People. Apparently I'm grossly mistaken and it really means "belonging to the government".
A small part of the reasoning behind the Second Amendment was that under the King's rule, carrying a weapon anywhere was "proof" of intent to poach some of the King's wildlife on the King's land.
Is this what we're heading back to here?

[Ought Six]

Federal law requires that national forests and BLM land be 'mutli-use', including recreation. Abandoning roads in national forests and allowing those areas to revert to wilderness violates the letter of that law. The federal courts have once again decided that the plain language of the law does not really mean what it says, so the 'rewilding' goes forward.

[LvDemWings]

I kinda thought that National Marine Fisheries already regulated and over saw sport fishing.

[lilly]

Bann sports fishing?

Are they nuts?

I'm sure there will be an uproar.

I certainly hope so.

[leistb]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

Why not? They have essentially closed down almost all public lands to offroading, a long-standing recreational use. The precedent that 'damaging' uses of public trust lands and waters can be banned, so no one should be surprised by this. Shooting and hunting on public lands will be next. Unsupervised scuba diving off the coast will follow one day. Boats will be restricted to designated traffic channels. Within our lifetimes I expect that *any* off-trail recreational use of public lands will be illegal, and much the same policies will be in effect in public waters. It is all part of the 'rewilding of America'. Google it.

This will wake the Bubba-contingent the F*** up in a hurry. Guaranteed.

[Susie]

I wonder why this is being considered?

[leistb]

Originally Posted by Susie

I wonder why this is being considered?

Control -it presents a path to the points O6 elucidated. It isn't any more complicated than that.

[lilly]

There are some things that American men regard as sacred. The right to hunt and to fish. Not that everyone is into those as sports, or as a source of food.

I guess I was always surrounded by guys who hunted and fished, and many are sportsman in the best sense of that word.

There are these small things that take down a president. It not the bigger more important outrages that do it.

[Samen]

Time for a another Buba president, bloody Kenyan bastard taking U and Me for a ride

[Ought Six]

To someone who grew up in Chicago, banning sport fishing is not a big issue. If he really tries this, Obama is going to be in for quite an education. I think it is just a trial balloon that will be quickly shot down, but it is certainly possible that he is arrogant enough to try to really push it through.

[Susie]

He grew up in Hawaii, where sportsfishing is a huge industry.

[chanel]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

To someone who grew up in Chicago, banning sport fishing is not a big issue. If he really tries this, Obama is going to be in for quite an education. I think it is just a trial balloon that will be quickly shot down, but it is certainly possible that he is arrogant enough to try to really push it through.

Sport Fishing is huge on the Jersey shore. Not only are we home to Viking Yachts and hundreds of marinas, but we also host the MidAtlantic White Marlin Tournament which is the 2nd largest in the world. Our economy is based on fishing (both commercial and recreational).

Also, my husband is an avid angler and every tournament he participates in sponsors some local charity. They would be devastated financially without the fishermen's support.

Thank you for posting. I don't think anyone in our area was aware of this.

[Ross]

Nah! It is just an Acorn initiative about health care for fish .

Probably to be funded by a tax on underwater home owners .

[Coyote]

Obama Administration to Propose Ban on Sport Fishing

It would seem that the title of Dreamweaver's original post is pure bullshit as there is nothing in the article nor the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force that even suggests anyone is considering banning sport fishing.

There are so many legitimate things to disagree with the administration over. Why make stuff up?

[Bri2301]

If you'd like to get a glimpse into this fight, please go to the embedded link, the Outer Banks Protective Association, http://www.obpa.org/. The OBPA has been fighting for sportsmans access to the historical fishing beaches of the Outer Banks, in North Carolina.

An outright ban on Sport Fishing is not likely. What is more probable are actions which make the most desireable spots to fish, "off limits", for environmental/ecological reasons.

This is not an invention of the Obama Administration, but an extension of policies that really took root with Bush 41 and have continued thru Clinton, Bush 43 and will accelerate under Obama.

Jeff B.

