[ralphyost]

If you fish, you need to read this NOW.
The government is about to hamper your fishing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

R.

 

[pscherrer]

Radical Left

Just read this thread off the Drudge report, this Obama is far left on steroids, God help America till November!

 

[rchipbrown]

I don't know what to make of this. It seems inconceivable to me that one branch of the government could or would try to unilaterally ban recreational fishing.

The article seems somewhat misleading and alarmist. The "no more public comment" point does not mention that the public comment period was extended for 60 days and that period has now run out.

 

[Plugging Pimp]

I don't think it really matters what they try to do. I will NEVER stop fishing. I will NEVER give up my freedom to fish.I will NEVER give up my freedom to fish.
I will NEVER give up my freedom to fish.
I will NEVER give up my freedom to fish.
I will NEVER give up my freedom to fish.
I will NEVER give up my freedom to fish.
NOW I'M PISSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[West Ave Mike]

The fearmongers are at it again. The government can't ban guns, but they're going to ban fishing?

 

[JoeyZac]

The fearmongers are at it again. The government can't ban guns, but they're going to ban fishing?

I know where in The Constitution I am given the "RIGHT" to bear arms.

Can you show me in The Constitution where I have the "RIGHT" to fish? (serious question)

 

[What the Puck]

????????
Why should the goverment try to ban guns???? it is our constitutional right to bear arms, why would you want the goverment to try to take that away? isn't it bad enough they are tryingto limit or take away completely our right to fish!

 

[Marine Tom]

While an all out ban of fishing seems not to be reality IMO.

Remember, we outdoorsman and sportsman are generally NOT supporters of this administration, thus they care very little about what WE think.

I'd keep an eye on the "ocean task force" and firmly believe they do not have a recreational fishermen's agenda in the forefront of what they'll do or regulate.

 

[JoeyZac]

..........I'd keep an eye on the "ocean task force" and firmly believe they do not have a recreational fishermen's agenda in the forefront of what they'll do or regulate.

I'd like to keep a BULLSEYE on the OTF and have our next POTUS dismantle them on his first day in office in January 2013.

 

[OffshoreAfflicted]

A year ago I would agree that this was alarmist nonsense. Now I would not be suprised at all if this happens. Welcome to the new world order. So much for hope and change! looks like we are all going to be changed into outlaws hoping we dont get caught with our fishing contraband.

 

[In Depth]

Avery long but necessary read.




IV. The Task Force Should Ensure Public Access is Maintained
Given the scope of economic, conservation, and social contributions of recreational fishing and boating, it
is imperative that any national ocean policy encourage, promote and celebrate recreational activities in the
marine and freshwater environments. This can only be achieved if the policy and the implementation of
marine spatial planning provide for access to marine areas for recreation and the opportunities for angling.
In tandem with our coalition comments to the Interim Report calling on the Administration to make
recreation a national ocean policy priority and objective, an Interim Framework on marine spatial
planning should strive to implement open, sustainable recreational access to the ocean space and
freshwater space. In the absence of a clear policy statement in the Interim Report prioritizing recreation,
we remain concerned that the proposed new layers of bureaucratic management and new spatial planning
in the marine environment will converge into vast areas eventually being closing off to recreational uses.
Pursuant to the President’s Memorandum and the Interim Report, officials within CEQ, NOAA and other
agencies are charged with developing a marine spatial planning framework that will provide a
“comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach that addresses conservation, economic activity,​

user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources”.

