Obama to make fishing illegal ANYWHERE!

Hehe, deny it all you want guys, the Bankers are preparing for Chaos, you'r not, who do you think is going to live and be free ? It is Them, because they have taken all your money and property, by the time they are finished, you have No Gun, you have a small or in worst case No car, you get to eat small meals each day because the prizes are sky high under the Gore's Co2 is deadly poison Agenda, and Bill Gates 'people are the cause of Co2 global Warming, we must reduce the carbon down to Zero' , uhm Yea... Dream on guys .. just dont cry when you cant feed your children....It IS your Fault ...





What did Bill Cooper say some years back : ' There is an Apathy running rampant in this contry, and it's deadly', I think he was right, people do not care or want to get off the caoch since Idol (Perfect waste of airtime) and superbowl (Perfect way to distract the Males) is On TV.....

[edit on 10/3/2010 by ChemBreather]

At the risk of sounding unpatriotic I must tell you the state of Florida not many years back passed a state constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional for a person to hold in a pen or tie to a stake...a pregnant pig.

Yep.

That is what it says. The voters approved it.

Now to my point.

Once gaining a foothold in law where PIGS are concerned, it is only a matter of time before the law evolves and the bar gets raised a bit to include, let's say, horses or perhaps the family dog.

Now can you see the signifigance of the words "may" and "could" in news reporting the doings in Washington?

It is the "foothold" that they desire to achieve, the way in, ultimately.

Take the Patriot Act for example; I rest my case.

Originally posted by DrJay1975
I didn't read this entire thread but this is just ignorance. You need to differentiate between commercial fishing, sport fishing and recreational fishing. Apparently you don't understand the difference.

Okay, but did you read the article? It refers to recreational fishing. Noting in your post refutes that this is the intent.
From the article:

"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.

Excerpt from AP-

Pres. Obama has said he will not override protections put in place by Presidents Clinton and Bush that established recreational fishermen as a special class.

The final report of the task force is expected in late March.

reply to post by searching4truth


What I understand from your post is that just because the small water hole you've come to love fishing in would "eventually" become over-populated" every other water mass should be subject to the consequences of the irresponsible commercial fisherman that basically don't know when to stop? I guess this is another form of "one guy ruins it for the rest of us", but really with everything going on in the world, is this really something to unite over and put as priority?

Instead of trying to fight such a bill, that isn't even going to be passed, I guess it's possible but... anyways all fishermen who oppose this should be banding together to take legal action against those causing the need for this bill.

I just see no reason to blame the government for what they might have to put into effect if we don't monitor our fishing/hunting habits. Both recreationally and commercially.

Very good topic though, but admit it, how many hunters/fisherman abide by the limits set in stone? You see a deer, you've already reached your limit but ohhh man it has a nice rack. What goes through your mind? My grandparents actually own a deer farm, we raise deer, do the whole selling etc. But I gotta admit people abuse the rules, and stuff like that actually hurts these types of businesses. So the same people complaining that it will hurt the businesses are the one's causing hurt already. Very good debate though :]

i can't imagine taking fishing away everywhere. Hopefully, more thought would go into this than an arbitaury decision. There are some people that rely on not just the hunting but the fishing to supplement the groceries. But on the other hand I don't ever underestimate an opponent and at this point in time...

reply to post by searching4truth



That is comparing apples and oranges. there is an overpopulation of deer because deer are becoming teh new urban pest. They thrive on urban areas that are making it an easy living for them.

If you go to rural areas, deer are still afraid of humans, and run for the hills at the meer site of them. Go to an urban area where deer are used to living around humans. they saunter away as if your annoying them. I have a heard that comes up to my driveway. I have gotten a deer to eat out of my hand that frequents a park.

Combine that with the removal of predators, you now have a deer overpopulation.

there are now FOUR times as many deer living in the US then when the settlers arrived.
It is a sign of an ecology that has been thrown out of whack by human interference.

In the case of fish, you have fish that are grossly being overfished without recourse. Of course the fishermen don't want a ban. But on the other hand, you fish them out, your career is going to be shortlived anyways.

This is a fight that has been long fought in the state of Maryland over the blue crab and oyster. The populations are dangerously low. The watermen always cry foul over restrictions and how it hurts their business. Yet anytime they are interviewed, they admit that they only get about a fifth of the amount of crabs and oysters that they used to only a few years ago.

reply to post by Mythkiller


Yeah that Toxic Fish Imports is a great expose.

so hoax right?

news.spreadit.org...

holy crap this guy is going over the deep end. He is trying to make all these bills go through that are completely ridicules i wish he would stop and get some common since.

Some of these posts make my blood boil, like Moonman or whatever.

I pay EVERY year for my fishing license, do you know how many freshwater fish I eat per year? 0...I catch and release, like most of my friends who fish.

They may eat bream, crappie or a catfish or two but those fish are a dime a dozen. There is no shortage of any of these fish.

Our fishing license fees contribute towards the stocking programs of our state, as does federal funds.

Do you know who the biggest harvesters of fish are in our local waters? ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!!!! You can't fish the bank anymore because they are lined shoulder to shoulder and they keep EVERYTHING they catch.

Oh when the game warden shows up do you know who he asks for a fishing license? THE LOCAL WHITE OR BLACK BOYS, THAT IS WHO!!! He showed up one day when I was on the river surrounded by Mexicans and he walked straight to me asking for my fishing license, didn't bother the illegals at all.

