Obama to ban recreational fishing, affecting 60 million fishers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love it.

p1-rally_400-300.jpg


Picture with a crowd of protesters with one holding a sign that says "save the humans"
 
Foxrac said:
lol, I can't believe that you made it without check out from other website. :lol:
Click to expand...

The article was fresh and from a fairly reputable source........It is still important that they are no longer open to public comment.
 
kokonut said:
No because the topic is about fishing although it's no longer about recreational fishing that's at stake, obvioiusly, but the thread can now take a look at the stakes against commercial fishing. Or at least start a fresh thread on that very topic.
Click to expand...

ok but when you do - just make sure not to post an article about a ban on all commercial fishing :lol:
 
Jiro said:
ok but when you do - just make sure not to post an article about a ban on all commercial fishing :lol:
Click to expand...

Certainly a limitation which will impact commercial fishing.
 
TXgolfer said:
The article was fresh and from a fairly reputable source........It is still important that they are no longer open to public comment.
Click to expand...

kokonut said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Disagreed, kokonut's thread is full of BS because ESPN blogger is just irresponsibility about Obama will ban on recreational fishing since it is about bluefin tuna ban.

It is amazing to see you and kokonut said ESPN blog is more important. :lol:
 
netrox said:
Nice deflection.. you posted, "recreational fishing.." not commercial fishing. Fess up, you're so wrong.
Click to expand...

"it's no longer about recreational fishing that's at stake, obvioiusly..."
 
kokonut said:
"it's no longer about recreational fishing that's at stake, obvioiusly..."
Click to expand...

Of course, commercial fishing is at stake... yeah, you don't mind if you cannot catch tuna yourself because they took it away from you, right?

Recreational fishermen have the right to have their fair share of use. Commercial fishing has diminished that fair share and the only way to do it is REGULATE them, duh!
 
Can't change the thread title. Note what I said earlier:

"Or at least start a fresh thread on that very topic."
 
Foxrac said:
Disagreed, kokonut's thread is full of BS because ESPN blogger is just irresponsibility about Obama will ban on recreational fishing since it is about bluefin tuna ban.

It is amazing to see you and kokonut said ESPN blog is more important. :lol:
Click to expand...



First, it's not a blogger, it is the ESPN outdoors reporter. That's actually worse because reporters are held to higher standards. That's why it is an embarrassment for ESPN and had to be retracted.

Second, although the report WAS irresponsible, it started from a FACT that public input was no longer welcome, THAT'S what I said was important still. The reporter went on to project the possibility of what a lack of public input could lead to. He got carried away and that is clear now.

Third when I said the article was "FRESH" I was saying that it had just come out. There were no other sources at that point.
 
I agree that closing off public input is a bad thing (usually, but not always). But what facts do we know about THAT? Why was it closed off? How long was it open for input?

It's possible that the public input period just reached a natural conclusive end and it's time for the beast to get to work (as we all know, our government works behind closed doors. I'm not saying that's okay; it's just the way it works).

Or, it's possible that there were so many loonies raving about how this ban on one tiny fraction of the commercial fishing industry is going to slip slide into a ban of total recreational fishing, that the people in charge just got fed up and said, "F--- it, these people are morons and only impeding the process."

I mean, look what happened with the ESPN article. Can't say I don't blame the officials for being irked and annoyed when you have people writing drivel like that under the guise of reporting.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I agree that closing off public input is a bad thing (usually, but not always). But what facts do we know about THAT? Why was it closed off? How long was it open for input?

It's possible that the public input period just reached a natural conclusive end and it's time for the beast to get to work (as we all know, our government works behind closed doors. I'm not saying that's okay; it's just the way it works).

Or, it's possible that there were so many loonies raving about how this ban on one tiny fraction of the commercial fishing industry is going to slip slide into a ban of total recreational fishing, that the people in charge just got fed up and said, "F--- it, these people are morons and only impeding the process."

I mean, look what happened with the ESPN article. Can't say I don't blame the officials for being irked and annoyed when you have people writing drivel like that under the guise of reporting.
Click to expand...

I didn't see how long in any of the articles......at least not that I remember. One article did say conservation groups were not considered part of the public opinion and would still have a voice. That's a red flag but :dunno:
 
let's not quibble. so let's move on now.
 
TXgolfer said:
First, it's not a blogger, it is the ESPN outdoors reporter. That's actually worse because reporters are held to higher standards. That's why it is an embarrassment for ESPN and had to be retracted.

Second, although the report WAS irresponsible, it started from a FACT that public input was no longer welcome, THAT'S what I said was important still. The reporter went on to project the possibility of what a lack of public input could lead to. He got carried away and that is clear now.

Third when I said the article was "FRESH" I was saying that it had just come out. There were no other sources at that point.
Click to expand...

No, I'm still called them as blogger, even source that I posted said it is blogger.

It is unexcuse for ESPN to be irresponsible, even their report about Obama will ban on recreational fishing is still not important, they are just void, IMO.
 
Foxrac said:
No, I'm still called them as blogger, even source that I posted said it is blogger.