​

​

7 Marine spatial planning​

must be a policy that seeks to better inform decision-making in the ocean environment and address gaps

in science and data to improve conservation and management objectives. Marine spatial planning must
not be a means to catalogue, map and designate vast marine areas as marine restricted set-asides.
The Interim Report makes numerous references to ambiguous terms such as “healthy,” “pristine,” and
“resilient” and articulates broad management concepts that call for the protection of biological diversity.
The report then couples these hard-to-define terms and concepts with a precautionary approach when
there is scientific uncertainty.​

​

8 Marine spatial planning under this approach would lead to the

preservation of the ocean based entirely on precautionary principles and, invariably and necessarily,
arbitrarily exclude users—primarily recreational users, we fear—from the marine environment and its
resources.
Recreational interests and access to the marine environment must be a core element of any marine spatial
planning policy and proposal. Too often recreational interests are afterthoughts of marine policy, whereas
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the recreational community has equal legal standing as commercial
interests to fishery resources and access to the marine environment. For marine spatial planning to be
effective it must not ignore or inadequately consider recreational interests at the outset, but instead have a
strong focus on maintaining and encouraging public access and recreation in the marine environment.
We would strongly encourage this Administration to follow the legal requirements in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (“MSA”) for establishing any marine restricted area under a marine spatial planning policy.
Any marine restricted area should: 1) be based on sound science that addresses a specific threat to ocean
resources; 2) be the smallest marine area possible to achieve an articulated conservation goal, and 3) be
continuously reviewed to determine whether the marine restricted area is necessary to achieve these
conservation goals.​

​

9​

​

​

​

​

Marine spatial planning should not be designed or oriented around cataloguing marine areas that should​

​

be simply set-aside as marine reserves or no-go zones. Marine spatial planning should not be a means to
lock-up, restrict or otherwise diminish the ocean to public access and recreation. Some advocates have
called on the Administration to implement coastal and marine spatial plans (CMS Plans) for this very
purpose—not to reduce or better manage conflicts, but to eliminate uses altogether. We believe this
approach is contrary to true conservation.
Finally, we strongly oppose the use of the Antiquities Act especially to establish “marine national parks.”
Previous Administrations have utilized this arcane federal power to circumvent established public policy
channels and summarily exclude meaningful stakeholder involvement in major policy decisions effected
uses in the ocean environment. This has led to lingering mistrust of federal oceans policy within many
ocean sectors, including the recreation sector. The Antiquities Act was never intended to be employed for
such designations and we call upon this Administration to avoid using the law to subvert or short circuit​

​

​

critical public input and comment on marine areas that could be potentially turned into “ocean parks.”
​

​

​

​

​

​

5​

 

[In Depth]

V. Interim Framework Posits a Solution for an Undefined Problem
While it is true that federal agencies in particular often focus on issues directly under their jurisdictional
authority and their scope of expertise, neither the Interim Report nor the Interim Framework outline, with
any data, any broad-scale failure to protect the coastal and ocean environment or outline any specific user
conflicts that will require fundamental reform. Although we concur that the President should direct his​

Cabinet Secretaries and federal agency heads to increase their coordination in order to enhance planning,

streamline permitting, and reduce late-breaking conflicts, it is unclear why a Presidential directive would
be insufficient in achieving these goals and why a new, “fundamental change” to ocean policy governance
is required.
At no time in the Interim Framework does the Task Force outline what specific existing or potential user
conflicts a national structure of coastal and marine spatial planning (“CMSP”) would resolve, or what
CMSP would do to resolve them. Rather, the Interim Framework is comprised of vague assertions of
inevitable conflict among various ocean uses—a so-called crowding of the ocean. The Interim Framework
suggests that “a fundamental change in our current management system is required to achieve the longterm​

health of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes,” but this claim itself is never substantiated.

​

​

10​

Indeed, the only specific example referenced in the Interim Framework of successful CMSP is the​

comprehensive, inter-agency planning done for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. This​

effort involved cooperation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) and the​

U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) in rerouting Boston sea lanes to minimize Right Whale strikes. Perplexing

about the Task Force’s use of this particular example of marine spatial planning is that it was

accomplished under status quo authorities and existing procedures. Essentially, for this successful
endeavor in marine management, all that was required was a basic level of inter-agency cooperation and
information sharing.
VI. Task Force Should Specifically Exclude “Zoning” or Spatial Allocation From CMSP​

