Posted on 03/10/2010 12:36:36 PM PST by Reaganesque
Apparently, the story at Red State ("Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I’LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing") has touched a nerve on liberal websites. They are now claiming that it's all a hoax and there's absolutely no truth to it. Here's an example:
President Obama, though remains in news but this time, there is a different reason for his being in news. Anti-Obama extremists are going mad and wild against him and every time, they try to hit him through different angles and issues. Although, that’s not a critical matter yet some people are going just crazy about it. The issue relates to fishing industry in the United States where it is being said that Obama administration is thinking to ban fishing sport in USA in an order to save endangered species. It is just a hoax and there is no truth behind it.
Actually, a few days ago, ESPN published a story saying Obama Administration is planning to ban fishing in the United States. People are highly criticizing Obama for this act saying it is a violation of their rights and it can’t be possible.
Other sources say that actually Obama administration is backing a plan to ban the fishing of bluefin tuna to preserve it. Monaco had proposed a trading ban of bluefin tuna and Obama is supporting this ban. It does not mean that Obama wants American citizens to stop fishing in local lakes.
Various responsible sources quickly denied that saying Obama Administarion was not going to stop 60,000,000 Americans to enjoy their favorite recreational activity on American lakes. Jeffery Weeks from Charlotte Fishing Examiner says that it was the most absurd and irresponsible thing he ever seen a major news outlet published.
I think ESPN is a pretty responsible news source and they ought to represent their point clearly before public.
Well, as most of us have learned, when lefties scream "LIAR!" that frequently means that there is at least some truth to the matter. So, in doing a little research, this is what I found:
From ESPN's article:
Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling. As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled "Transition Green" shortly after Obama was elected in 2008.
What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper, according to Morlock.
In late summer, just after the administration created the task force, these groups produced "Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy." This document makes repeated references to "overfishing," but doesn't reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.
Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias with their attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.
Also, recreational angling and commercial fishing have been lumped together as harmful to the resource, despite protests by the angling industry.
The ESPN article does not claim that there is a definite ban in the offering but that one is possible given the broad generalizations within their reports and their recent history of legislation both passed and attempted. Nor does it even mention Blue Fin Tuna. It simply refers to reports and activists who are supporting policy reccommendations that could easily be interpreted into a total ban.
Here are some quotes from the above mentioned "Transition to Green" document:
Despite the lack of data, the Bush administration has offered large swaths of the oceans and terrestrial areas in the Arctic for oil and gas development and set a course for offering even more areas in the coming years. Its latest push for energy development now includes unfolding new plans for recovering natural gas in the form of gas hydrates. In addition, the changing climate is creating the potential for other large-scale industrial threats from shipping, fishing and mining. For example, diesel-powered ships, generators and vehicles associated with any of these activities will generate even more black carbon, accelerating the melting of sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet. Further, as sea ice melts, opportunities for industrial fishing move northward.
Pg. 1-4
1. Establish an interagency task force to support development of an Arctic conservation plan
To develop a comprehensive plan, it will be necessary for the new Administration to gather all key agencies whose authority and programs affect the Arctic into an interagency Arctic Task Force. In conjunction with input from local Arctic communities, this Task Force would begin the process of reassessing existing Arctic Ocean and NPRA leasing, developing precautionary fishing and shipping plans and standards, establishing mitigation measures for areas in which development occurs, and evaluating areas for permanent protection.
Pg. 1-5
Without better data and a careful, comprehensive conservation and development plan, the risk of irreversible damage to the Arctic brought on by a warming climate will be compounded by an explosion of industrial and commercial activity. As sea ice melts, the Arctic Ocean will be increasingly used for shipping, bringing air and water pollution and support facilities in its wake. Fisheries stocks requiring cold waters will migrate north; industrial trawlers will follow, repeating their familiar pattern of overfishing – only this time in the last possible refuge to which cold-water species can retreat before their ultimate annihilation.
Pg. 1-8
4. Freeze expansion of industrial activity The new Administration should seek agreement from all relevant States to freeze expansion of industrial fishing, shipping, mining and oil and gas development pending adoption of the new Arctic environmental treaty.
Pg. 1-14
Prior to its incorporation into DHS, the Coast Guard reported that its work on safety and environmental issues amounted to more than half of its operational activity. Now, at least well-founded anecdotal evidence suggests that in many key areas (for example, off the coast of Florida), the Coast Guard is unable to monitor for violations of fishing regulations or other environmental and resource protection transgressions unless it happens to come across such actions while on a drug-related interdiction or security-mission activity that they are doing for DHS.
Pg. 8-6
High seas management: The high seas – waters beyond the 200 mile limits of national jurisdiction -- comprise 45% of the planet’s surface. Marine biodiversity in these waters is under increasing threat from overfishing, noise and chemical pollution, habitat destruction and now ocean warming and ocean acidification related to climate change. Even if UNCLOS is ratified, there is still a need for a specific management framework to govern human activities on the high seas, e.g., for creating multi-sector marine protected areas, addressing overfishing, or coordinating assessment and management of cumulative impacts across sectors.
Pg. 11-6
3. Freshwater management
The Secretary should formulate a comprehensive and integrated global water policy with the aim of ensuring enough clean water for people and ecosystems. This would entail: (1) convening an international panel of experts to assess the status and trends of global water resources, and to develop science-based tools to predict where water scarcity is likely to arise, how long it will last, who will be affected; (2) convening a series of regional river-basin-wide water strategy forums to address water needs for people, food production, and biodiversity across international boundaries and on the scale of river basins and aquifers, starting with priority water basins under imminent threat (major rivers of south Asia and the major rivers of sub-Saharan Africa); (3) working with Congress to enact legislation on global water security that would establish a program to assist in sustainable water management across the globe, complementing the Water for the Poor Act by addressing basin-wide water management.
