Obama tells Fishermen to stick it

[Foxxtrot]

No more public opinions on the state of Coastal fisheries.

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

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.

"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.


"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.

"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."

Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.

Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.

Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled "Transition Green" shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.


Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced "Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy." This document makes repeated references to "overfishing," but doesn't once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with "facts," in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.

As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force's recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, the New York Times reported on Feb. 12 that "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."

Morlock fears that "what we're seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There's no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

"Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It's all just an excuse to put us off the water."

In the wake of the task force's framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.

"Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic," said CSF President Jeff Crane.

Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, "There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.

"Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable."

This is not the only access issue threatening the public's right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

"With what's being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans," he said. "Under the guise of 'marine spatial planning' entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.

"Every angler needs to be aware because if it's not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.

"We have one of the largest voting blocks in the country and we need to use it. We must not sit idly by."

[Old Fart]

"The Obama administration will accept no more public input....."

That first half a sentence pretty well sums it up.
He doesn't want input from any of us measly citizens.

[powderman]

"The Obama administration will accept no more public input....."

That first half a sentence pretty well sums it up.
He doesn't want input from any of us measly citizens.

 

NOPE. Cause he knows everything. POWDERMAN. 

[steve y]

Awww crap just when I was just gettin back into flyfishing.  Steve

[wreckhog]

This is a good thing if you are a recreational fisherman, as the folks providing "input" are normally commerical fishing concerns. The recs can never agree on what they want and the comms are just better at using historical data to support their case. They compete for the same resources, so it looks like this time (first time ever?) the comms get screwed and the recs win. In my state, the comms can fish year round and take many times what a rec can, even on the few days when a rec can fish legally. Ultimately, the rec industry puts more money in the economy and is fun for more people.

Do you fish recreationally for a federally regulated species (all saltwater as far as I know, ie cod, tuna, striped bass, fluke, etc)? I do.

[wreckhog]

Here is a counterpoint.

http://www.examiner.com/x-37128-Charlotte-Fishing-Examiner~y2010m3d9-ESPN-claims-Obama-is-about-to-ban-fishing

ESPN claims Obama is about to ban fishing
March 9, 4:03 PM
Charlotte Fishing
Examiner

In what may be the worst example of outdoor sports reporting in the history of America, ESPN has claimed that President Barack Obama is on the verge of banning recreational fishing.

ESPNOutdoors.com writer Robert Montgomery posted an article today claiming that the administration's decision to end the public comment phase of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force means that Obama is likely preparing to issue an executive order outlawing recreational fishing in America.

As a sportsman who covers fisheries management and politics I do think there are many issues surrounding the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and its eventual recommendations that all fishermen should be aware of and concerned about.

But to go from concern to suggesting that President Obama is about to ban fishing in America is the most absurd and irresponsible thing I have ever seen a major news outlet publish. There is not even a remote possibility that a standing president of the United States will outlaw fishing in America.

And yet, Robert Montgomery presents his case that it is about to happen as if it is the most likely thing in the world.

ESPN should have to provide some answer for why they allowed this irresponsible article to be published under their logo.

Let me try to walk you through what is happening, and where this crazy ESPN story came from, so that you can see how a legitimate news source could so irrationally let something like this go public.

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was created to study things like fishing and how it is regulated, and how we as fishermen are managing our interaction with the environment.

To a sportsman like me, this is certainly a cause for attention and concern, as some fringe environmental groups have expressed foolish and extreme ideas about fishing which responsible anglers and sportsmen would certainly like to counter.

Most environmental groups, however, have legitimate concerns which recreational fishing groups can understand and work with to keep fishing open throughout America and still be wise stewards of the resource.

However, the conflicts between commercial fishing groups and environmental groups throughout the country have been much more rancorous, and it is certainly not all the environmentalists' fault.

In state after state for decades commercial fishermen have made poor choices and overharvested species of fish. Meanwhile, both recreational anglers and environmentalists have fought to stop fish or other wildlife from being threatened or endangered due to unwise fishing practices.

Instead of attempting to find a compromise, commercial fishing groups have fought these efforts every step of the way. Because of that, the feud between the environmental groups and the commercial fishing groups has become harsh and bitter, filled with ugly, unethical politics on both sides.

