Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

travelinman67 wrote: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.

D1B wrote:
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 wrote:

D1B wrote:
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.

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.

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

OSBF wrote:yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

OSBF wrote:yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

Wedgebuster wrote:

OSBF wrote:yeah.......just like he was gonna ban guns............

Or just maybe fishing with guns.

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.

dbackjon wrote:Great step - this only puts the original intent back.

Over dramatic much, T-man?

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

D1B wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Great step - this only puts the original intent back.

Over dramatic much, T-man?

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

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.

travelinman67 wrote: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.

kalm wrote: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.