# do you fish while cruising?



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

...then you should read this...Obama moving to limit fishing access - ESPN


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Xort - that article sounds a little shrill and paranoid to me. Is there anyone in the world that really thinks that recreational fishing by 8-year-old boys (shown in the article) is causing the crash of the salmon population?












> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

I'd expect you to misread the whole tone of the article...next


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maybe I misread it - but the gist of it seemed to be based on that bolded statement above. That is, "nothing has been said about any of this having anything to do with recreational fishing...and that silence is deafening and we need to do something about it." Whaaaa?

Sorry - I just don't see it.

Next....

PS - Maybe this is more suited to the PolitiPit.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

Look at the poster Smack.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

You mean this poster?










(Isn't that thing disturbing on so many levels? You know she's dyin' from snowmelt ache on the ankles.)


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

> The (fill in blank) 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.





> "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),





> "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





> 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


Having delt with many of these groups for several years in land access issues for OHV orgs, all the quotes above should make everybody who loves to fish very concerned, we are about to loose another american pastime as we now experience it.

What is going on is the game of take on give, they'll press to take it all, but will give a little in return, what you end up with is a heavily regulated activity, if you have the activity at all.

If you don''t think it's possibe...............think again

Good heads up Xort, but too little too late


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

Wow. I read that whole article, but now my time is redeemed. This place gets more like sailinganarchy every day! 

Really though, they know they can't begin to stop recreational fishing, and they aren't going to try.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

tager said:


> Really though, they know they can't begin to stop recreational fishing, and they aren't going to try.


Wow, deja vu.........this was the same mindset as the several hundred thousand register offroad user in Ca. had that thought the sport was too economically important to be attacked by anti access org, 7yrs later, they were crying " how could this happen and why didn't we know "


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

Hey Mods,
How about moving this thread to Off-Topic where it belongs.
Thanks


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

this is definitely ON TOPIC, it affects all people who like to fish while cruising. the florida anchoring debate is politically driven, why isn't it off topic?

they have already taken big chunks of the florida keys and california and enacted a total ban on fishing.

Incrementally, they want to stop fishing. they will do it bit by bit.

Why do these govt people give plenty of ear to the enviro groups but none at all to any group involved in fishing? it's a one sided debate with the pro fishing people totally shut out of the 'conversation'

this isn't about management of the fishery, it's about stopping you from fishing altogether.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

xort said:


> Why do these govt people give plenty of ear to the enviro groups but none at all to any group involved in fishing? it's a one sided debate with the pro fishing people totally shut out of the 'conversation'


Look up the demonstrable decline in fished marine populations over the last 50 years. You might find the answer to your question there.

Then the strategy of who to go after in this debate becomes more interesting.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Mods -- Please keep this here, it's very much On Topic. I don't want to miss this. This is not Off Topic.

Put another way, jumping off the back of the boat is not exactly sailing, but it's an activity we do frequently with the kids. If they start trying to prohibit jumping off the back of the boat, I'd want that to be considered On Topic as well.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Bene505 said:


> If they start trying to prohibit jumping off the back of the boat, I'd want that to be considered On Topic as well.


The fact that you're not hearing the government talking about prohibiting jumping off the back of your boat should make you very concerned. That silence is deafening. Think about the $3.8 billion swim ladder and water weenie industries and all the good people they employ. What are they going to do when everyone has to stay on their boat? Starve to death. That's what.

I'm emailing my congressman.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - here's one of a million articles talking about the decline in the world's fish supply. Now, this can easily turn into the "Global Warming" debate tactic of debunking the science, or the MSM newspaper it's in, yadda, yadda, yadda. But for me, when I hear the guys on "Deadliest Catch" talking about how they've seen the steep decline in their fished species over their lifetimes (along with other industries like the PNW salmon industry, etc.), I tend to believe this data.