What does this have to do with recreational fishermen? Right now, not a lot. In fact, recreational fishermen in many states have long been complaining themselves that commercial fishermen are not following proper and responsible species management procedures.

In fact, recreational anglers have often had to organize efforts like the Florida inshore gill net ban in 1994 to stop commercial fishing abuse, and in doing so environmental groups (far from being the green wackos they are portrayed as) have proven valuable allies to recreational fishermen.

Yes, some extreme groups are not liked by recreational anglers because their agenda really is extreme and, frankly, about as un-American you can get for a responsible southern sportsman like me. PETA is the biggest and best-funded example. I have no love for PETA or its allies. I do, however, appreciate many of the other more mainstream and sensible environmental organizations and support their efforts.

Most environmental groups have demonstrated the understanding that we must retain our nation's outdoors sports tradition while still protecting our natural resources. That is why the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was created.

Am I going to agree with everything that this task force does? Probably not. Issues like access to fishery grounds and over-regulation of species without sound scientific data are legitimate concerns. However, in no way shape or form is the task force President Obama created about to ban recreational fishing. That is silly. ESPN should be ashamed.

No, it is the commercial fishermen who have much to fear. Many commercial fishermen are fine and responsible individuals, but as a group in state after state they have allowed short-term mismanagement of fish stocks in exchange for short-term profits.

I have been writing about these issues in North and South Carolina for over 15 years and I can tell you without hesitation the worst enemy of commercial fishermen has been commercial fishermen. I have been pleading with them for years to explore compromise on these issues, and they will not.

Now they are in trouble, and commercial groups know in a direct fight against environmentalists they will lose. So they are clinging to an amazingly brazen life line: They have decided to scare recreational fishermen in an effort to get recs like me to fight the environmentalists with them.

It is such a hypocritical stance I can't even begin to express it in words. It goes back to years and years of backroom good old boy politics that kept sensible fishing laws out of many places in the U.S. (my home state of North Carolina is a great example, but there are plenty more).

Now, after attacking recreation fishermen for years and fighting them tooth and nail against any efforts to have responsible fisheries management in this country, commercial fishermen are trying to make us their best friends because they are so scared of the environmentalists.

Well, I'm scared too. I'm scared responsible recreational fishermen are going to get lumped together with irresponsible commercial fishermen. That is exactly what folks like Robert Montgomery want to see happen.

Recreation anglers give commercial fishermen more credibility and respect, because in almost every state responsible recreational fishermen have worked hard at things like reasonable size and creel limits on fish and keeping harmful interaction with wildlife to a minimum. Recs have done exactly what the commercial industry as a whole has not done: Be responsible.

But if you lump all fishermen together and recs take on the sins of commercial fishermen then we are in trouble indeed. No, it will not be Obama banning fishing.  But it will be tougher regulations on anglers, I can assure you.

Many anglers may not understand and may do the same thing ESPN writer Robert Montgomery is doing: Blame environmental groups and President Obama for the problem. And the commercial fishing industry will happily encourage them to do so. As recreational fishermen, we need to avoid that at all cost.

I have been fighting with commercial fishermen for years over their lack of responsibility and self-management. To think that I will now be blamed for their actions infuriates me.

But I am not mad at environmental groups or President Obama, I am angry at the people who caused the problems in the first place and now hang like an albatross around a simple recreational fisherman's neck.

No, Obama is not about to ban recreational fishing. We are about to see, however, commercial fishermen answer for past decades of abuse of our natural resources.

I, for one, do not want to see all commercial fisherman lose their businesses. I think they are a valuable and important part of our nation. But I can tell you this (from long experience): The leaders of the commercial fishing lobby are irresponsible and poor stewards of the environment. And they are now playing desperation politics, trying to get responsible recreational anglers to take the bait.

That makes all fishermen look bad, including folks like me who have actually been calling for commercial fishing reform for years.

President Obama may not be about to ban fishing but there are more difficult times for fishermen ahead. Before we start pointing fingers at environmentalists and believing wild conspiracies we need to look at fisheries management history and put the blame for this all where it really belongs.

[billy_56081]

This is a good thing if you are a recreational fisherman, as the folks providing "input" are normally commerical fishing concerns. The recs can never agree on what they want and the comms are just better at using historical data to support their case. They compete for the same resources, so it looks like this time (first time ever?) the comms get screwed and the recs win. In my state, the comms can fish year round and take many times what a rec can, even on the few days when a rec can fish legally. Ultimately, the rec industry puts more money in the economy and is fun for more people.

