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

<<<"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. >>>

two things..

1: all public input periods have to come to an end.

2: the rumors of a planned ban on fishing are unfounded and addressed below.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/11/...fish-65275.html

when it comes down to it, there are a couple of fisheries policies that are quite unpopular, and those policies will come under review soon.

Isnt it funny how some people just blow [censored] out of proportion! Looks like there never was any attempt or thought by the US government to take away recreational fishing. The minute i read the first post the other day on here about this topic knew it was a load of [censored]. Taking away recreational fishing on a national scale would have a worse retaliation than banning tobacco products in the US. There is no way that would fly.

Ironically, many of the people being accused of wanting to take away recreational fishing are recreational fishermen and women themselves.

When you work for that department, you tend to be into fishing, and tend to have a healthy respect for the sport.

I've been following this Off/On since it 1st started

The NY Times is a very Democratically Biased news organization.FOX News, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, they all have thier own agenda's/Party to push.

It's happened before... Red Snapper.. Shark...



it's a play of words, they are not going to completely say "NO you can't fish"... there going to change around the seasons/limits to the point where it's not financially beneficial to fish.

Example... make a 50-120 mile run offshore to catch 1 Amberjack and MAYBE 1 Wahoo... (only being able to land 1 Shark per boat) cut in a limit on number of Tuna/ when you can catch a tuna etc...

The stories say they won't have a blanket ban for fishing. It doesn't say anything about new limitations "to ensure future generations will be able to fish and enjoy nature". I just want to know how far this thing will go. The fisherman themselves are ensuring a future for fishing here in fresh waters. I don't want some animal rights groups pushing for license fees that are unreasonable, and limits that would not make it worth your time or effort to fish. I do catch and release, but sometimes I want to have a few stocked up in the freezer. Just wondered why I haven't heard more on the subject. I would like to see particular wording in this matter, instead we are left guessing about what it all means.

kelkay

the policy is being worked out right now, that's why you are not seeing any specifics. The policy its self probably wont give you much information anyway, since it is not a specific policy regarding a region or a fish, rather a policy or framework for going about specific policy changes.

basically.. when one group or another has an agenda for fisheries management, either pro-commercial, pro-recreational, or pro-conservation, this committee is setting up a national framework by which those requests will be handled.