Here's the article:
World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn

And here are the pertinent points regarding the science behind the study:



> An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the effects of fisheries collapses.
> 
> The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors are wiping out important species around the globe, hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease.
> 
> ...


So, in the face of this data...what do you do? Ignore it?


----------



## sck5 (Aug 20, 2007)

"So, in the face of this data...what do you do? Ignore it?"

Yes. That is exactly what they will do right after they tell you it is all a sinister plot.

Hey. the right wing is interested in regulating SEX for Gods sake. They actually CARE who other people are sleeping with and what they are doing when they are alone. That means they are hardly consistent in opposing government regulation. Dont worry, this is just another paranoid right wing hissy fit. The subject changes but the punchline is always the same - "Obama bad"


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

don't make this a political issue 

> Before you dismiss xort and his heads up post, read up on the UN's Law of the Sea convention, Obamas memo of 7/2009, the interim report from the newly formed Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, the recommendation for the adoption and implementation of a oceans, coasts and great lakes national policy by some of the most radical and powerful environmental group out there.​
> They all want a enhanced version of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.​
> Now were you to put that together with the abuse by environmentalist of the EO signed by Nixon in the early seventies that creating the EPA & the ESA, you can just imagine where this management act will lead us.​
> They went after and are still going after a 35 billion dollar a year industry and put a huge dent in it, they'll have no problem going after a 14 billion dollar a year industry​
> ...


I posted this on AS, thought I would copy it here


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Man am I glad the US doesn't make the laws here.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

This isn't the US, it's environmentalist and the UN, the US is one of a few that have not ratified the act as of yet, there is a good economic reason it hasn't been ratified, but that could change by summer


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

decline of the worlds fish supply? :laugher:laugher

recreational sport fishing in the US represents 3% of the total take in the usa. Yep, them sport fisherpeople need to be stopped.

This will be like regulating overboard discharge of treated waste. The big polluters (municipalities) will continue to dump millions of gallons of untreated waste while the govt stops hundreds of gallons of TREATED waste by boaters.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

xort said:


> decline of the worlds fish supply? :laugher:laugher
> 
> recreational sport fishing in the US represents 3% of the total take in the usa. Yep, them sport fisherpeople need to be stopped.


Precisely my point Xort.

Why is "the government" turning a "deaf ear" to the fishing industry on this issue? Look at the data.

Why does your article come across as so paranoid regarding recreational anglers being lumped in with "Big Fishing"? Look at your quote with the laughies.

Maybe you should be targeting Big Fishing for threatening your pasttime.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Here, I did some onion peeling on one of the key players; what I found was not surprising, all the following are connected

EMS aka Fenton Communication
Greenpeace
NRDC
Seaweb a "project" of the Tides Center

What interesting but not surprising is that Jane Lubchenco is a board member of Seaweb, so there's a hidden agenda a play here and the current admin is the weakest puppet they've had in a while


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

So the article says submissions have closed - big deal there is always a close off date when submissions are called for.
The second beef that there is a recreational fishing industry. So? How big will that be when there are very few fish? 
Some means of limiting catches while still preserving the recreational element with some limits seems commonsense.
In this country with both, the major limit on the most common species which we call snapper although it differs from the fish others do is nine per person per day.
I would suggest that 90% of people who try catch relatively few often none because of a lack of knowledge and skill. Equally 10% have no trouble and can generally catch their limit in a few hours. On average one small fish provides a meal for one while a bigger version is enough for 2-9.
I keep one fish for two meals and give the rest to family or the elderly or similar who wouldn't otherwise get it. A good catch provides enough for twenty plus meals so I have a favourite institution who I help from time to time. Note other species are extra.
When cruising I rarely bother fishing except maybe to catch my dinner while I am having a sundowner.
Anyone read COD - a story of the codfishing industry, Boston, rum, and slavery? Recommended.
Marine reserves, restrictions on fishing in breeding seasons, size and quantity limits, net size restrictions are all part of responsible management of resources to bleat that they are restrictions seems egocentric.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

While different people will read into it what the will, what you don't see is what will come next when this is ratified. Root orgs such as World Wildlife Fund, IFAW with the support of governmental enviros such as NOAA will push to get this done setting the ground work..... sounds good and everybody feels better about themseves, the real problems come when the branch orgs like the Center for Bio-diversity are let loose, their game plan is already in play and being successfully used up & down the west coast right now.

