Obama To Use Executive Order To Ban Recreational Fishing

[travelinman67]

No shit...

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... id=4975762

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....

..."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.

More Obama envirowhacko destruction of civil liberties.

[dbackjon]

I see that Obama is backing a Blue-fin Tuna fishing ban in order to replenish the stocks of this fish

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.acti ... 4978093288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

No shit...

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... id=4975762

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....

..."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.

More Obama envirowhacko destruction of civil liberties.

Good, we've destroyed most water systems. God bless Obama.

Tbag's world:



God forbid we bother industry or force people to take better care of our water. Who needs water anyway.

[AZGrizFan]

Good, we've destroyed most water systems. God bless Obama.

Tbag's world:



God forbid we bother industry or force people to take better care of our water. Who needs water anyway.

Wait until he gets to banning fishing on the lakes in Wisconsin & Minnesota.

[D1B]

Good, we've destroyed most water systems. God bless Obama.

Tbag's world:



God forbid we bother industry or force people to take better care of our water. Who needs water anyway.

Wait until he gets to banning fishing on the lakes in Wisconsin & Minnesota.

If they're deemed in need of protection, like some are, then go for it. The health of the ecosystem is more important than my priviledge to fish.

Course this selflessness is foreign to people like you and Tbag.

[kalm]

Well they can pry my Scott 4 weight from my cold, dead fingers.

Although I'm not about to get hysterical about an op-ed piece from ESPN written by a dude from Bass Pro Shops.

[RobsPics]

Some part-time warehouse knuckle dragger writing an article on his shift break = not news worthy.

[travelinman67]

Typical libs...

...attack the source...ignore the substance.

Assuming either of you can read...the report is very clear...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... -Force.pdf

You can find on page 5 what this "framework" will effect:
The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are home to and support myriad important human uses. CMSP provides an effective process to better manage a range of social, economic, and cultural uses, including:

• Aquaculture (fish, shellfish, and seaweed farming)

• Commerce and Transportation (e.g. cargo and cruise ships, tankers, and ferries)

• Commercial Fishing

• Environmental/Conservation (e.g., marine sanctuaries, reserves, national parks, and wildlife refuges)

• Maritime Heritage and Archeology

• Mining (e.g., sand and gravel)

• Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

• Ports and Harbors

• Recreational Fishing

• Renewable Energy (e.g., wind, wave, tidal, current, and thermal)

• Other Recreation (e.g., boating, beach access, swimming, nature and whale watching, and diving)

• Scientific Research and Exploration

• Security, Emergency Response, and Military Readiness Activities

• Tourism

• Traditional Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering
Did they miss anything?

Did you pick up on "commercial fishing" and "recreational fishing"?

Anybody out there see Federal fishing licenses coming?

If you can think of anything that this "framework" would not include then check out the box on Page 3 (6 of the pdf file) and see if there is anything you can think of that would not be included. Don't overlook the "flood prevention" if you live in one of our CAMA counties.

The idea is that another Federal bureaucracy would be created by Presidential Executive Order that would implement a policy of comprehensive "spatial planning" of the nation's territorial waters off shore, but on page 9 of the report (page 12 of the pdf file) we find:
The geographic scope would include inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes settings. Inclusion of inland bays and estuaries is essential because of the significant ecological, social, and economic linkages between these areas with offshore areas. Additional inland areas may be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies, described in Section IX below, deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and ecosystem health. Likewise, consideration should also be given to activities occurring beyond the EEZ that may influence resources or activities within the EEZ.
In another section they talk about meshing the CMSP with existing state, regional and local planning agencies. Presumably, for North Carolina that would include the Coastal Resources Commission, Wildlife Resources Commission, Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Article ... urces.html

"Soze...just cuz Obama sez he's going to regerlate rekreashunal fishing, don't mean he'z gonna ban it!! Sheesh!!"

[grizzaholic]

b-b-bb-b-but T-Man, doesn't the Government always know what is best for us little minded fellows?

[OSBF]

yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

[Wedgebuster]

yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

Or just maybe fishing with guns.

[kalm]

yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

And carbon, and Wall Street greed, and...

[OSBF]

yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

Or just maybe fishing with guns.

i like fishing with c-4

[mainejeff]

Obama is going to do NOTHING. He has NO power. I'd be more worried about the next Republican President banning sh*t than the one-termer currently residing in the White House.

[travelinman67]

Plan B

This about agricultural runoff. The language removed does not exempt farming operations from EPA purveyance and regulatory control, i.e., permits and fines. Passage would have greater economic harm than the '72 CAA and result in the relocation of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of jobs and the potential loss of hundreds of billions in annual GDP contributing industry. If this makes it through committee, expect to see huge industry opposition.

