NOAA Eliminating Recreational Fishing. Obama Adm Will Accept No More Public Imput


which was amended by this;
Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) | US EPA
and by executive order now control of ALL waterways is under control of the federal govt, by way of the EPA.
That's immaterial. NOAA stands for
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


and what we are talking about in regards to the OP is limiting fishing in national fisheries, not STATE fisheries or LOCAL fisheries, but National (Oceanic) fisheries.

and they have been given control over all the waters in the country by executive order, and the TARP bill gave the EPA jurisdiction over the water and the wildlife.
That's not immaterial, don't hide your head in the sand, it's real dude.

Read it, our so-called leaders didn't, but we should.
 
Some day the Nanny State Socialists will monitor and control how much you're allowed to eat & drink per day. There will only be Government-controlled and approved fishermen in the future. So enjoy your recreational fishing while you still can. The Nanny State Socialists have a plan for you as well.
 
which was amended by this;
Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) | US EPA
and by executive order now control of ALL waterways is under control of the federal govt, by way of the EPA.
That's immaterial. NOAA stands for
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


and what we are talking about in regards to the OP is limiting fishing in national fisheries, not STATE fisheries or LOCAL fisheries, but National (Oceanic) fisheries.

and they have been given control over all the waters in the country by executive order, and the TARP bill gave the EPA jurisdiction over the water and the wildlife.
That's not immaterial, don't hide your head in the sand, it's real dude.

Read it, our so-called leaders didn't, but we should.
You've gone way off topic, enjoy yourself.

RGS was incorrect when he said this law being discussed would effect state's waterways.

It won't. It only affects national fisheries.
 
Damn bush and that April 2007 law.

got that right.

Too bad some like ravi choose to play partisan and ignore what is happening.

Bush and Clinton are just as much to blame as Obama. Hell, O is just continuing policy that is already in progress.

I got to go. I have a meeting this afternoon.By coincidence, it is a meeting of the 'citizens for fair land use'. Today we have the regional forest supervisor for the Apache Forest speaking to our group about maintaining local control rather than turn it over to DC.
Ironic huh?
 
That's immaterial. NOAA stands for
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


and what we are talking about in regards to the OP is limiting fishing in national fisheries, not STATE fisheries or LOCAL fisheries, but National (Oceanic) fisheries.

and they have been given control over all the waters in the country by executive order, and the TARP bill gave the EPA jurisdiction over the water and the wildlife.
That's not immaterial, don't hide your head in the sand, it's real dude.

Read it, our so-called leaders didn't, but we should.
You've gone way off topic, enjoy yourself.

RGS was incorrect when he said this law being discussed would effect state's waterways.

It won't. It only affects national fisheries.

I am right on topic. You however are blinded by partisanship and therefore share blame for allowing the feds to take control where they deserve none.
have a good time, i gotta go to my meeting.
 
Damn bush and that April 2007 law.

got that right.

Too bad some like ravi choose to play partisan and ignore what is happening.

Bush and Clinton are just as much to blame as Obama. Hell, O is just continuing policy that is already in progress.

I got to go. I have a meeting this afternoon.By coincidence, it is a meeting of the 'citizens for fair land use'. Today we have the regional forest supervisor for the Apache Forest speaking to our group about maintaining local control rather than turn it over to DC.
Ironic huh?
What is partisan about realizing that NOAA has no jurisdiction over inland waterways?
 
With this bunch in Washington DC, expect that they'll use this power grab to regulate anyone who can piss a stream.
I noticed when Bush put this law in to effect you said nothing about it and in fact probably applauded it.

UH, actually, that is when the membership of our group swelled to where we have to meet in the HS gym.

nice try, play partisan and have fun.
 
and they have been given control over all the waters in the country by executive order, and the TARP bill gave the EPA jurisdiction over the water and the wildlife.
That's not immaterial, don't hide your head in the sand, it's real dude.

Read it, our so-called leaders didn't, but we should.
You've gone way off topic, enjoy yourself.

RGS was incorrect when he said this law being discussed would effect state's waterways.

It won't. It only affects national fisheries.

I am right on topic. You however are blinded by partisanship and therefore share blame for allowing the feds to take control where they deserve none.
have a good time, i gotta go to my meeting.
:cuckoo: The feds have jurisdiction over federal fisheries. Always have.
 
With this bunch in Washington DC, expect that they'll use this power grab to regulate anyone who can piss a stream.
I noticed when Bush put this law in to effect you said nothing about it and in fact probably applauded it.

UH, actually, that is when the membership of our group swelled to where we have to meet in the HS gym.

nice try, play partisan and have fun.
bwahahaha! You are the one playing partisan...
 
Damn bush and that April 2007 law.

got that right.

Too bad some like ravi choose to play partisan and ignore what is happening.

Bush and Clinton are just as much to blame as Obama. Hell, O is just continuing policy that is already in progress.

I got to go. I have a meeting this afternoon.By coincidence, it is a meeting of the 'citizens for fair land use'. Today we have the regional forest supervisor for the Apache Forest speaking to our group about maintaining local control rather than turn it over to DC.
Ironic huh?
What is partisan about realizing that NOAA has no jurisdiction over inland waterways?

did you read their 'plan'? They DO now have jurisdiction. fact!
 
This impacts the fishing for migratory fish while they in inland waterways.
Such as Salmon.

Otherwise not much impact.
 
got that right.

Too bad some like ravi choose to play partisan and ignore what is happening.

Bush and Clinton are just as much to blame as Obama. Hell, O is just continuing policy that is already in progress.

I got to go. I have a meeting this afternoon.By coincidence, it is a meeting of the 'citizens for fair land use'. Today we have the regional forest supervisor for the Apache Forest speaking to our group about maintaining local control rather than turn it over to DC.
Ironic huh?
What is partisan about realizing that NOAA has no jurisdiction over inland waterways?

did you read their 'plan'? They DO now have jurisdiction. fact!
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
 
The Nanny State Socialists permeate both political parties at this point unfortunately. One day,recreational fishing will be outlawed all together. The only fishing allowed will be done by Government appointed fishermen. Violators of these laws will be labelled "Poachers" by the Nanny State and will be imprisoned. This seems far-fetched now but it really isn't all that far-fetched when you think about it. People better start waking up.
 
That article was almost entirely devoid of any real information on what is going on.
Lots of rhetoric though.
And according to the pic there are no black fishermen.

Find an article that says something clear on this topic and I would appreciate it.

I get the feeling that recreational fishermen are being used for some other purpose by another group or two.
Basically, over fished areas are being closed to fishing to allow stocks to rebound.

If Arizona Fish and Game, as well as NM Fish and Game is concerned, so am I.

We all want to support the proper management of our wildlife, some of us even volunteer to help. Some of us have even performed citizen's arrests to support enforcement of wildlife management.

As with all things scientific, when politics gets involved, science goes out the window.

I've been over at NOAA reading up on their attempts to manage the nation's fisheries. If their data is correct, they've already had success with scallops increasing the commercial take from $87 mil in 1994 to $370 mil in 2008. Living in and coming from parts of the country where fishing is big business, I know that commercial fishermen will fish the oceans until they are devoid of life (at least thats what their track record indicates). Someone has to manage our fisheries, and if the fishermen (commercial) won't do it then who will? Our past shows me that this is not something that will be accomplished voluntarily.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top