Their strategy is 
a) Petitions and litigation to list species under federal law. 
b) Litigation to establish critical habitat for species
c) Fishing policy reform through advocacy and litigation 
d) Strategic litigation to protect habitat.

This will be how the oceans, coasts and great lakes national policy will be abused


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

poopdeckpappy said:


> Here, I did some onion peeling on one of the key players; what I found was not surprising, all the following are connected
> 
> EMS aka Fenton Communication
> Greenpeace
> ...


Dude, there's one thing you're missing in your arguments here...the data. It doesn't really matter who she is, what size shoes she wears, or what dark agenda she might have for world undomination...the numbers back her up. That's your main problem.

None of this would be going anywhere if the fish weren't gone. So, like I said, it's a problem that _someone_ has to deal with. Is it going to be industrial fishing itself? Or someone else? For that probable answer all you have to do is look at history.


----------



## bloodhunter (May 5, 2009)

Before condemning the whole idea consider what happened with the striped bass (aka Rockfish) in the Chesapeake Bay. When I first started sailing on the bay 38 years ago Rockfish were plentiful. Fishermen would come back to our marina with coolers full and give the fish away to whomever wanted them. You could get Rock in the fish market for 19 cents a pound. As time went on the catch got smaller and smaller. Finally, in the mid-1980's, fishing for Rock was totally banned. 
The result was that the Rock population came back and the ban was lifted -- don't know exactly when but some time in the 90's fishing was again allowed -- with restrictions. 
I'm not a fisherman, but last November I went out with my marina neighbor in his power boat and we caught some Rock (only two actually but one was 23 pounds and the other 22).
My point is that the ban did exactly what it was intended to do and then it was lifted. Will other restrictions and bans on fishing work? There's no guarantee. But one thing you can guarantee is that if nothing is done, some species are just gonna disappear. 
My 2 cents


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> ...the numbers back her up. That's your main problem.


oh yeah, we all know how data & numbers work for backup



> For that probable answer all you have to do is look at history.


history for me is still fresh in my mind, I've had dealings with these people for many years.......

I'm done with this, it's the same old sh*t, different environment


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

These are the same people involved in the alar apple scare. they claimed apple juice will give school kids cancer. they drove many small apple processors out of business over junk science. They'll do the same to many small fishing related businesses in the name of do-gooder bs. you'll buy into their junk science thinking you're saving the planet. while faceless businesses will fold up all up and down the coast...for no good reason.

But you'll feel better pretending to do something good for the planet


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yeah, yeah. Honestly, I don't fully buy the hype on either side.

For example, I don't have very much faith that scientists actually know exactly when my kids won't have fishsticks anymore. I think they tend to be alarmist at times (as with a couple of quotes in the article I posted) - and aren't real good at defining accurate end games.

On the other hand, I do believe the data that fish populations are declining at an alarming rate. In addition to the science, anecdotal evidence from actual large-scale fishermen over the past 20-30 years goes a long way to backing that data up.

So - yes, the data will be hyped both ways. And there will be breathless hysteria on both sides (like your article and your posts above).

In the mean time, as many reasonable people have pointed out in this thread, something needs to be done to slow the rate of decline.

So, like I said, if there is pretty clear evidence that large-scale overfishing is occurring (which there is), and you're so worried about the small fishing-related businesses and recreational fishermen that are being hurt by this large-scale overfishing, shouldn't you yourselves address that problem at its source (large-scale fishing) instead of blaming it all on government and environmentalist whacko conspiracies?