Bill would widen Clean Water ActOpponents see federal power grab

House Democrats pushed forward Wednesday with an effort to delete the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act - a change that would give the government greater ability to enforce clean-water rules but that opponents said amounts to a federal power grab.

Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he's trying to return the law to where it was before 2001, when the Supreme Court issued the first of two rulings that said the Clean Water Act's use of "navigable" limits the government's oversight to major rivers, lakes and similar waterways.

Environmentalists say those rulings and subsequent George W. Bush administration regulations have been exploited by polluters.

"Clean, safe water is a right for all Americans," said Mr. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat. "Unless we act, the law can't ensure that right. Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted."

He said his intention was to return the law to its status in 2001, which he said had the agreement of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Both sides were still poring over the ins and outs of the legislation, but opponents said they fear the bill goes further than Mr. Oberstar is letting on.

"If this bill were to become law, there'd be no body of water in America that wouldn't be at risk of job-killing federal regulation - from farmers' irrigation canals to backyard ponds and streams to mud puddles left by rainstorms," said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.

The Waters Advocacy Coalition, made up of farm, manufacturing and housing advocacy groups, said the bill would upset the federal-state balance that has developed on water protection.

At its core, the fight is over how broadly Congress wanted the 1972 Clean Water Act to be applied.

The law in one place says the act was to protect the nation's waters, but in other places, it says it's meant to govern "navigable" waters. The Supreme Court ruled that constrained the Environmental Protection Agency to regulating waterways big enough for ship traffic.

[mainejeff]

We should just kill everyone off with pollution and toxins and then we won't have to worry about regulations.

[dbackjon]

Great step - this only puts the original intent back.

Over dramatic much, T-man?

All those jobs existed before 2001. Ain't going nowhere.

[Appaholic]

Great step - this only puts the original intent back.

Over dramatic much, T-man?

All those jobs existed before 2001. Ain't going nowhere.

TMAn, like most Californians with regards to water, is just pissed because this means they'll have to speed up the construction of water diversions from other states to get in "under the radar". tssk...a Californian bitching about water regulations...

[Gil Dobie]

You need to frickin' flush once in a while D

[travelinman67]

Great step - this only puts the original intent back.

Over dramatic much, T-man?

All those jobs existed before 2001. Ain't going nowhere.

What's remarkable, Jon, is that you're far more close-minded than most of the conservatives I know.'

This bill enables stormwater runoff to fall under EPA pollution control.

What does this mean?

Every business with a parking lot becomes responsible for the "pollutants" contained in the rainwater that runs off that parking lot.

Every drop.

If a business buys an already constructed facility, which has asphalt containing chemicals that leach out and mix with rainwater, then that business becomes liable for constructing a SWPP (Stormwater Pollution Plan) certified catchbasin to treat the runoff before allowing the runoff to enter the soil or storm drain.
Currently only California and a few other states have implemented a SWPP requirement for NEW construction over the past decade.
This bill would enable the EPA to implement a remediation requirement for every existing business in the U.S.

Not gross polluters.

Every business, including that Raji mart on the corner; the office complex down the street; the shopping center; your local butcher; your favorite restaurant.

And those businesses with dirt parking or storage areas...

...will be subject to soil testing and pollutant remediation...

...for every drop of oil and coolant that leaks from every vehicle that parks on their property.



Ever wonder why China and India are running away from the world in productivity?


Look in the mirror, Jon.

[travelinman67]

IBD's editorial...

Troubled Waters
Posted 07:07 PM ET

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=531329

Rep. James Oberstar wants to rewrite the Clean Water Act. If the Minnesota Democrat gets his way, the federal government will have even greater authority to take private property.

This isn't Oberstar's first attempt. In 2007 he also tried to rewrite the water bill. He and others weren't happy with Supreme Court rulings that defined the limits Washington has over bodies of water that have no nexus to navigable waters.

They want full federal control over all waters.

Consequently, changing the law has become an obsession for Oberstar, and not a harmless one. Should his rewrite become law, property owners will pay.

Oberstar, who represents the 8th District in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, wants to strike from the Clean Water Act the word "navigable," a restriction in the original bill based on constitutional principles that limit Washington's regulatory reach.

Without that check, the federal apparatus will have dominion over all waters in America. Rainstorm puddles, mud holes, drainage and irrigation ditches, ponds, intermittent streams and prairie potholes on private lands. These have nothing to do with interstate commerce, but would suddenly be subject to federal rules — as would adjacent property — if the word is removed from the law.