In the literature on CMSP, definitions vary significantly. The Interim Framework defines CMSP as “a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on
sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas.”
11

Although it appears that the Task Force has made an effort to distance CMSP from ocean zoning by excluding any overt reference to space allocation itself and focusing instead on CMSP being a “public​

policy process for society,” it is important to point out that this is at odds with widely accepted

understandings of CMSP. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (“UNESCO”) defines marine spatial planning as “a public process of analyzing and ​

​

allocating the spatial and temporal distribution ​

of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological,economic and social objectives that have been specified through a political process (emphasis added).”​

Indeed, the Interim Framework itself alludes to spatial allocation—or zoning—when it suggests that
CMSP would identify “areas most suitable” for various ocean activities. Although zoning is not a required component of marine spatial planning, the two are reasonably associated.

Additionally, in the UNESCO model, marine spatial planning is “not conservation planning.” Rather, the ​

​

approach is to balance economic uses and environmental conservation, not privilege environmental protection efforts.​

13 Throughout the Task Force’s Interim Framework, however, it is abundantly clear that the general objective of CMSP is to comprehensively evaluate the “cumulative effects” of various ocean

activities, which “ultimately is ​

​

intended to result in protection of areas” and “maximize the ability of​

marine resources to continue to support a wide variety of human uses (emphasis added).”​

 

[In Depth]

Recommendation:

The recreational fishing and boating community strongly opposes a federal effort to​

allocate space and restrict public access to recreational fishing (i.e., zone) within the ocean or inland​

environment. Any CMSP should be solely limited to enhancing interagency cooperation in the planning​

stage of potential uses where conflicts might be unavoidable The Task Force should better define CMSP

and indicate clearly whether it is the intent of the Interim Framework to lay out a new federal policy of

spatial planning and space allocation, based primarily on top-down federal government decisions on
what is and is not a proper use in any given ocean or inland space.
The Task Force should clarify whether it intends to initiate a policy of ocean and inland zoning in the
United States or if marine spatial planning will be strictly limited to joint data collection, mapping, and
cooperative processes between federal, state and local agencies. Should the Administration initiate an
ocean zoning policy, it should be the result of well documented biological, economic or social needs and ​

subject to vastly more public review and comment and Congressional oversight.​

VII. Role of National Ocean Council Vast, Vague​

The Interim Framework clearly recommends a new, vast authoritative role for the National Ocean​

Council (NOC) in every aspect of U.S. ocean policy. Although the Interim Framework asserts​

consistently that any CMSP will be primarily developed at the regional level, all final decisions remain

with the NOC. For example, the NOC will create the template of the CMSP “Development Agreements”

which will form the basis of regional planning body actions.​

15 The NOC is the exclusive final arbiter of
regional planning body “Work Plans,” which the NOC will “review and approve. . . prior to [their] implementation.”

​

​

16 In order to “ensure a level of national consistency across regions,” the NOC will develop or provide “national guidance” and all CMS Plans will ultimately require “certification by the

NOC.”​

17 All mechanisms to monitor and evaluate ocean uses, including new technologies, are subject to

NOC approval and would be required to undergo a NOC “application” process.​

​

 

[In Depth]

​

18 It is the NOC that will

“develop national performance measures”​

​

19 for the implementation of CMS Plans, and it is the NOC that

will identify and implement “compliance mechanisms” to ensure “adherence” by the regional planning
bodies.​

​

20 Should disagreements arise between the NOC and the regional planning bodies in the NOC

certification process, these “interpretation” disputes would be “resolved according to the dispute
resolution process developed by the NOC” at a later time.​

