No more fishing for any of us?

[mauso1]

another point of view as absurd as the others?


http://mediamatters.org/research/201003100014

[BlueCrab]

From the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation:

“In June 2009 President Obama released a memo creating the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Ocean Policy Task Force has 90 days to come up with recommendations on a National Ocean Policy and 180 days to come up with recommendations regarding marine spatial planning. The Task Force is to come up with an implementation strategy that identifies and prioritizes a set of objectives that should be undertaken in order to meet the objectives of a national policy. The use of MPAs as an ocean management tool is expected to be part of the Task Force recommendations.”

“In practice, MPAs are defined areas where natural and/or cultural resources are given greater protection than the surrounding waters. In the U.S., MPAs span a range of habitats including the open ocean, coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, estuaries, and the parts of the Great Lakes. They also vary widely in purpose, legal authorities, agencies, management approaches, levels of protection, and restrictions on human uses. An MPA is not necessarily a no fishing zone, also called a marine reserve, but increasingly the proposals for new MPAs contain provisions for permanent recreational fishing closures, even though there may not be evidence of any significant damage to underwater habitat by traditional recreational fishing methods or overly depressed fish stocks. Some environmental groups call for sweeping "ocean wilderness areas" or marine reserves purely for ideological purposes.”

http://www.sportsmenslink.org/

[Evan]

The Dry Tortugas became America's first Ocean Wilderness Area way back in 2001. They still allow fishing there, right?

http://www.drytortugasinfo.com/americas ... rness.html

[Todd]

The rest of the story...

By Steve Bowman
Executive Editor ESPNOutdoors.com
Archive

Firestorms get started in a variety of ways, especially on politicized issues.

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest piece in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of those -- it was an opinion piece, and should clearly have been labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of this topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

This series started in October and has included several updates on how the creation of that task force and its actions could impact recreational anglers. ESPNOutdoors.com should have made it clear to all readers that this was part of a larger series, and -- even though this was Montgomery's opinion, and those of the sources quoted in the column -- we should have taken more care to fairly represent opposing arguments.

We do feel it is our duty to cover issues surrounding outdoor sports to the best of our abilities, and given the nature of this task force and the potential impact on all fisherman, this was an appropriate topic to address for our audience. We take seriously the tenets of journalism that require we take an unbiased approach, and when we make mistakes in the presentation of a story or a column, it is our responsibility to admit them.

Any confusion on that part rests entirely on my shoulders as the executive editor of this site.

We have appended the original column to note that it was in fact a commentary, and we will institute more rigorous editing safeguards in order to prevent such issues in the future.

[BlueCrab]

The White House responds:

"These draft reports are not map-drawing exercises, they do not contain a zoning plan and they do not establish any restrictions on recreational fishing or on public access, nor make any judgments about whether one ocean activity or use is better than another," Christine Glunz, spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement to FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

Glunz said the task force "sincerely appreciates" the conservation efforts of recreational fishermen and women, and it believes their continued enjoyment of that activity is "critical to the economic, social and cultural fabric" of the United States.

"In fact, one of our main goals is to ensure healthier ocean, coasts and Great Lakes, which will benefit all recreational activities and the communities and economies that rely on them," Glunz wrote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... latestnews

This is good news, but the final report will be where the rubber meets the pavement.

BTW: Only 54% of the Dry Tortugas MPA is open to recreational fishing. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[mauso1]

http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/is ... d=14653146" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[screwballl]

Information as it pertains to us:

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/florida.html

Red Snapper Fishery Closed
On December 3, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced an interim rule that will prohibit commercial and recreational anglers from fishing for red snapper in federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and the Atlantic coast of Florida. The six-month closure became effective on January 4, 2010, and can be extended an additional six months if NMFS deems it necessary. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council requested the fisheries service implement this interim rule while the council explores long-term measures to address the critical condition of red snapper.

This is just scratching the surface. They could ban fishing for freshwater and saltwater for years at a time until the environmentalist wackos (or change in administration) actually open it back up.

I say bring it on, they start with fishing, work their way into hunting and then to our guns. People will be fighting back if anything major does happen.

[Evan]

There is a big difference between "fishing" and "harvesting" (at least for some of us). Just because you cannot keep a certain species doesn't mean you cannot fish for them...

[Rik]

The red snapper closure was science based to address declining stocks. Yes, you can dispute the science behind the closure and many have. Yes, you can dispute the fairness of including recs with commercial (and many have). However, this isn't a shut out the recreational fisherman type thing as is being bantered about with this latest uproar.

I would bet that the vast majority of us would agree with a temporary closure that was the result of a properly conducted scientific study that showed drastically declining stocks.

Must we remain vigilant? Absolutely! The 'sea kitty' crowd (a small but vocal group of extreme so called environmentalists) has been trying to get this stuff passed for many, many years and will continue their efforts.