Sportfishing Threatened!

[Ham]

The thing is, the federal regulation that will possibly be advocated is mostly of off-shore species that aren't limited in range to one state. That's the reason it is being discussed. Fish in the Pacific Ocean or in the Great Lakes don't necessarily stay in the waters off one particular state. So as it stands now, the same fish are under two or more state regs that often conflict with each other, and that's what the task force is seeking to address. It's the height of ridiculousness to think that this will be extended to inland waters that are entirely within one state.

It's often amazing how somebody can twist what is probably a good thing into a horror, by half-truths, suppositions, and innuendo. And it's usually somebody with a political ax to grind.

President Obama's promise to have the most open and transparent administration in history has not been kept. I think he has earned a certain level of distrust. You don't enjoy saltwater fishing Al so I guess it is of little concern to you, but lots of us do enjoy fishing salty water and so it matters to us a little more.

Not time to freak out, but it bears watching.

[Quillback]

I'm with Ham, probably much ado about nothing, but we should all be vigilant on issues like this. And I think it's nearsighted to adopt a "It won't effect us locally so why worry about it" attitude.

[fozzie.]

This has not only been documented on other web sites, but has also been the topic of a white house leak-could get interesting.

And a million people seems like a lot. But a million people...can be wrong. A lie is still a lie, no matter how often it's repeated. And the voices speaking loudest aren't always the voices of truth, or even reason.

President Obama's promise to have the most open and transparent administration in history has not been kept. I think he has earned a certain level of distrust. You don't enjoy saltwater fishing Al so I guess it is of little concern to you, but lots of us do enjoy fishing salty water and so it matters to us a little more.

Not time to freak out, but it bears watching.

I enjoy saltwater fishing fishing too, but in order to pursue that pastime, I need to have fish. It's no secret that numerous oceanic fish stocks are on the verge of commercial and/or biological extinction, many due to overharvest by commercial fishing interests.

And it's not as though the proposals being made don't have any historical basis- I see a valuable analogy to the market hunting and the decimation of game populations in the 19th and 20th centuries. Game populations were in dire circumstances, but with intervention and proper management (including restrictive regulations and even bans on sporthunting), those game populations bounced back dramatically. Certainly some jobs were lost in market hunting and other sectors, but my guess is they've been more than made up by the service and retail sectors- from guides and mom-and-pop outfits to the big guys like Bass Pro and Cabela's.

In the same light, the regs being evaluated at the moment seem to be designed to protect and enhance oceanic fisheries, to bring them back from the brink of commercial and/or economic extinction. IMO that's a heritage I can get behind. I'm not saying it'd be easy..but if I had to forgo keeping my saltwater catch so that my kids and grandkids can have more and better saltwater fishing opportunities...I think I'd probably do it.

[bigredbirdfan]

This president has track record of killing jobs in the private sector. If you make a living at fishing you should be worried to death.

[eric1978]

This president has track record of killing jobs in the private sector.

Which jobs are those again?

[Justin Spencer]

It's no secret that numerous oceanic fish stocks are on the verge of commercial and/or biological extinction, many due to overharvest by commercial fishing interests.

Good point. There are already marine sanctuaries in place of the Florida coast and the Keys where recreational fishing commercial fishing etc. are prohibited. A good plan to allow areas that are traditional spawning areas a chance to thrive. The hope is that if there are a few good areas for reproduction these will effectively stock the other areas where fishing is allowed. I lived in Florida for several years and if you have ever fished a reef there it is easy to see that recreational fishing can have a huge effect on fish populations, boats everywhere. We don't want our coasts to end up like other third world countries where you can't find a fish. The simple fact is when you have the number of fishermen that we have in this country regulation is the only way to keep the resource from being exploited. I would guess that most inland fisheries will never have to deal with strict regulations as they are propped up by artificial stocking, or closures during spawing times. Hard to believe that a news outlet such as ESPN would have an article that is not entirely factual. Don't tell me that FOX news and MSNBC also run stories that aren't completely true, I think I'll just get my news from the Enquirer.

[MOFishwater]

[knuck]

I agree with fozzie's post regarding the near decimation of game populations in the late 19th & early 20th centuries. You could also throw in multitudes of waterfowl that were nearly lost in the same time period in the name of vanity due to the craze for plumes in womens hats. How can anyone defend industry or jobs that deplete resources that belong to all of us, our children and generations to follow. Seems pretty darn selfish to me. The jist of the origination of this post was a kneejerk reaction to a story which turned out to be an opinion piece apparantly done without any editorial review by ESPN. We live in an age of instant news and it might be a good idea to sit back and analyze the information before foaming at the mouth. This age of instant news whips people into a frenzy often times due to misinformation which comes from hundreds of sources on the minute, all in the name of selling an advertisement. Where is Roseannrosanadana when we need her. We are living in a time when some people want us to believe all government and all regulation is bad, not true I say. As long as we the people are involved and use our voices bad policies can be averted.

Steve in STL

[Justin Spencer]

Well put Steve. It seems as if our only reactions are kneejerk anymore. When anyone tries to be proactive instead of reactive it is thought of oftentimes as over regulation. Common sense and looking at the big picture seems to be a lost art. I understand people looking out for #1, but society is too interconnected for that to work, whether it is fishing, hunting, the environment etc. Our economy is built on growth, and unfortunately unless we start producing most of our goods here at home, this growth is unsustainable. Most of the problems in the world today in my opinion all lead back to one thing, overpopulation. Certainly not a subject polititians can even think about addressing, but in everything but human population you see exponential growth followed by a population crash, we have gotten pretty good at preventing this but it can't last forever. Not exactly where I was planning on going with this, but there it is. Happy fishing!

[Gatorjet]

Knee jerk reactions are easier today than ever before. With everything in Washington now being done in closed door meetings, back room deals, and generally deceitful ways, ANYTHING is believable. Some take the possibilities to the extreme, while others want to believe it is nothing but sensationalizing the issue for political reasons, and should be ignored because it couldn't really be true. The truth lies between. The American people need to be ever vigilant of what the government is doing. Not over-reactive, but vigilant enough to know what is going on, and react when necessary. An email to your elected representatives on any issue you feel strongly about is always helpful, if nothing more than to let them know that you are paying attention to what is going on.