This would be a historic expansion of federal authority and has the potential to be a gross violation of Americans' liberty.

Farmers should be particularly concerned. The Oberstar bill gives federal regulators the power to police farming practices and to take their land through regulatory restrictions if those practices are deemed to be in violation of the law.

With the federal government already hobbling California farmers by denying them water, in large part due to the Endangered Species Act, Oberstar's ambition is an existential threat to farms.

When Oberstar tried to enlarge Washington's reach in 2007, Richard Baker, then a Republican congressman from Louisiana, a state filled with waterways, called the bill "the largest-ever expansion of federal powers over private property."

There's no reason to believe his current bill would be any kinder to farmers, ranchers, developers, average homeowners or the Constitution, which forbids the government from taking private property by whim.

Like almost everyone else in his party in Washington, Oberstar has gone too far. This assault on the private sector has left Americans in need of protection until they can get to the ballot box in November. We hope the minority party is up to the task.

What amazes me most, is the response of those who don't face the imminent loss of their own property. Not only do they not speak out against these totalitarian proposals, they ignore (or cheer) the collective damage (costs) to every American vicariously harmed. (dback, D1B, OB... )

[death dealer]

Plan B

This about agricultural runoff. The language removed does not exempt farming operations from EPA purveyance and regulatory control, i.e., permits and fines. Passage would have greater economic harm than the '72 CAA and result in the relocation of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of jobs and the potential loss of hundreds of billions in annual GDP contributing industry. If this makes it through committee, expect to see huge industry opposition.

Bill would widen Clean Water ActOpponents see federal power grab

House Democrats pushed forward Wednesday with an effort to delete the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act - a change that would give the government greater ability to enforce clean-water rules but that opponents said amounts to a federal power grab.

Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he's trying to return the law to where it was before 2001, when the Supreme Court issued the first of two rulings that said the Clean Water Act's use of "navigable" limits the government's oversight to major rivers, lakes and similar waterways.

Environmentalists say those rulings and subsequent George W. Bush administration regulations have been exploited by polluters.

"Clean, safe water is a right for all Americans," said Mr. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat. "Unless we act, the law can't ensure that right. Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted."

He said his intention was to return the law to its status in 2001, which he said had the agreement of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Both sides were still poring over the ins and outs of the legislation, but opponents said they fear the bill goes further than Mr. Oberstar is letting on.

"If this bill were to become law, there'd be no body of water in America that wouldn't be at risk of job-killing federal regulation - from farmers' irrigation canals to backyard ponds and streams to mud puddles left by rainstorms," said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.

The Waters Advocacy Coalition, made up of farm, manufacturing and housing advocacy groups, said the bill would upset the federal-state balance that has developed on water protection.

At its core, the fight is over how broadly Congress wanted the 1972 Clean Water Act to be applied.

The law in one place says the act was to protect the nation's waters, but in other places, it says it's meant to govern "navigable" waters. The Supreme Court ruled that constrained the Environmental Protection Agency to regulating waterways big enough for ship traffic.

Dude, this is one area where I am a libtard. We need a huge reorganization of how we subsidized and grow our food. Starting with corn. It is way too big an issue to discuss here. But it needs to be done.

Also, you brought an issue into the discussion that hurts your overall case with your target audience. It's an issue that many of us fishermen are very aware of and passionate about, agricultural runoff. It is phucking up a lot of our most at risk fisheries. So don't try to get a lot of sympathy for the mega farmers from us.

[Chizzang]

Well as has been obvious over time:
T-man will jump on (and ride) any conservative issue - regardless of validity, merit or strength of position...
If it's in the Rush Limbaugh play book he's right on it



now he'll resist this claim verbally but his actions (over time) can't be argued

[kalm]

Hitler tried to take away fishing and dirty water too.

The perceived rights of property owners are threatened. Try building a dam on the small creek running through your property. Then again the water in that creek as well as storm water that recharges an aquifer belongs to all of us. So if you divert or pollute it you are infringing upon the rights of everyone else. It's a ticklish area and will get more heated as the population increases.

[Chizzang]

Hitler tried to take away fishing and dirty water too.

The perceived rights of property owners are threatened. Try building a dam on the small creek running through your property. Then again the water in that creek as well as storm water that recharges an aquifer belongs to all of us. So if you divert or pollute it you are infringing upon the rights of everyone else. It's a ticklish area and will get more heated as the population increases.

1) "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."

2)"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.

The "reaction" from the writer of this blog is not reflective of the actual data that he has...
which is near zero data