[Dreamweaver]

"there is nothing in the article nor the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force that even suggests anyone is considering banning sport fishing" I went back and looked and your right, it is not directly stated. It says:

Within 180 days from the date of this memorandum, the Task Force shall develop, with appropriate public input, a recommended framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. This framework should be a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach that addresses conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources consistent with international law, including customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But knowing where the One wants to take us, take a wild guess about what that means for sport fishing. LOST is just another way to open the door for an Obama & U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth and the attainment of more control.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Dreamweaver

But knowing where the One wants to take us, take a wild guess about what that means for sport fishing. LOST is just another way to open the door for an Obama & U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth and the attainment of more control.

These "wild guesses" are getting so outlandish and pathetic, trying to screen your partisan hate with this excuse is whacky.

[leistb]

Originally Posted by Fiddlerdave

These "wild guesses" are getting so outlandish and pathetic, trying to screen your partisan hate with this excuse is whacky.

Spoken by an expert on the subject matter!

[leistb]

U.S. Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty



by Ben Block on January 22, 2009
Newly appointed U.S. leadership is promising to join a longstanding international agreement that oversees ocean resource and pollution disputes.

During last week's Cabinet confirmation hearings, leaders in both the U.S. Senate and the administration of newly elected President Barack Obama conveyed support for the treaty, known as the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, suggesting an end to decades of dispute over U.S. accession.

The treaty already has support from a diverse coalition of U.S. interest groups that represent national security, industry, and the environment. Yet continued opposition from Republican lawmakers may stall ratification, in a test for whether the Obama administration can galvanize support for international environmental agreements, observers said.


The Law of the Sea has set international standards for fishing, deep sea mining, and navigation since the majority of the world's countries signed it in 1982. It provides coastal nations with exclusive rights to ocean resources within 200 nautical miles of their borders - areas known as "exclusive economic zones," or EEZs.

The agreement also oversees an international tribunal to settle fishing, pollution, and property rights disputes, as well as the International Seabed Authority, a body formed to assign mining rights beyond the EEZs.

If the United States approves the treaty, the agreement would include the country with the largest EEZ in the world, while also potentially clearing the way for U.S. oil companies to mine the Arctic Ocean.

U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, but conservative members of Congress repeatedly blocked its ratification due to concerns that it would limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield greater control over U.S. interests.

President Obama's administration and current Senate leaders have already expressed support for the treaty. During the confirmation hearing for Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska asked whether the treaty would be a priority.

"Yes, it will be, and it will be because it is long overdue," Clinton said in response. "If people start drilling in areas that are now ice free most of the year, and we don't know where they can and can't drill or whether we can, we're going to be disadvantaged. So I think that you will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration."

Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, chair of the foreign relations committee, followed Clinton's response with his own support for the treaty. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee," Kerry said. "The key here is just timing."

President Obama and the Congress are focusing foremost on national economic recovery. The House of Representatives is debating an $825 billion financial bailout that would provide $550 billion for government spending in several environmentally related infrastructure projects and $275 billion in tax cuts for families and businesses.

Among the international treaties that President Obama supported during his campaign - including a nuclear test ban, a global bill of rights for women, biodiversity accords, and a renewed climate change agreement - the Law of the Sea is likely to face less opposition, according to observers. It is supported by a wide array of interest groups, including the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, international environmental groups, and the mining, fishing, shipping, and telecommunications industries.

"The fact is, if you can't get the Law of the Sea treaty through the Senate with the breadth of support it currently has...it will be very difficult to really run the trap [lines] on any of these other treaties," said Don Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of the lobbying group Citizens for Global Solutions.

In his final week in office, former President George W. Bush issued a directive calling for the Senate to ratify the treaty "promptly." Yet conservatives insist that approval will not be simple.

"If [Democratic leaders] start cramming a bunch of controversial treaties down the Senate's throat with the thinking that Republicans will just take it, I think they're wrong," said Steven Groves, a Heritage Foundation international law fellow. "So many of these treaties are objectionable, and Law of the Sea is one of them."

Industry groups support the treaty largely for its clarification of rules regarding the high seas - ocean waters beyond national jurisdiction - and the Arctic Ocean. Russia, Canada, the United States, and several Scandinavian countries have all claimed territorial rights to Arctic maritime regions as ice caps recede.

