BASS BARN banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
You have been pushing this on other site message boards as well as this one. I believe this new version of the original document has been cleaned up to remove the original language that included management by the bureau of land management YES THE BLM..same agency running cattlemen off their land in Nevada.
No way in hell i want any more government agency control over our fishery.
This whole bill is a ruse to finally get what the government has long desired written and dressed up in feel good pretty language..A real easy way for them to get the Desired affect they want....MPA'S Marine protected areas. Notice the language of conservation in the bill and rec habitat..That means development of mpa's! you need to read between the lines and understand the leftist language creators and how they speak. You either don't understand, don't care, or are one of those who want closures--Your screen name salty rec angler is a sham as your a newbie on alot of boards spouting this crap..possibley even a plant. If you say your not for it then state as much ...but you seem to be promoting this.
Look at the past evidence of similar actions in Florida, North carolina, California, with feel good habitat type conservation bills, how did that work out--Not so good.
I promise you that anyone who votes for this will be sorry when areas like reef site 11 Cape may reef, shrewbury rocks and sandy hook reef are designated MPA areas..They are in the original draft considerations from 2012..read it with my own eyes..has since been hard to find as the government doesn't want to tip their hand. This is a great way to accomplish their goals while enlisting the help of the industry and rec anglers who don't see the real agenda behind he scenes.
I can see it now BLM agents in full military tactical gear toting AR-15's and mounted 50 cal guns on their vessals patroling the No fishing zones.
The original writing of this feel good document listed agencies for oversight of the rec fishery as NMFS, NOAA, BLM and other agencies like the FORESTRY SERVICE AND NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE none of which have proven at any time they are concerned about our rights to a rec fishery, And i don't see any forests on the ocean and damn sure don't want water designated off New Jersey as National Parks. You can bet we will be not allowed to fish there!
Not what i want --and in no way should anyone else want it or be a proponent of it.. THIS WHOLE BULL CRAP PLAN is a way to closures and less fishing access not more.
I stand in full opposition to this bill and stand with those who believe it is not in our best interests.
Folks Do not support this bill--at least from the federal government--state plans might be a differant issue, but would need to be fully vetted to be sure!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
Tony..... I agree. This guy has an agenda!!!
And.... Thank You for having the balls to call him out. I would never have known if you did not post the deal here!

His first post on here is about how rec fishermen are cruel and we should be banished. Then.... he comes up here and claims to have something in our best interest here??? Really???? Here is his other post: http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/6-...shermen-just-play-their-food.html#post4208018

Tell you what Mr. Salty Rec Angler..... My identity is no secret! We all know who I am... How about you tell me who you really are?? When your done hugging that tree..... email me your info... because IMHO.... your here to harm us here... not help us!!!!