I've watched them leave with stringers 3-4x times the legal limits, I've even called DNR. DNR might show up after I call, just to bother ME!

I am sick of this crap, NO ONE is taking a fishing license from me. PERIOD.

Originally posted by daddio


Gathering food is a right to life granted to us by our creator, these laws mean nothing to natural flesh and blood living souls, it only applies to 14th amendment citizens or those who consent. Do not listen to this crap, it's all BS, the "government" being actually a corporation can not make law nor enforce law, any law enforcement officer who adheres to these illegal claims is a traitor and part of the problem, oath of office, where is it?

I agree, but the government doesn't see it that way.

If they did, then how they they require a license to hunt/fish to begin with? A license is nothing more then granted permission.

It's our God given right, I don't need permission from man, even though I abide by the law of the land. I won't abide by it if they take it from me though.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

never met a game warden that could not be intimidated by the pistol on my hip

The real reason most civilians carry guns.

Sometimes honesty slips out unbidden.
when will people evolve beyond violence?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

If it wasn't for people like us, then they would take our fishing away from us and there is nothing we can do about it.

The founding fathers gave us the right to arms for food and to protect us from tyranny.

People won't evolve past violence because the threat of it is mandatory part of life, if you don't stand up for yourself you get owned. Grow a pair.

Originally posted by IandEye
Reply to post by DJW001

 

no they never said 'will' but you have no right to call that poster 'ridiculous'...
I read the biased espn article and it seemed to me that it 'may' happen.....
you sound more worries about the bluefin tuna than humanity.......but I won't say that's ridiculous .......

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

more worried about the blue fin tuna than humanity?? Are u a complete fool??? Humanity is OVERFISHING the waters. So to stop overfishing for a period to allow fish stocks to replenish is actually MORE IMPORTANT TO HUMANITY..

Why are there so many fking idiots on this website thatr have absolutely no commonsense or reason. Not everything is a bad conspiracy. sometimes things are needed to be done for the better for everyone.. peace!!

Originally posted by uk alienhunter
more worried about the blue fin tuna than humanity?? Are u a complete fool??? Humanity is OVERFISHING the waters. So to stop overfishing for a period to allow fish stocks to replenish is actually MORE IMPORTANT TO HUMANITY..

I don't feel that is a very accurate representation of the current state of ocean stock: The problem is that there are inconsistencies with the data collection, and Federal Fisheries laws need to be addressed under the Magnuson Stevens Act. The inconsistencies in data collection should have thrown up red flags everywhere, but this didn't happen for some reason. If the MRFSS provides faulty data and this is used as a basis for the ruling, herein is the problem. More to the point: the damage to the thousands of people who rely on coastal water fishing for a means of income "is the problem".

You can't just brazenly say "Humanity is OVERFISHING the waters" because this isn't the case entirely. There are a ton of other issues that effect several species yearly, and over the course of time (and a majority of these factors are environmental).

reply to post by hawaiinguy12


It is bull. www.snopes.com...

Some are so desparate to find monsters under rocks they post anyhting they hear. The scarier part is that these same people will believe it to, because it fits their world view. Nothing is more dangerous than the marriage of ignorance and reactionary tendancies human being.

People won't evolve past violence because the threat of it is mandatory part of life, if you don't stand up for yourself you get owned. Grow a pair.

Sure, ok Dirty Harry, go ahead, make my day!

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Jam you are right on that there is an over abundace by Corporate fishing companies that have over fished the oceans. Anyone Remeber Happy Feet? They shoul do something about that not your casual gone finshing with the kids guys.

Once again, most are missing the big picture and the reality of what would happen if such a ban were passed.

IF (notice I said IF) American companies and private persons were banned from fishing, the first thing that would happen is that every other country that owned fishing boats - such as the Japanese - would be here in a heartbeat, grabbing all the fish that Americans no longer could.

Just another way to give more American jobs away to foreign countries.

Originally posted by IandEye
Reply to post by DJW001

 

no they never said 'will' but you have no right to call that poster 'ridiculous'...
I read the biased espn article and it seemed to me that it 'may' happen.....
you sound more worries about the bluefin tuna than humanity.......but I won't say that's ridiculous .......

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I was going to try and avoid this thread. Then I started to read. I read the obvious misinterpretation in the OP and then some of the responses since which many were (other than the first) knee jerk emotional replies.

Then I saw this one and I just have to scratch my head.

Why is it always the extremes? Why is it that since that person stated that this was meant to try and allow some VERY IMPORTANT FOOD SOURCES to replenish themselves from overfishing that is means they don't give a damn about people? Or that they care about the tuna more than people? Where did they say that?

This is the line of thought that just confuses me. It's what is plaguing both ends of the left/right spectrum. You have to be extreme one way or the other. Either you're a tree hugger or a war monger. No one can be a straight up logical human being that sees the big picture and understands the importance of trying to minimize the consumption of what is a renewable resource but only if it is allowed to renew itself.

So I have to agree with the first replier in the way that the OPs jump to conclusions was a bit ridiculous.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by searching4truth

 

That is comparing apples and oranges. there is an overpopulation of deer because deer are becoming teh new urban pest. They thrive on urban areas that are making it an easy living for them.

Incorrect.

There is an overpopulation of deer simply because we killed off most if not all of their natural predators. They are in urban areas simply because food is easier to find in gardens than it is out in the woods -plus again urban areas don't have any of their natural predators.

Deer (Bambi) pretty, wolf and mountain lion bad ...