Obama to make fishing illegal ANYWHERE!

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


I didn't see where it said fishing would be made illegal. I call HOAX on this thread. Just another post to trash Obama with lies.

There is no need to lie. He is doing a great job of trashing his reputation all on his own.


As a part time flyfishing guide and outfitter, I actually see the federal state and local fish stocking programs increasing and making peoples fishing experience better. Sales of fishing licenses and boat permits are up. With a lot of people out of work; many are going fishing.


[edit on 9-3-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by DJW001


Actually I did read the article and if you read it you would see that most of the findings were by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and now NOAA is hoping on the bus. I hate to make this political but we all know the left wing has a lot of environmental nuts in there group. And I never said that it is illegal as of this moment. Im sure you are such a hippy that you have never been fishing before so let me tell you somthing about it. Either you catch the fish and put it back OR you catch the fish,bring it home and cook and eat it. I don't see anything wrong with either of those and I wouldn't consider either "Over fishing". Half the fish you eat in America is breed in a man made lake just for food. If you knew anything about over-fishing you would go over to Asia and see what true over fishing is. This is just another way for them to control your intake of fresh foods and making you more reliant on big supermarkets and non wild catch food.

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


This is insane.

For the uninformed, the WWF is run by a bunch of banker tyrant oligarchs whose sole mission is to convince the public that government sequestering of natural resources is actually a good thing.

They have been putting out tons of fraudulent non-peer reviewed climate reports which are subsequently picked up and used by the IPCC in their bogus climate assesments.

The real goal of the WWF and IFAW is to ensure only mega-corporations have access to resources. They want the people starving and subservient. They hate competition, especially when it entails free natural food sources. Heaven forbid someone goes out and fishes for their dinner.

"Obama to make fishing illegal ANYWHERE" is precisely what you said, unlike the article, which said "might" before presenting a worst case scenario. There are already game limits, and there may be some extremists who want them further reduced... so what? Do you really believe that anyone would dare ban sports fishing? Especially given 1) the potential influence of lobbyists and 2) the need for certain rural areas to supplement their protein intake with game?

reply to post by DJW001


Hmmm lets see....nation oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. Yup that is pretty much everywhere. Do you know of any other places to go fishing besides those that I just listed? And of course this is a worst case scenario. The administration (like most others) show a lack of understanding or plain dont give a crap what the little person wants in America. The whole point of putting this on ATS is for people to get informed that the idea of putting a ban on it is out there! It is so people that do enjoy fishing or enjoy eating a fresh piece of fish will call there local congressman and tell them what they would like happen. No need to come on here and accuse me of being a liar so please take it elsewhere....

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


If you had titled the thread: "Federal government might expand powers over inland waterways" I would not be saying anything you would take personally. Spin is spin, and you've been spinning.

I'm in Canada. I know people are saying that this would create outrage, but back in the 80s carp was illigal to fish because of their "numbers". They said it would only be 2 years, but guess what, still can't fish them.

You would think you would see a bunch of angry newfies shooting their guns, but none at all. Why? becuase people are in the mind set that what ever the government says should go, should go.


And, hes just carring out bushs plan.

"I think humans and fish can co exist peacefully"- George Bush.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by gandhi]

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


The real danger to fishing is from yahoos that catch a huge stringer of fish and then don't clean and eat them just leave them rotting on the beach, lake or river bank. I see this all to frequently on my home water.

If they were even thinking of stopping fishing I would think there would be more evidence of fish and game rangers; in fact they are laying off game and fish wardens, both at the state and federal level.

For anyone commenting in this thread who has NOT read the article, I will post some of it, with commentary. From the OP espn link:

"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.

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. "


+++VERY disturbing information right from the get go of this mainstream media article. It claims the Obama Admin is NOT going to accept public commentary on this issue anymore. WHAT? I thought we had transparency.+++

From same source:

"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."

+++Well well well, it appears these "environmental groups" have close ties to the Obama Admin.++++

I have a definition of marine spatial planning, which seems to be the core of what this article is actually about.

www.msp.noaa.gov...

"According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, marine spatial planning is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process."

+++Through the governments own definition, this is a public process.

Through the msm espn article, the government is BANNING PUBLIC INPUT.

Now this to me says the OP is not an alarmist but brought a perfectly acceptable conspiracy to our conspiracy plates.

Thank you OP, for further showing us the duplicity of our government. AND it matters not if it is a dem or rep in office, they ALL treat us the same.+++

www.youtube.com...

You will get your fish from here, and you will like it, you will like it, you will like it, etc etc etc etc

Regulating Commercial fishing is a smart idea because to those kind of fishermen, it's only about the money. To a recreational fisherman it means something different.

Any effort to outlaw fishing for the same reasons used for Commercial fishermen is in no way doing what is in the best interests of the public. Such a move could be viewed as an attempt to create anger in the public and once again provoke and instigate those that just might rise up and do something about it as a means to justify some type of further crack down on freedoms and liberties.

It just seems that this fishing ban proposal is in no way related to fishing, its related to control. Control over what we are allowed to do and where we can do it. I cant see this type of prohibition being warmly embraced by anyone except the federal government.

What's next, SWAT teams at the local pond for federal fishing violations? I don't think so because something tells me anyone thinking that you can strong arm those that like to fish is to me the most imbecilic action any federal government could possibly take against its own citizens. It would be something akin to trying to ride a bull greased up with oil and holding on with only one hand. It's going to be a wild slippery ride and something tells me fishermen have more back bone than the federal government or the ADL ever imagined.