This tool thinks we are this ignorant and assumes we are going to help him take our rights away????? Dont think so !! :rolleyes: :thumbsdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Please pardon my ignorance on the subject but I just read the blog post referred to by the op and it was written by Rip Cunningham.
Are you saying Cunningham wants MPA's cause I did not get that from reading the blog.
I don't know the politics so I won't comment but I thought Rip was on our side am I wrong?
Capt Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Please pardon my ignorance on the subject but I just read the blog post referred to by the op and it was written by Rip Cunningham.
Are you saying Cunningham wants MPA's cause I did not get that from reading the blog.
I don't know the politics so I won't comment but I thought Rip was on our side am I wrong?
Capt Brian
I believe personally that many read the bill and literature being put out with a pro fishing slant and just can't see this for what it really is..this is a revised and re written version of the original material written to misquide and milead the public..many are behind this who should not be. The BLM and the forestry service and the national parks service have no right or business being involved with our fishery rights..the government an the obama administration put out a press release in 2012 stating their goal to achieve marine protected areas in the USA. In the original draft version the inland waterways and oceans of our conuntry were to be looked at for closure and MPA's areas include the great lakes, large portions of the pacific in the prime fishing and rec areas..florida's most productive fishing ares
portions of the outer Banks . Here in New Jersey areas included the Cape may reef, reef sites 10 and 11 and an area encompassing the old grounds
the sandy hook reef and large portions of the shrewsbury rocks...Prime recreational fishing areas.
Now the draft did say further study was needed and commissions would be adapted to look into the feasability and how to manage thos areas and what agencies would be involved..It was in those documents that the first mentions of habitat and conservation were talked about. Those agencies were the Bureau of land management, The forestry service, NOAA, NMFS, And the National park service. Now the first problem for me was a land based enforcement agency like the BLM having no business in the fisheries management issue as well as a forestry service or national parks agency.
To me those were red flags from the start..along with language that mentioned closure to fishing in any form as well as diving or boat Traffic.
The initial outrage from the rec industry officials was a very loud NO WAY!
Now the left has articles being written touting the positive and recreational benifiits of a re written and prettied up version of the language in the Administrations stated objectives..This is misdirection and propaganda at the very least.
This is a way to shut down recreational fishing on a national scale. While enlisting people from its own ranks. Those that either are uneducated on the thruth of this bill or mislead as to its true effects.
Their are several versions of these articles being written througout the country..all or most by left leaning writers with an agenda..you need to read between the lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Tom he is on the NJ site we are both on as well in the north jersey section i commented their as well--that version of the article is even worse than this one take a look.
and thanks for your support!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
..this is a revised and re written version of the original material
Could you provide me with the original version. I'd like to look into this more
Thanks
Capt Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
..this is a revised and re written version of the original material
Could you provide me with the original version. I'd like to look into this more
Thanks
Capt Brian
You can find house bill s-2080 online--however the articles being written by various publications all vary somewhat and each adds somewhat different language and omits some of the obvious red flags
Just re-read the bill and forgot to mention the EPA is a enforcement agency--THat should raise serious doubts in anyones mind about this bill..EPA hasn't done anything good for the country in a long, long while. EPA--BLM--NOAA--= closures. IMHO--
I have voiced concerns over other things in the past on a limited basis--but this bill concerns me more than anything that has come down the pipeline from the feds. Could i be completely wrong--I guess? But i think my concern here is valid..
I don't hide from my opinions --hell my name is my handle here--along with my business logo and personal contact info.
Rarely have i felt this strong and felt real danger to our way of life as i have with this bill. Limits reduced, sizes changed each year --yea i disagree with that. But this here has some real serious potential to be very, very bad news for rec fishing.
You need to put the legislation and the stated goals of these enforcement agencies to realize and see this for what it is.
The former head and present head of noaa are leftists--Lubachenko or whatever her name was has stated she didn't care about closure to fisheries in the past..didn't care about a rebuilt seabass stock or its closures. Epa has a serious leftist envro -whacko leading the dept and the Influence of the pew group cannot be forgotten. All of these agencies are headed by enviro"s and all would like very much to take away the rights of americans to fish..REMEMBER ALOT OF THEM BELIEVE DEEP DOWN IN THEIR SOULS THAT FISHING IS CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AND FISHERMEN SHOULD BE JAILED!!!! AND if they are to let us fish they will dictate where, when and how.
I remember reading a noaa document some time ago that stated in the future they envision a day when fishermen will go fishing by LOOKING at fish not catching them.
Tie these things together with fed enforcement and you can see the potential for serious damage to our fishing opportunities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
"I can see it now BLM agents in full military tactical gear toting AR-15's and mounted 50 cal guns on their vessals patroling the No fishing zones."

I just read the entire 47 pages of the bill, which by the way has a 28% chance of being enacted according to Gov Track and I don't see anywhere in there enforcement as stated above.

This bill proposes to fund fish habitat conservation in fresh and salt water at a cost of 32 million from 2014-2019.

