Give us a try!
Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!
More Change I Can Live Without
- Thread starter Bamboozle
- Start date
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Another example of a lack of common sense:beingsick:
mbwmn
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
not a whole lot of competition in that (peace) arena this year...maybe Fidel Castros brother?
Dr. Gonzo
Stuck in my cabana, livin on bananas and blow.
This sounds like an interesting situation but I'm a little skeptical of this article. It reads like an op ed piece. Anyone else notice that the only people quoted in it are people opposed to the federal activity? It only explains one side of the debate.
Another thing that raises a lot of red flags about the article for me is that it continually ascribes motives to the CEQ but doesn't attribute it to a source. For example, language like: "none of the comments from the recreational community were incorporated in the interim report. And there doesn't appear to be any intention of doing so." Based on what? This is entirely the author's opinion - no facts cited, no quotes from officials that support the contention that the agency will act accordingly.
Maybe there's a good reason for creating sanctuaries as a part of maintaining the fish populations so that anglers can continue to fish with them? Or is it just finding ways to create bureaucracy to spend federal money? There's no way to know from this article. So while I don't necessarily like this idea, I'll withhold judgment until I see more of the reasoning behind it.
Another thing that raises a lot of red flags about the article for me is that it continually ascribes motives to the CEQ but doesn't attribute it to a source. For example, language like: "none of the comments from the recreational community were incorporated in the interim report. And there doesn't appear to be any intention of doing so." Based on what? This is entirely the author's opinion - no facts cited, no quotes from officials that support the contention that the agency will act accordingly.
Maybe there's a good reason for creating sanctuaries as a part of maintaining the fish populations so that anglers can continue to fish with them? Or is it just finding ways to create bureaucracy to spend federal money? There's no way to know from this article. So while I don't necessarily like this idea, I'll withhold judgment until I see more of the reasoning behind it.
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
I heard the little guy from Iran is up for it next year.
I'm on the fence on this issue, but more on the sanctuary side. Like it or not, we do live in a world where the fish resources are stretched pretty thin - especially in saltwater. I remember days when you could catch buckets of flounder and porgy from a rented rowboat, pull-in cod up to 50 lbs right off Montauk, and catch huge quantities of ling and whiting from the NJ beaches in the winter. All these fisheries are gone due to overfishing. There were years when tons of ling were left dead at their spawning grounds by the Mud Hole as discarded by-catch for a few cod. The ling never really recovered. Sanctuaries have worked in some areas as havens for fish to breed and prosper and the increased fish populations spill over into the adjacent areas. The reason to do this so there are more fish around, not to destroy fishing. Part of the price is closed areas. We accept cold water refuges in the summer near Horton Brook on the Beaverkill and near the spring holes in the Housatonic for better year round fishing for holdover and wild trout. We may need to create year round sanctuaries to improve our fisheries elsewhere.
If closing areas improves fishing in general I am all for it. It is worth a try - if it doesn't work we need to fight it.
The Fed thing may be a problem. The one Nobel prize winner showed that the local stakeholders in a fishery will manage it better than bureaucrats far away.
If closing areas improves fishing in general I am all for it. It is worth a try - if it doesn't work we need to fight it.
The Fed thing may be a problem. The one Nobel prize winner showed that the local stakeholders in a fishery will manage it better than bureaucrats far away.
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
imo, the "initiative" has enormous potential, but neglecting the input of recreational anglers and negatively affecting recreational access would be a huge mistake. as we know, recreational outdoorsmen as a group are among the most ardent conservationists and sometimes if not most of the time more knowledgeable about what a system needs than the people writing/implementing the regs. an overarching guiding policy would be great, but only if it recognizes beneficial uses and access.
I looked at briefly the interim report and think its goals and strategy seem positive. The idea that the whole process is excluding input from recreational anglers is just the spin that fishing industry is putting on it. The task force has set up a website that has a pdf of the report and a very user friendly way for the public to make comments.
Unfortunately, it looked like most of the angler comments were all the same "cut and paste" statement about recreational angler's not getting to provide input! Duplicate, cut and paste comments are not nearly as influential as actually writing your own individual thoughts. These folks would have been made better use of their efforts if they actually made their own comments rather than just regurgitate the same complaint.
By the way, the cut and paste comment includes the following line: "Providing the angling public with access to public resources is no less important than conserving those resources." Don't know about you, but I can't agree with that.
CEQ Initiatives - Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force - Interim Report | The White House
Unfortunately, it looked like most of the angler comments were all the same "cut and paste" statement about recreational angler's not getting to provide input! Duplicate, cut and paste comments are not nearly as influential as actually writing your own individual thoughts. These folks would have been made better use of their efforts if they actually made their own comments rather than just regurgitate the same complaint.
By the way, the cut and paste comment includes the following line: "Providing the angling public with access to public resources is no less important than conserving those resources." Don't know about you, but I can't agree with that.
CEQ Initiatives - Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force - Interim Report | The White House
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
I have to disagree. No one has more incentive to participate in this process than fishermen. What reason would they have to state that their input was not considered? I suspect this is another example of the federal government knowing best and the fact is that including the recreational fishermen in this process is what ensures buy in and success. You need to be more keenly aware of the agendas on both sides of the aisle. Similarly the wholesale sell of BLM land to gas companies had the opposite effect in that it failed to take in public comments. So this is not about left or right. This is about Fed control over what in many cases should be state control of a resource.
clearstream
New member
I don't disagree with most of what you said, but considering water a resource that belongs under the control of a state, without consideration to the states or territories, or oceans that contribute to or derive from that resource, is not so simple. Not that fed control is necessarily any better, but in many instances, it can't be much worse. The original article seems to be a scare tactic, designed to get attention. The actual request from the President is for a recommendation, not for a policy. I'm sure it will then be debated, or at least the executive order will be open for suggestions from other sources. Don't think the pres has the political capital for this one right now.
Joe D
Registered User
Similar threads