Do you fish recreationally for a federally regulated species (all saltwater as far as I know, ie cod, tuna, striped bass, fluke, etc)? I do.

So you are saying Obongo wants to cause the loss of more jobs? But hey at least we an still go fishing when we are laid off.

[Foxxtrot]

As a rereational fisherman I can honestly say I don't trust the NOAA at all. First off, they have forced states to make shoreline fishing (Coastal) mandatory without input the purchase of fishing licenses for the supposed reason of data collection. I have not seen nor been replied to from the NOAA about such data collection since this has been put into place. Basically it was nothing more than a way to either produce revenue or pressure people from purchasing a license. It is also offensive as a once completely free activity is now burdened by a license fee (tax). From the discussion I have had with coastal fisherman the past two years, most were either upset but were still going to purchase a license or were going to skirt the fee based on what they thought was a scam. Most of the poor and black fishermen were very upset as they felt this was a way to keep them off the shoreline.  Second the NOAA is telling states what to do and how to do it regardless of the states own DNR plans for coastal fisheries.

The NOAA chief is a enviro whacko and that is fact. They are forcing their rules on the recreational fisherman without scientific facts in many cases. The NOAA is also part of this Global Warming SCAM.

Do I agree that Commercial fishermen are in fact screwing up and have screwed up....yes. Are they all bad and horrible....NO. There are bad examples of small fleets that have taken improper actions with regard to catch size and netting usage.  Don't forget that the NOAA is the main regulator of the offshore fisheries. I just find it funny that the NOAA and the POTUS have told Joe Public that they no longer care what we as recreational fishers have to say.
The Commercial fishermen have a nice lobby that deals with DC.  Here is a good article about the issue:

Too Late to Stop the Train Wreck?
Millions of anglers in this country feel they’re being asked to pick up the tab for many decades of ineffective management...
Jan 5, 2010
By Doug Olander (More articles by this author)

From sea to shining sea, recreational anglers sense that they are under siege from a federal fisheries-management system and powerful environmental groups that neither understand nor care about us or our sport.

The following headlines, all written in the same week, offer some hint of how pervasive the struggle to fish is becoming, nationwide.

• Gulf Fishermen from Florida to Louisiana Rally Against Tighter Limits for Snapper, Grouper and More (Alabama, Press-Register, Nov. 8, 2009)
• Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Emergency Shutdown of Black Sea Bass Fishery (New Jersey, Asbury Park Press, Nov. 6, 2009)
• Angry Anglers Attack Proposed Ban on Snapper Fishing (Florida, Florida Today, Nov. 11, 2009)
• Tempers Flare as MLPA Panel Decides on No-Fishing Zones (California, TheLog.com, Nov. 11, 2009)


At the same time, the outrage among recreational fishermen — who've been notoriously uninterested in any sort of activism over the years — is leading them to fight back.

Up and down the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, federal fisheries-management agencies have been drawing fire. In the Gulf, decisions almost seemed designed to inflict maximum pain on our sport and industry — though I attribute those to insensitivity and downright stupidity versus vindictiveness — particularly with respect to one of the most popular Gulf game fish, the amberjack.

Closing that fishery with almost no advance warning last October was bad enough, but to announce such a closure during the last days of the very popular annual fishing rodeo in Destin, Florida, simply reiterates how out of touch this National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and some fishery council members seem to be with the recreational fishing community.

That sudden AJ closure, along with continuing contention over red snapper (and rumors that Gulf anglers may be facing a one-snapper limit next season, thanks to exceeding their 2009 quota), provided a catalyst that sent thousands out onto the Gulf in boats and by foot onto bridges and other public areas from northwest Florida to Louisiana in November in an unprecedented protest over sport-fishing management and regulations.

The public outcry helped lead to another first: The governors of all four Gulf Coast states west of Florida signed a joint letter in late October to Gary Locke, U.S. Secretary of Commerce (the agency that oversees NOAA), expressing their concerns over federal management of economically vital sport fisheries and urging a go-slow approach before locking up public marine resources in the form of commercial catch shares.

Similar protests and sentiments could be found at the same time along the Atlantic Coast (where draconian federal measures loom, including, in effect, closing much of the Southeast coast to bottomfishing) and in the Northeast (where fishermen face an emergency shutdown of the popular black sea bass fishery).