The BLM and all the other agencies are involved because the bill is nation wide in fresh and salt water and on Indian lands as well as US lands and oceans

I don't know anything about leftist agendas or enviro wackos with hidden agendas and read between the lines cryptic messages or Obamas legacy for MPA's.

Maybe you know more than me, and I'll give you that as I just heard about this and am trying to make an informed decision about it but I think you might not have all your facts right and the attack on the op might be a little excessive.

I would suggest everyone who is interested take 15 minutes and read the bill to make their own decision and with a 28% chance of passage it's probably a non issue anyway.
Here's the link https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2080

Just my 2 cents with no hidden agendas
Capt Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
If the bill was just about conservation they wouldn't need enforcement.
Here is a direct paragraph
(4) Conservation; conserve; manage; management
The terms conservation, conserve, manage, and management mean to maintain, sustain, and, where practicable, restore and enhance, using methods and procedures associated with modern scientific resource programs (including protection, research, census, law enforcement, habitat management, propagation, live trapping and transplantation, and the regulated harvesting of fish.
These statements and the fact is is sponsored by a democrat concern me. They use modern scientific programs now to determine seabass and fluke regs, anyone happy with those.
THese two paragraphs also concern me

  • (e) Adjudication of Water Rights- Nothing in this Act diminishes or affects the ability of the Secretary to join an adjudication of rights to the use of water pursuant to subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 208 of the Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666).

  • (f) Department of Commerce Authority- Nothing in this Act affects the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the Department of Commerce to manage, control, or REGULATE FISH or fish habitats under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
I stand by my previous comments. While i respect your right to have made your own decision. At least you read the bill. Most won't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Thank you for your response and passionate concern regarding our rights to access of fish in our waters an pursue our sport.

Just a couple of things
1. The Shrewsbury Rocks are in state waters and this federal bill could never make it a MPA it would require state authorization and I highly doubt that would happen

2(e) Adjudication of Water Rights- Nothing in this Act diminishes or affects the ability of the Secretary to join an adjudication of rights to the use of water pursuant to subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 208 of the Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666).


  • (f) Department of Commerce Authority- Nothing in this Act affects the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the Department of Commerce to manage, control, or REGULATE FISH or fish habitats Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
adjudication to water marketsApril 3, 2010 //
3

In the world of water rights, adjudication is a big deal. Its implications to water markets is also rarely understood.Water courts, district courts, and other courts across the West are reviewing water rights and making judicial decisions regarding their parameters (priority date, flow rate, etc.). This process helps define the rights and the proper allocation under the prior appropriation doctrine. The underlying goal is to get rid of the junk.

The bill just allows the Secretary to join in lawsuits in the interest to fish habitat conservation.

and it can't override the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

I think you might be reading this wrong.