Pg. 11-7
NOAA should fulfill the promise of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act which strengthened the existing requirement to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished species, and called on NMFS to comply with NEPA in fisheries decisions. In addition, NMFS must take needed steps to address illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing to crack down on global overexploitation of ocean resources.
Pg. 15-1
The new Administration should support the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act with a variety of amendments, including provisions to: clarify that conservation is the purpose of the sanctuaries system; lift the moratorium on establishment of additional sanctuaries; include a percentage goal for the overall size of the sanctuary system; give primacy for managing fish inside sanctuaries to sanctuary managers not NMFS; to prohibit additional harmful activities such as noise; and to streamline the sanctuary designation, planning and review processes. Such reauthorization should set the stage for the establishment of a national network of Ocean Heritage Areas that comprise a significant portion of the Federal EEZ and include a range of allowable uses, from no take zones to areas where some uses (e.g. recreational fishing) could be allowed. In addition, NOAA should also support efforts to establish ocean protected areas internationally.
Pgs. 15-4, 15-5
4. Institute Adaptive Management
In addition to collecting the best information possible about the impacts of climate change, that information must be put to use in real time to improve the resilience of our marine ecosystems and resources, including our fisheries and other marine wildlife. This approach must include reducing marine related stresses and adaptively changing management strategies based on evolving information, including reducing pressure associated with fishing techniques, fishing levels, and ocean pollution as appropriate.
Pg. 15-11
The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) strengthened the mandate of existing law to end overfishing by requiring a system of science-based annual catch limits, backed by accountability measures, and by clarifying that a period of overfishing is not allowed under rebuilding plans. The reauthorized law also required the agency to update procedures for complying with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations, including procedures related to environmental review and public participation. Finally, it provided needed directives to crack down on illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing.
Pg. 15-12
The new Administration should ensure that overfishing does not occur through reliance on a system of annual catch limits and accountability mechanisms. It should require: the implementation of mandatory scientifically derived buffers between annual catch limits and overfishing limits; that models used to determine annual catch limit be based on a 90% probability that overfishing will not occur under such limits; and the establishment of a system of accountability tied to preventing annual catch limits from being exceeded in a given year.
Pg. 15-13
Left undefined in this document, amongst other things, is the term "overfishing." The article mentioned the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act so, I went there for a definition of "overfishing." This is what it says:
104-297
(29) The terms "overfishing" and "overfished" mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.
OK. So now we have even more unanswered questions. What rate? What level? What do you mean by mortality? How do you mean jeopardize? How do you define "maximum sustainable yield?" So the left is making draconian solutions to a problem they can't (or won't) define based upon vague definitions. It would be funny if they weren't doing so much damage to this country.
Libs demand lawyerly specificity when it comes to their rights, arguing ad naseum, about the legal definition of a word but when it comes to the rights of others, then there are "shades" and "nuances." The Constitution itself is a "living document," except when it comes to the rights the Left holds dear. So, you'll have to forgive us, dear friends on the Left, if we are suspicious when you want to make such drastic changes in the way we live our lives when your reasoning is based upon such deliberately vague definitions. Its not like this is the first time you've done this to us. We have every right to be suspicious.
As with all other things it doesn’t matter, they’ll cover it elsewhere. I’m sure the clean water restoration act will pick it up. If not, the great lakes czar can issue a decree.
So now they claim ESPN is a right wing wacko outfit?
The White House would be totally surprised to learn that this document is a fake:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf
This administration is showing us that it has only one purpose - to turn this Nation into a Marxist state.
To that end - it will take any half-baked idea, such as this, and force feed it to the American public.
ESPN is part of the lieberal media.
They should stick with selling water mellons.
the same corporate media was quick to spread the lies that Sarah Palin enjoyed socialized medicine in Canada and that Rush Limbaugh would be moving to Costa Rica if Obamacare passes.
“In addition, the changing climate is creating the potential for other large-scale industrial threats from shipping, fishing and mining. For example, diesel-powered ships, generators and vehicles associated with any of these activities will generate even more black carbon, accelerating the melting of sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet. Further, as sea ice melts, opportunities for industrial fishing move northward.”
Ahh - One Hundred and TWO uses for global warming.
ESPN is owned by ABCDisney News, fired Rush Limbaugh for being “political” and kept Hunter S. Thompson on staff when he said that the Abu Ghraib scandal was more horrific that the worst of the NAZI attrocities.
The EPA’S ruling that Co2 is a pollutant has set the tone for the rest of this administration.
Wholesale insanity....
If this admin wasn’t a bunch of marxists hell bent on destroying our country, the story would have been treated as a joke. As it is, we don’t trust any of those pukes in dc on anything.
big bump
Thank you for the reminder. Sometimes we tend to think we will always live in a free country and we fall back into our old habits of debating facts and goals.
Thanks for the link.
It's really adolescent behavior...
Gee, I though the Second Amendment protected hunting (and presumably fishing).
What do they propose to do about Asian carp? Use CO2 to kill them off? Why not do something sensible like open the season permanently for invasive species then pay a bounty for those killed (like Michigan did with feral hogs).
Freedom is, to some of us.
ML/NJ (who hasn't killed a fish in 50 years)
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or fishing. There is no constitutional right to hunt or fish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.