​

21 Ultimately, as outlined in the Interim

Framework, it is the NOC which will be the exclusive, final arbiter of any lingering dispute left
unresolved at the regional level, in an overall “dispute resolution process” that literally receives one
paragraph of elaboration in the Interim Framework and basically consists of “elevation” to the members
of the NOC. The resolution of these disputes would appear to have no system for appeal, no independent
review. A plain reading of the Interim Framework leaves wide, perhaps unrestricted, discretion to the
NOC, an issue of serious concern. Should the dispute resolution process fail to effectively resolve the
dispute for the effected parties, the dispute will likely end up in the courts, as is the case today, which
begs the question of how precisely the NOC dispute resolution process is enforceable or durable.
Additionally, the Interim Framework outlines no process through which the public can review or
comment on any NOC guidance or action. We find it unfortunate that a system that invests so much
power in the NOC does not even offer the affected stakeholders the ability to see or comment on the
national guidance that will govern the development of regional plans.
Clearly, the Interim Framework would establish a system of top-down federal management of nearly
every action involved in any CMS Plan, all subject to NOC policies and procedures which are left
undefined in the Interim Framework. While we object to this approach as a general matter, it is
impossible for stakeholders to meaningfully comment on vague concepts of governance which are subject
to development at a later date.​

​

​

​

​

Recommendation:
​

​

The Task Force should substantially elaborate on specific implementation procedures
within the Interim Framework and outline the precise mechanisms for any new NOC and under what
authorities it would operate. NOC guidance and actions should be subject to public notice and comment.
As currently drafted, the Interim Framework is a moving target so vague as to make meaningful public
comment impossible. The only thing that is clear is that the NOC would have vast authorities and
enforcement options under the Task Force’s proposal.​

Recommendation:
​

​

The Task Force should define and elaborate on the NOC “Certification” Process.​

Recommendation:
​

​

The Task Force should specify what it means by “National Consistency Standards,”
and how they would be designed, developed and enforced.​

Recommendation: The Task Force should define and elaborate on NOC “Compliance Measures.”
​

​

__________________
​

 

[bloodyclam]

Aren't you all happy you "registered" with NOAAA now? Now the government has your name,address and phone number. :thumbsup: What do you think they're going to do with that info??:wave:

 

[JoeyZac]

Aren't you all happy you "registered" with NOAAA now? Now the government has your name,address and phone number. :thumbsup: What do you think they're going to do with that info??:wave:

Yep, no regrets. I have no problem following the laws of our nation. And in November, I plan to vote (again) in such a way to change the ones I don't like.

 

[sierrabill]

:razz:"They will get my fishing rod
when they pry it from my
cold dead hands".:razz:

 

[fishincrazy]

This is disconcerting news.It's hard to believe something like this would even be considered????I guess the allure of the special intrest groups mega billions will doom us as fisherman eventually.Me they'll have to shoot me dead to stop me from fishin.

FC

 

[A Frayed Knot]

A year ago I would agree that this was alarmist nonsense. Now I would not be suprised at all if this happens. Welcome to the new world order. So much for hope and change! looks like we are all going to be changed into outlaws hoping we dont get caught with our fishing contraband.

F them I will fish anyway and if enough people did the same thing, what are they going to do?

 

[Tony Mig]

In the 30 years I've been a gun collector and active target shooter, I've seen more reactionary BS like this than you could shake a stick at. Sure, there's been plenty of unfavorable legislation passed in those 30 years that effect us gun owners in ways it should not, but I still have my guns, I still go shooting, and no goon squad has shown up at my front door looking to confiscate anything from me.

The tree hungers, animal lovers, and enviro-weenies do have chests full of money thanks to organizations like the PEW foundation, and a few liberal billionaires like George Sorros, and they have no problem wasting that cash cow to see every hunter, fisherman, and gun owner put out of operation, and to date all that money has pretty much gone to waste.

Do we need to be concerned, and keep a close watch on these worldly do-gooders.....absolutely. do we need to address these concerns from time to time.....again....absolutely. What we don't need to do is panic, or become reactionary, that's exactly what they want us to do because it adds credence to their arguments against us.

This deserves a raised eye, and needs to be watched closely, it however does not need knee jerk reaction.....let the liberals do that, they've become quite good at it......