Environmental groups oppose oil drilling in much of the Arctic due to concerns about oil spills and habitat destruction. Yet groups such as the Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature still support the treaty for the clarity and negotiating space it can provide.

"The fear is that oil drilling and mining will happen even if it doesn't happen by U.S. companies," said Roberta Elias, senior program officer for marine and fisheries policy at World Wildlife Fund-U.S., a Law of the Sea supporter. "It's about getting the U.S. a seat at the table and, by proxy, getting environmentalists a seat at the table."

The opposition from some Republican members of Congress is mostly a reflection of their deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies. "This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country's environmental policy," Groves said. "That's generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans."

The Clinton administration renegotiated the treaty in 1994 so it would be more favorable to U.S. interests, yet Congress still failed to support it. If another political fight prevents ratification, other efforts such as international climate negotiations may potentially be at risk, said Caitlyn Antrim, executive director for Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans, an advocate of the Law of the Sea treaty.

"As we move forward to serious climate negotiations, countries will be very skeptical the administration can deliver on an agreement if we can't deliver on the Law of the Sea, which everyone knows was negotiated in our interest," Antrim said.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993

[Dreamweaver]

"Wild guesses" Hmmmm!

RVINE, Calif. USA – October 5, 2009 – A recently published administration document outlines a structure that could result in closures of sport fishing in salt and freshwater areas across America. The White House created an Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force in June and gave them only 90 days to develop a comprehensive federal policy for all U.S. coastal, ocean and Great Lakes waters. Under the guise of 'protecting' these areas, the current second phase of the Task Force direction is to develop zoning which may permanently close vast areas of fishing waters nationwide. This is to be completed by December 9, 2009.

Dave Pfeiffer, President of Shimano American Corporation explained, "In spite of extensive submissions from the recreational fishing community to the Task Force in person and in writing, they failed to include any mention of the over one million jobs or the 6o million anglers which may be affected by the new policies coast to coast. Input from the environmental groups who want to put us off the water was adopted into the report verbatim – the key points we submitted as an industry were ignored."

Recreational fishing generates a $125 billion annual economy in the United States and supports jobs in every state according to government figures. Through the Sport Fish Restoration program, anglers have provided more than $5 billion through excise taxes on fishing tackle to fishery conservation and education for decades.

In addition to the economic aspects, anglers lead the nation in volunteer conservation efforts on behalf of improving fish habitat, water quality and related environmental areas. "There was no mention of the fishery conservation efforts which anglers have led for over 50 years in every state – an environmental success story that has no equal in the world", said Phil Morlock, Director, Environmental Affairs for Shimano. "The Task Force did not make any distinction between the dramatic differences between harmful commercial fishing harvest methods and recreational fishing, even though we spelled it out for them in detail," added Morlock.

Claiming to be the result of a public consultation process the report states, "Having considered a broad range of public comments, this report reflects the requests and concerns of all interested parties."

The original White House memo and not surprisingly the Task Force report contains multiple references to developing a national policy where Great Lakes and coastal regions are managed, "consistent with international law, including customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" - a 300-page treaty the U.S. has never ratified.

"We question what implications there will be for state authority and jurisdiction in the Great Lakes and coastal regions if the U.S. adopts the U.N. Treaty," said Pfeiffer.

The report makes it clear that future authority for implementing the policy for coastal and inland waters will fall under White House jurisdiction with a new National Ocean Council comprised of over 20 federal agencies at Cabinet Secretary or Deputy Secretary level. No reference to Congressional jurisdiction is indicated.

"This significant change in U.S. policy direction is the result of a 90-day fire drill process as ordered by the President that, not surprisingly, lacks balance, clarity and quality in the end product," said Morlock. "People who simply want to take their kids fishing on public waters deserve better from their government," he added.

Shimano is joining with other members of the recreational fishing industry to urge anglers to contact their members of Congress and the administration to request this process be required to adopt the economic, conservation and social contributions of recreational fishing as key elements of the policy. It is critical that we ensure Congressional oversight and state jurisdiction and management continues.