If not, then your alternative is to kill any regulation whatsoever and put your absolute and total faith in the large-scale fishing industry...faith that it _collectively_ has the wisdom, commitment, ability, and self-regulatory wherewithal to voluntarily forego profit across the board for many years while the fish stocks recover.

And see, what's cool is that if you can get them to do that, your small fishing-related businesses and recreational fishing will actually see a boom as stocks come back! AND, the government won't have to say a word! AND the Lubchenko chick will be out of a job!

That's capitalism in action.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

It is one thing to try and enforce limits on commercial fishermen and their catch; I'm quite certain that the 'gummint' does a pretty lax job of this. It is quite another to try and enforce limits on recreational fishermen. They don't have enough agents to even attempt this.
I already have my fishing poles and gear. I can fish from my boat when ever and where ever I like. I wish them luck catching me at it. They want us to start paying for salt water recreational (commercial already has to have a license w/quotas and seasons) fishing licenses in NY and I also say farg that for now. I'll keep fishing as infrequently as I do and reconsider paying for a fishing license once I get 'caught'. It is one thing to pass a law and quite another to enforce it. 
No one has mentioned the lobbies and companies like Cabelas, WM and even Boat US will be taking notice of this as well. The commercial fishermen on LI are enduring tough times with their quotas and 'season' restrictions as well. 


Smack,
Do you even have any edible fish in your lake? Catfish perhaps? Snakehead? Smackfish?

Interesting topic.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Plenty of Smackfish in Travis. They're absolutely beautiful - but leave a really bad aftertaste for some.

Heh-heh.

Wait - Cabelas...CalebD...do I smell a subliminal conspiracy?


----------



## Wayne25 (Jul 26, 2006)

CalebD - I would suggest you do a little research. The Mid Atlantic states have already gone through what you think can't happen. Fish & wildlife boats are giving fines on the open ocean for violations, as they should. Do some searches on "regulations" here Topics - Delmarva Saltfish Discussion Forum for info from the horses mouth.

Xort & Poopdeckpappy are correct. The "Green extremists" got their women in power as head of NOAA and now thet are forcing their values on everyone. The fisheries can be managed by creel limits and size limits and moratoriums on certain species if needed ( as with rock fish) using good science. And this is the process we were working through on the east coast. But the agenda is now being changed. The "green extremists" really do not want any hunting or fishing , period, ever again. The agenda will be to set up "protected zones" all along the east coast as they did along the west coast. No management of resources here. Total forbidden vast areas. Bottom line - You'll never be able to take your kids, grand kids or their kids fishing again. Sad, very sad indeed.


----------



## Wayne25 (Jul 26, 2006)

To follow up on my above comment. This is an example of the crap propaganda that is starting to be fed to our kids and public in general. YouTube - NOAA Overfishing Video
Again, no resource management, just full closure forever.

Here is one of many organizations trying to stop it with too little money and power. I fear its just a matter of time now. Keep America Fishing


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

CalebD said:


> No one has mentioned the lobbies and companies like Cabelas, WM and even Boat US will be taking notice of this as well.


Caleb, many time when we've had simular topics in the past, I have mentioned how people will support a cause without knowing who is driving the action, where they money is going or how spent.

Case in point; CBD is a extremely ruthless and decieving environmental org. and they are very involved in marine protection with one of their offshoot orgs named Oceana North America; ONA has a long list of Corporate doners which includes Nautica, Sperry Top-Sider & 
West Marine Products.

So be aware that every dime you spend on these products, a portion goes to a organization whos sole propose in life is to seperate human interaction from the environment.

Side story

I spent nearly 40yrs in the offroad community, the last 7 fighting these same orgs over land access issues. Part of just about every riders gear bag was a ********* hydration system, many costing will over $100.00.

REI ran a advertisment blasting the offroad community and was part of a compaign to STOP the OHV distruction of the environment, one of the listed supporters of this campaign was ******** Hydration systems.

