The Obama Administration's Change

[bigredbirdfan]

This topic should not go away. I don't have time to read the entire report right now so I'm not prepared to comment on it. And at some point the information and insight into this topic will have to come from sources other than the government and the admin here has to know it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents...orce_FINAL2.pdf

[Guest]

Basically this report is a preliminary report to form an "Interagency ocean policy task force" that will be an overarching agency that will use an ecosystem based approach to help conserve our marine ecosystems for future generations. These are a a few criteria that will be stressed:

• Support for adopting ecosystem-based management as a guiding principle, acknowledging regional differences, and practicing adaptive management;

• Support for embracing science-based decision-making and investing in ecosystem-based science, research, and ocean observations, including comprehensive research on the linkages among ecosystem health, human health, economic opportunity, national and homeland security, social justice, and environmental change, including climate change;

• Desire for improved coordination and collaboration across Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, and regional governance structures, and for improved transparency and public participation, while avoiding new layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs;

• Support for improving both formal and informal education about the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;

• Support for ensuring that policies are adequately funded; and

• Support for joining the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of the Sea Convention).

First off, you didn't read it at all. They aren't going to take our fishing privileges away. Never will happen.

Basically there are some areas of the ocean (and some areas of freshwater) that should be closed to fishing. Having protected areas that serve as nursery for both adult fish and fry will lead to more fish to catch. It has worked in Florida and other places around the world so why not try it in California and Alaska, where commercial fishing and sport-fishing are often competing for the same fish. Providing protected areas for fish to migrate means that there will always be more and bigger fish for future generations to catch. These areas would give science a better understanding of what our oceans were like before people began to screw around with everything. Plus I will take solace in the fact that at least a few portions of our oceans will stay the same, or return to the way they once were. At least until we decide to start drilling for oil, mining gold, or something else stupid.

[ozark trout fisher]

Some folks will attack our president at any chance they get... I'm a little tired of it on a fishing forum. I believe closing a few very sensitive areas of the ocean would actually have a positive affect on those fisheries... I'm all for it.

Just one question. Is this called Ozark Anglers forum, or Ozark Type About Political Issues You Don't Understand Forum? Instead of OAF, we could call it OTAPIYUF. Doesn't have as good of a ring to it though.

When I am reading a fishing forum, and the name of a topic is "The Obama Administration's Change", I know something is wrong in the world.

[eric1978]

Basically this report is a preliminary report to form an "Interagency ocean policy task force" that will be an overarching agency that will use an ecosystem based approach to help conserve our marine ecosystems for future generations. These are a a few criteria that will be stressed:

• Support for adopting ecosystem-based management as a guiding principle, acknowledging regional differences, and practicing adaptive management;

• Support for embracing science-based decision-making and investing in ecosystem-based science, research, and ocean observations, including comprehensive research on the linkages among ecosystem health, human health, economic opportunity, national and homeland security, social justice, and environmental change, including climate change;

• Desire for improved coordination and collaboration across Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, and regional governance structures, and for improved transparency and public participation, while avoiding new layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs;

• Support for improving both formal and informal education about the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;

• Support for ensuring that policies are adequately funded; and

• Support for joining the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of the Sea Convention).

First off, you didn't read it at all. They aren't going to take our fishing privileges away. Never will happen.

Basically there are some areas of the ocean (and some areas of freshwater) that should be closed to fishing. Having protected areas that serve as nursery for both adult fish and fry will lead to more fish to catch. It has worked in Florida and other places around the world so why not try it in California and Alaska, where commercial fishing and sport-fishing are often competing for the same fish. Providing protected areas for fish to migrate means that there will always be more and bigger fish for future generations to catch. These areas would give science a better understanding of what our oceans were like before people began to screw around with everything. Plus I will take solace in the fact that at least a few portions of our oceans will stay the same, or return to the way they once were. At least until we decide to start drilling for oil, mining gold, or something else stupid.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think you fellows might be reading it wrong. The concerns I've been reading about don't concern Obama's appointment of the Interagency ocean policy task force, but the way the task force seems to be approaching the task.

[FishinCricket]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree.