E-letters can be sent to the administration and members of Congress by visiting KeepAmericaFishing.org. The future of fishing is in your hands.

http://fish.shimano.com/publish/cont...0_million.html

[lilly]

I think it is just as well if sportsmen are vigilant about their hunting and fishing rights.

Most hunting and fishing is for the activity itself, but nothing is killed and wasted except for a few irresponsible types. But they are the minority. People eat what they kill in my neck of the woods.

For example the man who fixed my heating units last Christmas, works hard, for a decent wage, but he hunts and fishes and he said his family eats all he bags. Why not? Probably better than what he could get at the supermarket.

The culled deer meat here in town, are portioned out to whoever requests a share. I never have, even if the deer culled have feasted on my plantings.

[rc]

I don't know if I still have it, but prior to the election, one of the outdoor magazines (I think it was "Outdoor Life", which they started sending me for some reason) had a profile of the candidates, and the candidates answered a few questions.

Obama began with the obligatory, "I don't hunt or fish, but I respect those who do." (Which is pretty much the category I fit into as well, although I get a fishing license every year and usually catch one sunfish which I promptly throw back because it's too small.)

But I still laugh when I think about Obama's answer to one of the questions. The question was something about what the candidate's position was regarding "fisheries". I forget what the substance of the answer is, but he began by stating that he understands the important of clean water, because he has lived near Lake Michigan for 20 years. And the sad part is that I think he probably believes it! He probably considers himself something of an outdoorsman because he's from that outdoor mecca of Chicago.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a large contingent of this kind of "outdoorsman". For example, in Minnesota, it is possible to get special "critical habitat" license plates. You pay extra, get a picture of an outdoors scene on your plates, and the money goes to some cause which is probably worthy. You see these quite often, and I'm sure the owners consider themselves to be good environmentalists. However, there never seems to be any evidence on the vehicle that the people actually participate in outdoor activities. They don't have State Park stickers; the trailer hitches (if one came from the factory) appear to be pristine; they don't have racks for canoes, etc., etc. In places where people actually do outdoor activities, such as parks, boat landings, etc., these plates are much less common than they are on metro freeways.

There seem to be a large number of these people, so it's not surprising that there's now one in the White House. Let's face it--policy regarding outdoor recreation won't be made by people who participate in outdoor recreation, because they are in the minority. Instead, policy will be made by people who consider themselves outdoorsmen because they've taken a walk down to Navy Pier.

I suspect that catching my annual sunfish will get more and more difficult.

[leistb]

Originally Posted by rc

I don't know if I still have it, but prior to the election, one of the outdoor magazines (I think it was "Outdoor Life", which they started sending me for some reason) had a profile of the candidates, and the candidates answered a few questions.

Obama began with the obligatory, "I don't hunt or fish, but I respect those who do." (Which is pretty much the category I fit into as well, although I get a fishing license every year and usually catch one sunfish which I promptly throw back because it's too small.)

But I still laugh when I think about Obama's answer to one of the questions. The question was something about what the candidate's position was regarding "fisheries". I forget what the substance of the answer is, but he began by stating that he understands the important of clean water, because he has lived near Lake Michigan for 20 years. And the sad part is that I think he probably believes it! He probably considers himself something of an outdoorsman because he's from that outdoor mecca of Chicago.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a large contingent of this kind of "outdoorsman". For example, in Minnesota, it is possible to get special "critical habitat" license plates. You pay extra, get a picture of an outdoors scene on your plates, and the money goes to some cause which is probably worthy. You see these quite often, and I'm sure the owners consider themselves to be good environmentalists. However, there never seems to be any evidence on the vehicle that the people actually participate in outdoor activities. They don't have State Park stickers; the trailer hitches (if one came from the factory) appear to be pristine; they don't have racks for canoes, etc., etc. In places where people actually do outdoor activities, such as parks, boat landings, etc., these plates are much less common than they are on metro freeways.

There seem to be a large number of these people, so it's not surprising that there's now one in the White House. Let's face it--policy regarding outdoor recreation won't be made by people who participate in outdoor recreation, because they are in the minority. Instead, policy will be made by people who consider themselves outdoorsmen because they've taken a walk down to Navy Pier.

I suspect that catching my annual sunfish will get more and more difficult.

At the risk of thread drift...