What our district riders did was to cut the labels off their systems and we sent ********* back several hundred of their labels letting them know there was other hydration systems that will be getting our business.

They posted their withdraw of support shortly after in the offroad publications.

Bottomline is beware who you're dealing with, in more ways than one


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

hmmm Smackster....I wish I could tell you how hella lame your argument is. However, Living in Alaska where there is still somewhat of a commercial fishery left........Right now they are fighting this very issue......recreational vs. commercial folks. So they get large poundage quato and the ordinary joe gets one halibut. So tell me lad....are ya gonna pay a $100 semolinas for one fish or not????? Something tells me that the pols have already been paid off and sorted out the quotas and the rec guys are gonna get bupkiss. But hey that is just what is happening here in real time, real life not in the fairy dust land where you live.......go figure Maybe we will ask the trawlers to use smaller nets and their "bycatch" tons of dead fish which is thrown back into the ocean will be less??? Puhleeze....get real, it always comes down to the benjies and you do not have enough!


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

BTW this is not an attack against anybody pls do not take offence Smack...

I just have seen too many small resorts closing up because of the recreational fishery restrictions and the big boys just keep on going......

yea I am angry when I use to be able to catch my winter supply of red salmon and halibut in one trip and now....meh....I do not even buy a license anymore, or fish.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

Oh no, somebody somewhere is having fun!!! They have to be stopped!


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

I will still go fishing no matter what happens. Even if all of the fish die, I will still catch the same amount.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

AKscooter said:


> BTW this is not an attack against anybody pls do not take offence Smack...
> 
> *I just have seen too many small resorts closing up because of the recreational fishery restrictions and the big boys just keep on going......*
> 
> yea I am angry when I use to be able to catch my winter supply of red salmon and halibut in one trip and now....meh....I do not even buy a license anymore, or fish.


Scooter - no sweat dude. I don't take stuff personally. That's what drives most people crazy actually.

Look - your bolded statement above is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! The big boys keep on going - and the little guys are paying through the nose for a single fish because of the regulations imposed due to...yes...the big boys.

Who's fault is that? The government's?

My point is that the problem is the big boys. They've fished the place out. The guys in this thread are trying to put all the blame on the government and environmentalist whackos for that, when these people aren't the ones with the nets.

I'm just saying you should take the fight to the source (industrial fishing) - not blame the ones that don't even know how to put stinkbait on an 8/0, float a ginked Adams, or noodle a cat.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> The guys in this thread are trying to put all the blame on the government and environmentalist whackos for that, when these people aren't the ones with the nets.


Smack, it's no longer about who has the nets, hell, it probably isn't even about overfishing any more. What it's about now is passing or ratifying the UN law of the sea under this administation; once that's done, the abuse of the ESA will escalate. They don't even have to be endangered, they can simply litigate that they're threatened and need further studies, which usually means off the table for decades; In the end you'll find yourself asking the question " just what next f***ing generation were they talking about " because it won't be your kids or thier kids


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - Poop - I'll say it once more, then it's starting to become a tad repetitive.

Your post above may be completely correct. I'm just saying you've got the wrong target(s) in your cross hairs. The UN, the USG, the ESA, Lubchenko, the environuts...

The ONLY reason they have ANY traction whatsoever is the 800 pound bluefin in the room that you guys keep dancing around. That is that the fish are gone due to industrial overfishing.

Someone DOES need to stop this practice so that the fish can have a chance to come back. That's very simple common sense. The big fishing guys are not going to do that on their own. And it's because it's gotten this bad that the above groups have the power they have. Big fishing gave it to them.

Therefore, you should be going after the _cause_...not the result. That's all I'm saying.

The thing that's hard for you guys to swallow in this premise (I assume) is that going down this road would put you on the same side as the groups you despise.

But it would be the right road...IMUSO.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

This will turn out like overboard discharge. municipalities get to dump billions of gallons of crap but miniscule amounts of TREATED waste gets banned. 