It is unexcuse for ESPN to be irresponsible, even their report about Obama will ban on recreational fishing is still not important, they are just void, IMO.
Click to expand...

Outdoors News, Information, Tournaments, Photos, Videos, Blogs - ESPNOutdoors.com - ESPN

From the editorEmail Print Comments 19Share17retweet4 By Steve Bowman
Executive Editor ESPNOutdoors.com
Archive
Firestorms get started in a variety of ways, especially on politicized issues.

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest article in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them -- it was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

This series started in October and has included several updates on how the creation of the task force and its actions could impact recreational anglers. ESPNOutdoors.com should have made it clear to all readers that this was part of a larger series, and -- even though this was Montgomery's opinion, and those of the sources quoted in the column -- we should have taken more care to fairly represent opposing arguments.


We do feel it is our duty to cover issues surrounding outdoor sports to the best of our abilities, and given the nature of this task force and the potential impact on all fisherman, this was an appropriate topic to address for our audience. We take seriously the tenets of journalism that require we take an unbiased approach, and when we make mistakes in the presentation of a story or a column, it is our responsibility to admit them.

Any confusion on that part rests entirely on my shoulders as the executive editor of this site.

We have appended the original column to note that it was in fact a commentary, and we will institute more rigorous editing safeguards in order to prevent such issues in the future.


Other installments from the series:

United We Fish rally at Capitol
Groups call to address fishing issues
Fishing interests rally in Washington
Group works to bypass management plan
Task force supporters
RFA pushes for flexibility bill
Recreation anglers see task force as threat
Anglers protest fishery closures at Capitol
OPTF acknowledges "recreational fishing" in doc
Decision from Ocean Policy Task Force in Dec.
Rec Fishing Alliance sues over NOAA closings
Recreational anglers to be considered
Task Force questioned on accepting input from recreational fishermen
Why anglers aren't environmentalists


Guess he has been a blogger since 1985.
 
TXgolfer said:
Outdoors News, Information, Tournaments, Photos, Videos, Blogs - ESPNOutdoors.com - ESPN

From the editorEmail Print Comments 19Share17retweet4 By Steve Bowman
Executive Editor ESPNOutdoors.com
Archive
Firestorms get started in a variety of ways, especially on politicized issues.

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest article in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them -- it was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

This series started in October and has included several updates on how the creation of the task force and its actions could impact recreational anglers. ESPNOutdoors.com should have made it clear to all readers that this was part of a larger series, and -- even though this was Montgomery's opinion, and those of the sources quoted in the column -- we should have taken more care to fairly represent opposing arguments.


We do feel it is our duty to cover issues surrounding outdoor sports to the best of our abilities, and given the nature of this task force and the potential impact on all fisherman, this was an appropriate topic to address for our audience. We take seriously the tenets of journalism that require we take an unbiased approach, and when we make mistakes in the presentation of a story or a column, it is our responsibility to admit them.

Any confusion on that part rests entirely on my shoulders as the executive editor of this site.

We have appended the original column to note that it was in fact a commentary, and we will institute more rigorous editing safeguards in order to prevent such issues in the future.


Other installments from the series:

United We Fish rally at Capitol
Groups call to address fishing issues
Fishing interests rally in Washington
Group works to bypass management plan
Task force supporters
RFA pushes for flexibility bill
Recreation anglers see task force as threat
Anglers protest fishery closures at Capitol
OPTF acknowledges "recreational fishing" in doc
Decision from Ocean Policy Task Force in Dec.
Rec Fishing Alliance sues over NOAA closings
Recreational anglers to be considered
Task Force questioned on accepting input from recreational fishermen
Why anglers aren't environmentalists


Guess he has been a blogger since 1985.
Click to expand...

Reporter or blogger, whatever you call, for me, I prefer to say blogger so there is no right or wrong, anyway.
 
Foxrac said:
Reporter or blogger, whatever you call, for me, I prefer to say blogger so there is no right or wrong, anyway.
Click to expand...

One is bound by journalistic ethics (which Montgomery violated) the other is not. There is a difference.

But.....Moving on

Montgomery's rewrite

Making progress - ESPN



And Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano, said, "This is a positive first step. How sport fishing and related economies are addressed in the final policy document will be key."

That document lies farther down the road in a process that began with a memorandum issued by President Barack Obama in June. It created the OPTF from high-level administration officials and charged it with creating "a clear national policy, including a comprehensive, ecosystem-based framework for the long-term conservation and use" of our oceans, coastal waters and Great Lakes.

This move immediately rang alarm bells for anglers and the recreational fishing industry for several reasons. Of most concern was the possibility that preservationists within the environmental community would use this structure as a means to close recreational fisheries for philosophical rather than scientific reasons, ignoring the fact that sports anglers are among the nation's most ardent conservationists.

Anglers and their allies also worried that including the Great Lakes in this process opened the door for federal intervention in the management of inland waters. And they feared what might evolve from the President's insistence on making the management "consistent with international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea." The United States did not sign that treaty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top