Anyway thanks for bringing this to my attention, if by some weird chance (less than 28%) this thing every flies and it has MPA's or other measures in it I'll be on your side. until then good luck!
Capt Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
apalmer , i'm glad your out there . i'm just a everyday boater and fisherman and didn't know anything about this . please keep up the good work and let us know what we can do to prevent anything like this becoming enacted .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
In closing of my arguement her i want to state that i am not against regulations for our fishery per se. I would like them to be made though with sound scientific evidence and findings. We as fisherman by and large are a very conservation oriented bunch..but we all know those that would kill the last fish to fill a cooler. I believe the moratorium that used to be on striped bass allowed a depleted stock to rebound. Now i see that fishery being over harvested an possibly on a decline.
So limits and regs do absolutely have a place. I just want to make sure we still have access to the fishery both fresh and saltwater. I live in the pococno's and am starting to see water rights issues developing here and access to many native trout streams being limited or access denied alltogether. My statements above concerned both salt and fresh water.
With more federal agencies involved than we already have in managing our fisheries and access to them, along with additional enforcement arms i get concerned. Too much government is never a good thing in my opinion. would much rather see a state initiative than this coming from the feds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
apalmer , i'm glad your out there . i'm just a everyday boater and fisherman and didn't know anything about this . please keep up the good work and let us know what we can do to prevent anything like this becoming enacted .
ThAnks :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Happy to respond to your inquiry, Tony…no agenda here whatsoever. SaltyRecAngler is the handle maintained by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and my name is Sarah. We are a pro-hunting, pro-fishing, and pro-conservation organization whose mission is to “Guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.” We are posting these links on these topics as food for thought and to help foster thinking about these issues. The articles stand on their own and we are simply sharing them in hopes they get read and encourage folks to make up their own minds about them. Thanks very much and look forward to sharing more links in the future!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Happy to respond to your inquiry, Tony…no agenda here whatsoever. SaltyRecAngler is the handle maintained by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and my name is Sarah. We are a pro-hunting, pro-fishing, and pro-conservation organization whose mission is to “Guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.” We are posting these links on these topics as food for thought and to help foster thinking about these issues. The articles stand on their own and we are simply sharing them in hopes they get read and encourage folks to make up their own minds about them. Thanks very much and look forward to sharing more links in the future!
Bullshit, I'm so tired of all these "non profit charitable foundations" that deceive people under the BS guise of supporting fishermen and hunters. Truth is they are just a foundation made of no substance that have their filthy hands out for all the money that these far left wingnuts and enviro-douchebags hand out freely. There is a ever growing niche market for this kind of ghost business/foundation, just collect handouts, produce nothing and lie and deceive good people while stabbing people in the back by further hurting the causes you pretend you support. This is absolute garbage!

Here's a little truth about the TRCP.....

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnershipbills its mission as “guaranteeing you a place to hunt and fish.” Described in the press as “Republican-leaning,” in reality TRCP seems to be little more than a camouflaged advocacy front for an alliance of environmental and left-wing interests. In 2012, 75% of TCRP donations came from a mere 8 donors.
TRCP is a spin-off of a Trout Unlimited project. In 2000, Trout Unlimited became a “fiscal sponsor” of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, which was a partnership of six groups including the Izaak Walton League of America and Trout Unlimited, two “green decoy” organizations. The left-wing Pew Charitable Trusts created TRCA, and Pew sent over $2 million to Trout Unlimited earmarked for the Alliance.
TRCA later applied for its own tax-exempt status under the name Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Project and became the separate organization that it is now.

Much about TRCP’s liberal roots remains the same today. TRCP’s partners include labor union groups such as the AFL-CIO, environmentalists, and other environmentalist front groups like Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. TRCP helps lead an alliance called “Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development” with Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation.


Trout Unlimited, as a “fiscal sponsor” of the TRCP precursor Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, funneled more than $2 million from the Pew Charitable Trusts to the alliance. After TCRP received its own tax-exempt status in 2003, it found plenty of other environmentalist organizations to provide cash.
Far from a group relying on grassroots funding, TRCP relies on a handful of sugar daddies for financial backing. In 2010, a whopping 84% of TRCP donations came from only 10 donors. In 2011, TRCP received $2.3 million in grants from foundations—or nearly two-thirds of its income. And in 2012, 75% of TCRP donations came from a mere 8 donors.
TRCP has received 116 grants totaling $13 million since 2002. Major funders include the Turner Foundation ($2.3 million), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($835,000), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation ($1.11 million), Pew Charitable Trusts ($1.55 million), and the Hewlett Foundation ($3.6 million). Other funders include the Joyce Foundation, McIntosh Foundation, the Thomas and Stacy Siebel Foundation, and the Knoblach Family Foundation.
There’s little doubt that the foundations veer strongly to the left, such as the Hewlett Foundation (gives millions to abortion provider Planned Parenthood), Joyce Foundation (gives millions to the anti-gun Violence Policy Center), and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (gives millions to the pro-abortion NARAL).


