The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

Actually, the president can't make a new law with his executive order privileges he can only modify existing congress passed laws. He can use an executive order to modify or further define the policies of federal agencies but he can't simply ban fishing with an executive order. He could modify the laws or policies of federal agencies that deal with fishing or set up a counsel to examine sport fishing but he can't simply ban it. He could conceivably ban fishing in specific areas by modifing endangered species laws I suppose. Executive orders can be overturned by congress with a 2/3rds vote too so it would be pretty hard to make it stick.

Shawn wrote:
He could conceivably ban fishing in specific areas by modifing endangered species laws I suppose. Executive orders can be overturned by congress with a 2/3rds vote too so it would be pretty hard to make it stick.

Give the man a cigar!

The current president can and will modify anything close or containing similar language...and good luck getting 2/3 to overturn...remember, the democrat lock-stepping loyalsists still have a simple majority in both houses...and they aint gonna go against the Historic One!

There's other ways around congress, Hitler found a way around the German legistature...he had his brownshirts burn it down...if the Capital burns, will purple shirted thugs be responsible?

FTITCTAJ

Paul

Here is some interesting information on Lubchenco. Note that those behind Lubchenco are also behind the funding of the MLPAI which has already closed off large swaths of CA ocean waters to recreational and commercial fishing.

But this is just conspiracy theory stuff, right?

http://aha...nquest-of-the-ocean.html

1992 ""Lubchenco was awarded a Pew Fellowship for $150,000"", The conquest of the oceans by special interest groups begins...

MN

But what's the point of that post? To show that someone has aced the system to make a money-making career out of fisheries management? Or to address the fact that oceans are seriously over-fished, that commercial fishermen from around the world, using trawlers and gill nets and other non-discriminating fishing practices have scoured the seas and in fact are endangering species? Are there not people on the opposite side of this debate working just as hard and getting just as much money to counter these claims? Fine, we can all eat fake fish and fish for simulated salmon on our computers or Wii's.

Just sharing information, information that you won't find on Faux or CNN. Do with it what you please. Recreational fishermen's rights are diminshing quickly and methodically by design and not by the design of the true conservationists, the recreational fishermen themselves.

MN

What is the point of your post, Andrew? To defend the environmentalist side? That seems clear and you are welcome to your opinion. The funding is on that side and eventually it will prevent you from enjoying your FFing endeavors. Enjoy it while you can.

My response is errantly above, but the message is clear.

MN

No, that wasn't exactly my point. There were a couple of points. First was that for every woman like the one in the article who was using foundation money for this side of an issue, there's someone using foundation money to support the other. My other point was that there are in fact legitimate concerns about the state of fisheries, especially oceanic fisheries. I spent part of my afternoon sitting on my ass watching Rivers of a Lost Coast today--for anyone on this board who hasn't seen it I recommend it as highly as I can. If you've ever fished in California you will find it fascinating. Fact is that the salmon and steelhead fisheries in Northern California were the envy of the world, and through a variety of factors they are virtually dead now. They were well-screwed by the time I got around to exploring the Russian and the Eel. There's one scene about anglers targeting fish stranded in a pool by drought. And there are interviews with these guys who in retrospect realize how shortsighted they were about the management of the resource. You can hear the heartbreak in their voices.

Do I think Obama is going to shut down fishing in America? What exactly do you think I'm smoking? There is no way that this country would put up with b.s. like that. Is it possible that fisheries may be highly regulated, like they shut down coastal salmon fishing in California and Southern Oregon? I thought that was likely the right thing to do, and I bet there will be other situations where it's merited. Like after poison spilled in the Upper Sac. That was the right thing to do to restore that fishery.

Do I think environmentalists do a better job protect natural resources? Hell yes I do. Without the environmental movement we'd all be fishing with pork bait for catfish by now.

ANDREW- YOU IGNORANT SLUT!!! (does that feel more like the "good 'ol days"?)(I love Dan Akroyd))

I hesitate to type anything on this board because it will probably disappear into Al Gore's brain, and waste my time.