You can have my fishing pole, stringer and fish hooks when the Sun Explodes and not sooner. Besides, all the fish and animals are already contaminated by all the chem-trail spraying, so to discuss a prohibition on fishing is just a distraction from that fact because if we eat the fish, sooner or later it going to kill us.

Obama coming forth and stating that all the fish are contaminated would be a good move, but I doubt the circus of imbeciles in Washington care that much to tell us the truth. Instead they add fuel to the fire and use fishing as a means to anger the public.

I'm sick of this crap. One time in NJ I was fishing at a reservoir with my son. I brought along a friend of mine who didn't have a fishing license. When my son was occupying himself with something else, my friend grabbed the pole and was messing around with a lure.

A park ranger or game warden or someone who is authorized to carry a weapon approached us quickly. She asked for his license because mine was pinned to my shirt. She had her hand on the butt of the weapon in her holster! My friend said he was just trying to secure the pole and that it was actually my son's and that he didn't have license.

She demanded he drop the pole. Line in the water and everything. Just drop it. Like it was a weapon! Enough nonesense. We don't need someone to threaten us for doing something that should not cost a dime to be able to do or be passed through congress and bullcrap.

Sounds good to me, Lake Michigan has been overfished and polluted for a while now. Perch season gets more pathetic each year while the invasive species keep showing up in more and more numbers. So I think it would be a great idea to outlaw fishing for a few years. If people don't like it and don't care about ecosystem of lakes, well then # em, tough titty for them.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Thank you for keeping the discussion on course. The article is intended to get sports fishermen to write their representatives in Washington to remind them they are an important constituency. The fact that the committee, which is simply drafting policy, is "now" closed to public input means that it was previously "open" to public input. At some point they have to close the door and make a decision. "Indifference" towards a group's wishes is not the same as a conspiracy. The OP twisted the overall tenor of the article to make it about Obama personally and even more alarmist. The bureaucrats are making sausage in Washington. If you want them to take your opinions into account, write your Congressperson.

Many fish populations have crashed. They need time to recover.

The entire world needs to look at how the fisheries all over the world are managed.

We no longer exist in a world where fishing is just a way of life for a few coastal dwellers.

We now have huge factory ships that can decimate an entire population in a few short years. Then what do you harvest when a fishery has been reduced to almost nothing?

Japan is a particularly huge consumer of fish from the ocean and they need to be brought under control.

This is not an Obama issue, this is an issue that confronts the entire planet. It is an issue of resource management. You have to make sure that the percentage of fish that you take each season can be replaced by the breeding population otherwise you will eventually lose that kind of fish as a resource.

reply to post by DJW001


Youre welcome.

I always advocate people doing this, writing to their congressman.

LITERALLY, emailing your peeps in congress is the VERY LEAST we can do politically, yet it is a valid political point that can and should be made often.

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


Thank you! I believe this is another step in the Obama adoption of UN enviro radicalism that would have large parts of our USA zoned as pristine and "people free". Another step last year was the Dept of Interior's plan to move wild/feral horses off Western land and transfer them to the Midwest and East.

I posted information of the Wildands Project on another string. Here is a sample video fyi. I have always suported parks and land consevration groups, but realize lately some aspects of the movement are anti-people, anti-liberty, and pro-CONTROL of populations and even depopulation. Wake up folks....

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


Hawaii, In the same topic area, here is Senator DeMint's op-ed from last week concerning possible additional federal takings of land. Connect the dots?
"DEMINT: White House land grab-Proposal to seize land would favor animals over Americans"
Washington Times, March 2, 2010
"You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

"A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers."

www.washingtontimes.com...

Just more enviro-wacko-ism.

Obama apparently has no clue as to what his duties are. He continues to act like royalty instead of an elected official. I have little doubt that he is trying to regulate fishing on a national level, but he is about to run into some serious legal issues.

I know that here in Alabama, a great deal of the state's budget for enforcement of wildlife conservation comes form the sale of both hunting and fishing licenses. If those licenses are restricted further by Federal involvement, there will be a drastic decrease in the number of licenses purchased, mainly those from other states who come here for 'sport' fishing/hunting. That will result in less game wardens, less enforcement, and poorer-enforced regulations.

Alabama also offers a 'lifetime' fishing license for in-state residents. I know many people who have purchased these. Now, are they going to be demanding of a refund if those licenses are suddenly either revoked or made worthless due to Federal restrictions?

I mentioned the out-of-state 'sport' fishermen... that is a huge income for the state's economy as well. these visitors have to stay somewhere, eat, and they spend a lot of money while here. If that tourism attraction were to dry up, it would greatly increase the economic misery around here. I tend to believe that enough people are miserable enough right now that no one wants to be seen as contributing to it.

The Federal government might make a case for 'stewardship' of waters off the coast, but inland waters and streams are legally considered to be a part of the state they are in. Thus, this would be regulation of a state property. This is only mentioned one place in the US Constitution:

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Source: www.usconstitution.net...

And of course, this is the opposite of approval to regulate intrastate recreation... it is rather a direct denial of the ability to do so.

Yeah, it needs to be watched... as does everything that government does. but it has less legal chance of becoming a reality than Obama does of having a crown placed on his head and appointed King of the United states of America (which is also prohibited by the US Constitution).

TheRedneck

you can have my fishing pole when you pry it form my cold dead hands.

sorry to sound so mellow dramatic. I just felt I had to say it since nobody else did. So this guy Obama, the anti-Christ, and whatever other alarmist names we can give him, is going to look into limiting commercial fishing on some endangered species? OK. Let me know if he limits the ability for me to bass fish in the ponds around here. I don't like him anymore than Bush, but please use proper context. Snopes doesn't need any more traffic.