Basically this report is a preliminary report to form an "Interagency ocean policy task force" that will be an overarching agency that will use an ecosystem based approach to help conserve our marine ecosystems for future generations. These are a a few criteria that will be stressed:

• Support for adopting ecosystem-based management as a guiding principle, acknowledging regional differences, and practicing adaptive management;

• Support for embracing science-based decision-making and investing in ecosystem-based science, research, and ocean observations, including comprehensive research on the linkages among ecosystem health, human health, economic opportunity, national and homeland security, social justice, and environmental change, including climate change;

• Desire for improved coordination and collaboration across Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, and regional governance structures, and for improved transparency and public participation, while avoiding new layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs;

• Support for improving both formal and informal education about the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;

• Support for ensuring that policies are adequately funded; and

• Support for joining the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of the Sea Convention).

First off, you didn't read it at all. They aren't going to take our fishing privileges away. Never will happen.

Basically there are some areas of the ocean (and some areas of freshwater) that should be closed to fishing. Having protected areas that serve as nursery for both adult fish and fry will lead to more fish to catch. It has worked in Florida and other places around the world so why not try it in California and Alaska, where commercial fishing and sport-fishing are often competing for the same fish. Providing protected areas for fish to migrate means that there will always be more and bigger fish for future generations to catch. These areas would give science a better understanding of what our oceans were like before people began to screw around with everything. Plus I will take solace in the fact that at least a few portions of our oceans will stay the same, or return to the way they once were. At least until we decide to start drilling for oil, mining gold, or something else stupid.

Also agreed, completely. My only quarrel with the plan as explained above is outlined in bold.. I suppose it's just the wording of the TASK FORCE that bugs me (and a few others who are much more zealous than I), but you know what they say; "A rose by any other name"....

(and now that I have said my piece)

When I am reading a fishing forum, and the name of a topic is "The Obama Administration's Change", I know something is wrong in the world.

Also agreed, but do ya hafta be soooooo caustic about it? lol

I officially suggest that the name of the thread be changed to "Interagency ocean policy task force" or some such, maybe with a byline of "them bastids is gonna burn our fishing poles and make us learn to crochet!"

(Now don't nobody go gettin' to mad at me, y'all know I was only kiddin'... I think I'm one of those friends mentioned in fishinwrench's signature lol)

The concerns I've been reading about don't concern Obama's appointment of the Interagency ocean policy task force, but the way the task force seems to be approaching the task.

Now this sounds like a logical continuation of this subject, eh? I hadn't really read a whole lot about the subject to be honest.. Don't suppose you got any type of specific reports or news or anything you can link us to?

[Phil Lilley]

I have not read it.

I may be way off but supposing the feds want to put restrictions on fishing on lakes and rivers in the US. Could they or is that overstepping their bounds on states? OR would the feds restrict waters that are controlled by feds, like the Corp?

Corp lakes. Buffalo River.

Again, I could be way off. I honestly think any suggestion any committee makes about restricting fishing in this country would be met by so much opposition that it would be almost laughable to think they would actually do something.

Just give it some time... and watch it closely.

[eric1978]

I read most of it, and it's only about ecological protection. There's nothing wrong with wanting to conserve our environment, and sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to provide the best care for an ecosystem. Thats why there are creel limits, and seasons, and licenses and tags. If it was just a free-for-all out there, we'd have nothing left to enjoy.

If tighter restrictions need to be enforced to save a struggling species in a body of water, so be it. It's not our right to go annihilating whatever animals we want simply because they're there and we can. The planet comes first, then our hobbies. If we humans can't mesh with nature's delicate balance, then it is our moral obligation to take a step back and allow it to return to equilibrium.

And like siusaluki said, no one is going to lose their right to fish. There would be riots, and I'd be right there with you. Tighter regulations? Maybe. But you're always going to have a stream to cast your lure into, and as long as someone is looking out for the creatures that inhabit that stream, you might even catch something. I'm personally all for very tight regulations, since it would only make things better for anglers. The only people who get their panties in a twist over new environmental government regulations are those who are exploiting the resources, and I don't really care about those people.

[troutgnat]

I agree with Phil! WAIT, WATCH AND SEE!!!......Good theory if you will at the moment but it's the end-all that really matters. As we all know much of politics is promises, promises, promises that usually fall very short in the end. I will end it there and wait for the outcome.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The big beef, as I understand it, isn't the concept, but the the fact that the committee will not let sport fishermen have any input. People can say what they want, but if that's true its certainly not the way its normally done in this country.

A comment was made that its simply big business complaining, but if Shimano and the others aren't selling reels, its probably because we aren't fishing much.