While I understand what you're saying -as Colorado has many of the same folks you've described with the same type of plates for various causes -I believe the issue goes much deeper than that. This issue and many others speaks to the notion of trans-nationalism and all that it entails including the ceding of U.S. sovereignty to a world body such as the U.N.

This fits in nicely with the appointment of Harold Koh. The article below details his support for trans-nationalism. Another interesting note is his brother, Howard, is the current United States Assistant Secretary for Health.

Harold Koh, Promoter of Shari'a?

by Daniel Pipes
March 30, 2009
updated Apr 2, 2009
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009...oter-of-sharia


On March 24, Barack Obama nominated Harold Koh, the just-resigned dean of Yale Law School, to be legal adviser to the Department of State, a Senate-confirmed job that would have him, writes Meghan Clyne in the New York Post, "forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice."


Clyne calls Koh "Obama's Most Perilous Legal Pick" because of his outrageous views on a wide range of subjects, including "transnational legal process," or the idea of interpreting the U.S. Constitution according to the legal norms of other countries, and his accusing the U.S. government of constituting an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.
He appears to exemplify the "transnational progressivist" mentality that John Fonte of the Hudson Institute identified back in 2002 in Orbis magazine (and which I summarized in the New York Post). If there is a single key to this mentality, it is the diminishment of the individual person in favor of various groupings.
But what brings Koh to attention here is his apparent endorsement of Islamic law within the American court system. Clyne writes:

A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

That letter can be read at National Review Online. In response,

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."

Comments: (1) The day may have arrived when Americans, like Britons and the Dutch, have to stave off their establishment advocating Shari'a. It's a dark day, indeed. (2) The Senate must reject Harold Koh as State's legal advisor for his "transnational" worldview is unacceptable. (March 30, 2009)
Mar. 31, 2009 update: David Limbaugh adds some information to Clyne's research at "Another Day, Another Scary Nomination":

It turns out that on March 21, 2007, Carol Iannone, on Phi Beta Cons blog, published a letter from Stein to Dean Koh about his Yale Club remarks. Stein wrote, in part, "In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Sharia', among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the US."

Limbaugh goes on to comment: "Whether or not Koh ever responded to Stein's letter, Stein's representations of Koh's remarks are certainly consistent with Koh's writings that I reviewed."
In addition, I was contacted this morning by Robin Reeves Zorthian, Yale '76 of Greenwich Connecticut. After a back-and-forth, she sent me this statement in a personal note:

I was the organizer of the March 13, 2007 dinner of the Yale Alumni Association of Greenwich. Harold Koh was our guest speaker and his subject was "Globalization and the Yale Law School. I can attest that Dean Koh never told our group that he would or might consider applying sharia law in US cases.

Writing in a comment on my website, she impugns the integrity of the person who reported this incident: "Steven Stein has fabricated this entire controversy to promote his own political agenda."
Comment: Koh may not have made the alleged statement but it closely fits his general outlook. I therefore hope the senators who question him bring up this topic and probe it carefully.
Apr. 1, 2009 update: Ed Whelan cautions at National Review:

Given the current state of the record, Koh's critics (a group to which I belong) should not base their case against Koh on a remark that Koh allegedly made about the possible application of sharia law in cases in U.S. courts. They should not do so, first and foremost, because it is far from clear that Koh actually made any such remark. They should not do so, secondly, because any such remark, even if made, may actually be entirely innocuous and defensible. (Imagine, say, a contract that has a choice-of-law provision that specifies that the sharia commercial law of an Islamic country shall govern disputes over the contract, no matter where the lawsuit is filed; is it clear that U.S. courts shouldn't look to that law to determine the interest rate, if any, on any amounts past due?) They should not do so, thirdly, because there is so much else in Koh's record that is both indisputable (as a matter of fact) and highly objectionable.

I agree; the Shari'a remark is a sideshow to the larger drama. But Koh's alleged remark does raise unprecedented issues of Islamic law that need on their own to be seriously addressed.

Also, Fox News reports that White House spokesman Reid Cherlin described Steven J. Stein's version of events as "not accurate" and noted that the host of the event in 2007 disputes Stein's account.