TRCP claims to be primarily about benefiting hunters and other sportsmen, and the group’s press releases beat that drum incessantly, invoking the word “sportsmen” ad nauseam. But TRCP really places radical, anti-industry environmentalism as its top agenda item.
Initially, grants were made to TRCP’s predecessor under descriptions such as “general support to engage hunters and anglers in activities that protect fish and wildlife in the National forest.” More recent grants display a more obviously environmentalist bent. Consider the following descriptions offered by granting foundations:

  • For TRCP’s “Energy Initiative Program” ($1,000,000, Hewlett Foundation, 2013)
  • For TRCP’s “Energy Initiative Program” ($912,500, Hewlett Foundation, 2011)
  • “Sportsmen for the conservation of the Chesapeake Bay.” ($40,000, Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment, 2011)
  • “For the sportsmen for responsible energy development project.” ($200,000, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2010)
  • “To engage hunters and fishers to advocate for federal conservation polices to improve water quality.” ($75,000, McKnight Foundation, 2010)
  • “Climate.” ($175,000, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 2010)
  • “Climate and Agriculture” ($100,000, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 2008)
  • “Transportation Communications Campaign” ($50,000, Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment, 2008)
  • “To support the growing conservation campaign and the wetlands bill of rights campaign” ($100,000, McKnight Foundation, 2007)
  • “Engage America’s 40 million sportsmen and sportswomen and make possible their active participation in the national conservation policy arena” ($10,000, Surnda Foundation, 2006)

TRCP claims to support the right to hunt and fish, and so it should be a vocal proponent of gun rights. But when pressed, TRCP couldn’t offer a stance. “[O]thers know far more than we do about the Second Amendment,” TRCP stated. Bizarrely, WyoFile reports that Whit Forsburgh, head of TRCP, “doesn’t view President Obama as a threat to gun rights.” TRCP’s non-stance is even stranger given that a portion of every sale of firearms and ammunition is earmarked for conservation programs.

TRCP is also behind the formation of the Union Sportsmen’s Alliance (USA). A joint effort with 20 labor unions, the Union Sportsmen’s Alliance’s goal is “to lure the political allegiance of gun-owning union members away from the NRA and its political agenda”—and presumably toward that of liberal-backing labor groups. “[A]bout a quarter of union members said they belonged to the National Rifle Association, an affiliation that displeases some Democratic union leaders,” The Washington Post reported. The effort came with $1.2 million in seed money from labor to TRCP. The Union Sportsmen’s Alliance claims to be in favor of the Second Amendment, yet TRCP has received $150,000 from the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Barack Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation between 1994 and 2002.

Former TRCP board chairman Katie Distler Eckman (2011-13) is the former executive director of the Turner Foundation, founded by environmentalist Ted Turner.
TRCP president and CEO Whit Fosburgh worked at Trout Unlimited for 15 years, a group that like TRCP receives millions from environmentalist interests. Before that, Fosburgh worked for left-wing U.S. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD).

"Sarah" I just exposed you for the scumbag fraud that you are, what do you have to say about yourself now? I'll be patiently waiting........:rolleyes::thumbsdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,798 Posts
Tom he is on the NJ site we are both on as well in the north jersey section i commented their as well--that version of the article is even worse than this one take a look.
and thanks for your support!
folks on the other site are signing it rapidly, maybe you should put this up there also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
Happy to respond to your inquiry, Tony…no agenda here whatsoever. SaltyRecAngler is the handle maintained by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and my name is Sarah. We are a pro-hunting, pro-fishing, and pro-conservation organization whose mission is to “Guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.” We are posting these links on these topics as food for thought and to help foster thinking about these issues. The articles stand on their own and we are simply sharing them in hopes they get read and encourage folks to make up their own minds about them. Thanks very much and look forward to sharing more links in the future!
BS! See my thread on "Green Decoys" salty, if you didnt know, fine, learn, if you did, your the worst kind....
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top