There's particular irony here in that this sudden activism on the part of recreational fishermen and widespread trashing of bad timing, bad science and bad decisions occurred just after NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco announced the creation of a new senior position of policy advisor for recreational fishing, and her public assurance at the ASA's annual summit in San Diego "that we think you are important, that we will pay attention and that we will work with you. It is my intention to improve our relationship. I look forward to a new era of cooperative relations between NOAA and anglers across this country."

Nice sentiments, but I fear too little, too late — and that's even if those words translate into actions (soon). NOAA might have headed off the widespread distrust of and antipathy toward the agency and fishery-management councils had Lubchenco offered such a commitment — and then worked quickly to act upon it — early in this administration's tenure.

Millions of anglers in this country feel they're being asked to pick up the tab for many decades of ineffective management that in large part accounts for one crisis after another popping up now like amanita mushrooms after a rain. Like no time in history, the voices of all of us who truly value the chance to — as Lubchenco described fishing — "enjoy this wonderful activity" should be heard via any number of national and regional organizations as well as independently. Also, you can stay informed and involved simply by checking the news pages of websites like www.sportfishingmag.com and initiating daily or weekly alerts at www.google.com/alerts for key words (e.g., fisheries management, fishing regulations, etc.). You may want to add additional alerts that include the name of your state and/or specific waters.

One very high-ranking federal fisheries official acknowledged to me that he now believes the U.S. fisheries-management system is "headed for a train wreck." If so, the damage will go far beyond the tracks. I suspect he's right, but I hope that somehow there may still be time to prove him wrong.

[wreckhog]

Obama will cause the loss of a couple of comm related jobs and create many more re related jobs. Net will be positive, not negative.

[SHOOTALL]

He will create more jobs , how many wardens will it take to stop fishing ?

[wreckhog]

With a fixed resource like fish, it is a zero sum game. For someone to win, someone else has to lose. Left  unmanaged, the comms will destroy everything. Seen many passenger pigeons around recently?

[SHOOTALL]

fixed resourse ? Many of the fish in our area are on the come back nothing fixed about it .

[wreckhog]

Fixed. If there are 100 units of fish that can be taken in a sustainable fashion, is the rec/comm split 90/10, 10/90, 50/50 etc?. What if there there are 500 comms and 5 million recs? Does that change things? Fish come back for all reasons. Management is one. For instance, striped bass are everywhere. Partly because it is NOW illegal for anyone to take them from federal waters. Which means they are all over the shoreline, where recs, including unlicensed, poor, black recs can get to them.

[wreckhog]

Comms love historical data. Which is based on long ago, when fresh caught local fish was a bigger part of everyone's diet. Times have changed and fish are now far more valuable to the economy in rec spending. We can farm raise fish. Did you know that comms are fishing Chilean sea bass into extinction right now?

[beerbelly]

Never met an environmental group that I didn't hate! Or an Obama commie.
                            Beerbelly

[SHOOTALL]

We take Rock Fish in season . I don't see it as a fixed res. I do agree with management . I feel fish and many critters cycle and the take needs to be managed on both ends .

[MGMorden]

We take Rock Fish in season . I don't see it as a fixed res. I do agree with management . I feel fish and many critters cycle and the take needs to be managed on both ends .

That's the point of a lot of this: management.  Left unchecked, commercial fishing tends to destroy a fish population.

For comparison, lets bring the same situation onto land: lets say commercial harvesting of deer was made legal.  Season is always open.  No bag limit, they can bait, and use whatever means necessary.  It wouldn't take long before the local populations were destroyed and nobody would have anything to hunt.  Even with commercial harvesting banned, for private hunting we even have to manage things and set limits on when people can hunt and how many animals they can take.  It keeps local populations healthy.

Why should we view marine harvesting any differently?  There has to be some limits.  Sure it might "cost jobs", but frankly, if you job is to utterly destroy the system leaving it in a situation that it may never recover from, then no thanks.  Jobs that have serious negative repercussions to the rest of society don't deserve saving.  One might just as well demand that murder not be made illegal for all the hitmen it would put out of work.

Besides, in the long run, a healthy population will ensure that continued fishing remains a viable industry.  Would you rather that x number of fisherman have work for 20 years and then all of them are out of work, or half that number have jobs for the next century?