This is an issue that has been around for about 9 months, and is just now getting real attention because of a leaked intergovernmental memo last week. http://www....org/Document.Doc?id=130

The memo identifies approximately 13 million acres in nine western states for “National Monument” designation under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Act allows the President to make these designations without Congressional approval or local input. Prior Monument designations have caused trouble for hunters and wildlife conservation. For example, President Carter created millions of acres of National Park Service Monuments in Alaska which immediately closed the areas to sport hunting. It took a subsequent act of Congress to undo many of these hunting closures. President Clinton also created Monuments at the last day of his term. Wilderness activists have since blocked wildlife management projects in these areas arguing that conservation efforts are inconsistent with Monument purposes.

Although a Monument designation does not automatically limit hunting or other uses, experience has shown that this designation can have a negative impact on access and conservation efforts. Any change in public land use should only occur after open discussion with stakeholders allowing them to voice their concerns, if any.

As far as closing down coastal and fresh waters to fishing, it is being done right here in California, under the most biased and corrupt dog and pony show I have ever seen. Governor Gasbag is trying to create the apperance of being the "GREEN" Governor, all the while planning the future raping and pillaging of the State using my wallet and yours by his wealthy buddies and the dumbasses in the Legislature on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. . We have F&G Commissioners with with obvious bias,(Sutton), a Commissioner who was leaning toward voting against the MLPA, thrown off the F&G Comm on a Friday and replaced with the former leader of the BRTF( Benninghoven) , wardens tell the Commission they don't have the $$$ or manpower to enforce, and they still voted for the plan put worth by the anti-angler groups. Just look at the makeup of the BRTF and tell me why those F-ing A-holes are on that committee ( appointed by GAS)

I have NEVER seen a major Corporation take sides in a fishery issue, yet read this: http://fis.../feds_to_60_million.html

http://advocacy.shimano.com/publish/content/advocacy/en/us/index/alert_360/governor_schwarzenegger.html

http://advocacy.shimano.com/publish/content/advocacy/en/us/index/alert_360/the_white_house_press.html

President Obama may not be about to ban fishing but there are more difficult times and confusing regulations for anglers ahead. Before we start pointing fingers and believing wild conspiracies we need to look at fisheries management history and put the blame for this all where it really belongs. Anytime the government says "I'm here to fix things," I look for the nearest California Grizzly Bear or Spring Chinook Salmon to ask him "how's that workin' out for ya?"

I don't trust ANY one who automatically groups recreational /private party anglers with commercial anglers. I am not dragging gill nets around raping the whole sea, I target one fish at a time, and no more than I can consume.

The MLPA process is corrupt, and if this is a foreshadowing of what is coming when the Feds get involved, God help us.

Hey Mike, it actually was on Fox News, Sean Hannity reported on it in more depth in the last few days. It is a big issue, and all the poo-pooing by the backbenchers is just because they don't know what is going on. Thanks for posting it up. Brian

TN,

My post above was placed in the wrong space. What I meant was that the article I posted below about big money behind Lubchenco would not be seen on the major networks.

MN

Oh yeah, feels like the old days. Two of those links didn't work, but the one about monuments didn't fill me with trepidation about loss of fishing access. As to Sean Hannity, yeah, I'm taking everything that guy says to the bank.

Try them now.
I don't know why it truncates them. (friggin board software) If these don't work, I'll email it to you.

http://www....org/Document.Doc?id=130

http://www....org/Document.Doc?id=130


http://fis.../feds_to_60_million.html


http://fish.shimano.com/publish/content/global_fish/en/us/index/articles/feds_to_60_million.html

The issue about the Monuments is that it can be done, and has been done by GWB, Clinton, and Carter to avoid going thru Congress. I don't like Executive orders from either political party. We don't need a king. The blame all gets put on the easiest target (anglers), the pollution and the polluters get a free pass.

6 weeks until TROUT OPENER!!!!