The fish factories will not get touched but evil sport fisherman will get thumped. You'll soon see old videos of sportfishermen with 20 fish on deck laughing and they will be portrayed as evil fish killers. Even though sport fishing takes 3% of the catch we'll bear the brunt of this new round of limits. Bound to happen


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - Poop - I'll say it once more, then it's starting to become a tad repetitive.


You crack me up Smack, I'm sorry to see ya all frustrated and stuff but;

Going after big industry isn't the answer as you like to believe, they only supply what we demand, what we consume, that's the way it's been since man discovered pointy sticks; I guess, by your mindset, we should be going after ourselves..........interesting, sounds kinda extreme though smacky



> I'm just saying you've got the wrong target(s) in your cross hairs. The UN, the USG, the ESA, Lubchenko, the environuts...


They are absolutely the correct target, they are the ones that will stop fishing within the economic zone of the US, this will do little to harm big fishing industry, but it will destroy commercial sport fishing and recreational fishing and all the support industries that go along with them.

PS:
You have to ask yourself this, why has this become so important that it must be enacted during this admin


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

poopdeckpappy said:


> You crack me up Smack, I'm sorry to see ya all frustrated and stuff but;
> 
> Going after big industry isn't the answer as you like to believe, they only supply what we demand, what we consume, that's the way it's been since man discovered pointy sticks;* I guess, by your mindset, we should be going after ourselves*..........interesting, sounds kinda extreme though smacky


Now you're starting to get it Poops. And sure, it is extreme. But so is species collapse caused by unsustainable demand and over-fishing.

Your philosophy of "It can't be 'us'. It has to be 'them'." Only works for so long. At some point...it's us.



poopdeckpappy said:


> They are absolutely the correct target, they are the ones that will stop fishing within the economic zone of the US, this will do little to harm big fishing industry, but it will destroy commercial sport fishing and recreational fishing and all the support industries that go along with them.


So if I'm reading your line of reasoning correctly, we seem to agree that big fishing has caused a serious problem (just innocently filling our never-ending seafood buffet plates, of course). And we seem to agree that recreational fishing is going to be seriously harmed by this problem.

But then you say the answer is to this problem is to go after NOT the ones that created the problem, but the ones who are going to have to step in to remedy it?

Wow. Extreme, dude.

(PS - At least Xort is finally starting to acknowledge the real issue with his post above.)


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Are y'all done securing the agricultural storage portal after the equine defenestration?
Public comment on this report was closed on February 12th. This thread was started a month later. If you all are so upset, so concerned and so outraged, how come you didn't bother to comment until a month after comments were closed?

have any of you actually read the report?
The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force | The White House

BTW, the report was published in September of 2009. It is available online.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf

It's only 38 pages. Read it yourself and form your own opinion, rather than accepting someone else's interpretation.

I have no problem with faulting any politician for mismanagement, leadership failure or just general malfeasance, but in this case the info has been available for months, the terms of public consultation have been posted, and it ain't Obama's fault that nobody bothered to get all fired up until it was too late.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Now you're starting to get it Poops.


Oh thanks smack, now let me know when YOU get it  

bljones, I posted that report plus same others back a page or two, as to the rest of what you said, it's just apathy until it's your back yard.


----------



## mightyhorton (Dec 3, 2006)

Smacky, I thought you were smarter than this. You should have known better than to bring the scientific method and coherent logic to a faith based argument.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

mightyhorton said:


> Smacky, I thought you were smarter than this. You should have known better than to bring the scientific method and coherent logic to a faith based argument.


Heh-heh. Nicely played hort.

Now pardon me while I go try to gill net some dolphins.


----------



## Allanbc (Apr 19, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> while I go try to gill net some dolphins.


Dude, you are an IDIOT!

Gill netting dolphins! That is just plain CRUEL!

The best way to get dolphins is to lure them in with a dead fish and then club them like a baby seal. That is much more manly.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Bwaha. I love this site.


----------