[SHOOTALL]

there is a difference in limits and stopping ALL fishing IMHO .

[teamnelson]

I don't have a dog in this fight as I very rarely fish, and then its with a pole spear (rec). But if I'm tracking this correctly, y'all want MORE GOVERNMENT involvement in fishing? Like I said, not a fisherman, but definitely not pro-more government in any fashion.

[BUGEYE]

It's no great stretch to think bo would like to eliminate fishing.
Jacques Cousteau was totally against rec fishing.

[wreckhog]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ban-fishing




Debunking the Myth That Barack Obama is going to Ban Fishing

Who fishes more Barack Obama or Rush Limbaugh?
The right wing media has come up with a new twist on an old scare tactic, as they are now citing an opinion column on ESPNoutdoors.com to claim that President Obama is going to ban fishing. According to them, Obama is now not only going to take away your guns, but also your rod and reel, so let’s take a look at the facts and knock down this Internet rumor.

The original Espnoutdoors.com column from Robert Montgomery speculated that, “The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.” Later, Montgomery continued to speculate, “Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for “marine spatial planning” by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.”

Later Montgomery claimed with absolutely no evidence that Obama is conspiring with green groups to take away the right to fish in some areas. Somehow the speculation that the administration might ban some fishing, became Obama is going to ban all fishing.

Plain and simple, the right wing has taken one opinion columnist’s unfounded speculation, and turned it into an election year scare tactic to motivate those who fish to vote Republican in November. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force which is supposed to be out ban fishing actually exists to manage resources in order to, “help to restore fish populations, control invasive species, support healthy coastal communities and ecosystems, restore sensitive species and habitats, protect human health, and rationally allow for emerging uses of the ocean, including new energy production.”

In short, they are doing the same thing that every other state game wildlife or environmental agency does. This is not a top secret conspiracy. The information is available on the White House website. There is a difference between a ban and managing resources. Anyone who hunts and/or fishes knows that resources must be managed if they want to be able to enjoy their hobby for decades to come. Montgomery’s column was clearly labeled an opinion piece, but that hasn’t stopped the conspiracy theorists from turning opinion into fact. This just a new twist on the old talking point that Democrats want to take your guns away, it is nothing more than cheap election year manipulation.

[steve y]

This whole thing about commercial verses recreational is just a red herring (pun intended). All I see is a 1st step to totally doing away with all of it and leaving it only for the party elite. The party elite will still be able to eat fish and seafood because there will be government approved fisherman to catch their dinner. There will be a recreational fishery for the party elitest managed for them by government approved wildlife officers. To top all that off our fisheries are one of our greatest natural resources which will be used to pay off all our debts to China, Japan etc. as well as oil, gas, coal and timber. Why does the government own most of the land in the western states? Steve

[Oldshooter]

Its all about more government control! Hello!!!! is anybody home?

The only "fishermen" that this will affect are American "fishermen" Commercial or other wise!

Foreigners will ignore it as they do regulations now!

[billy_56081]

Well said Oldshooter!

[gypsyman]

Too much state revenue for the fed's to completly ban recreational fishing. More worried about the greenie's banning lead for sinkers and such. About 35 years ago, here on Lake Erie, they banned commercial walleye fishing on the lake. It was starting to clean itself up after decade's of pollution. Good laws passed by the govt.(anybody remember the Cuyahoga river catching on fire in Cleveland in the early '70's) When the state realized the potential of receational fishing, limited the comm. fisherman to what we call scavenger fish. Catfish,carp,white bass,sheepshead. It cut the number of comm fisherman from over 30, to I believe around 4-6 here in the Ohio waters. In the last 35+ years, the billions of dollars have been spent, and the millions of recreational fisherman, far outway the what the comm. guys could have accomplished. I had a good friend, passed away, couple years ago, that was a comm. fisherman at the time. What he got in compensation from the state, probably doubled what he could have done by fishing. Bought his boat for much more than it was worth, and gave him a job that lasted over 30 years.(and, I garauntee you, he didn't work that hard at it) Is there a place for comm. fishing. You betcha!! But, just like market hunters in the first part of the last century, it has to be regulated. gypsyman

[45-70.gov]

i  hope  obongo  pulls it  off

that  way  more fishermen  will  hate him  too