OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS NO PUBLIC INPUT NEEDED

Recreational Fishing Alliance Contact: Jim Hutchinson, Jr. / 888-564-6732 For Immediate Release March 30, 2012 OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS NO PUBLIC INPUT NEEDED

Denies Congress' Request To Allow More Comment On Oceans Takeover (03/30/2012) House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) received official notice from the Obama Administration denying the Chairman's request for a 90-day extension of the public comment period on the draft National Ocean Policy Implementation plan.

 "President Obama issued an Executive Order imposing a new bureaucracy to zone the oceans that threatens to deter new economic investment, suppress job creation, restrict even recreational fishing, block energy development, and stretch far from the shore to affect farmers and inland communities," Rep. Hastings said in an official release.

 "Given the high economic stakes, the vast amounts of new red-tape set to be unrolled, and the fact that some 15 agencies spent over two years devising this scheme, it's unreasonable that the Obama Administration won't allow the American people more than just 75 days to review and comment on it," added Chairman Hastings.

 The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) has been a longtime critic of the over burdensome bureaucracy of the National Oceans Policy going back to 2003 following a report by the Pew Ocean Commission when original legislation to bureaucratize management of our nation's oceans was first presented by Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) in the form of the Oceans 21 bill.

 RFA executive director Jim Donofrio, a vocal opponent of both the Farr bill and the President's executive order to bypass legislative process, has testified numerous times in front of Congress to stop what he called a "takeover" of our U.S. oceans by radical, anti-access agenda.

 "RFA has been back and forth to the House Natural Resources Committee many times over the past 10 years in an effort to stop this bureaucratic nonsense, and we've been very successful in keeping this bottled up thanks to the efforts of congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle," Donofrio said. "Then President Obama came in and essentially moved this bill out of Committee with the stroke of a pen, completely angering the legislative branch of government."

 In a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on June 18, 2009 in which Donofrio was asked to testify (see www.joinrfa.org/Press/RFACongress_062309.pdf), Rep. Don Young (R-AK) spoke out against the heavy influence of Pew Environment Group and their support of the Farr legislation, saying "this bill's not going to go anywhere."

 "You may try to work it through the House, you may have the Speaker help you out, but I'll stop it dead in the Senate, because you're not going to mess with my waters in Alaska, you're not going to mess with my fishermen as you've done in the past," Rep. Young added, calling the Farr bill "bad legislation" and warning fellow Committee members that the bill was being pushed by an "overzealous group of people" who were opposed to fishing.

 Despite the repeated failures by Rep. Farr to get his "bad legislation" out of Committee, President Obama initiated an executive order in July of 2010 (see release at www.joinrfa.org/Press/KingObama_072010.pdf) which bypassed the entire legislative process and excluded from the debate all those concerns brought up by RFA and the Committee members themselves.

RFA called yesterday's announcement by the administration the final act by a President who is clouded by his own agenda.


 "This isn't just about our oceans, but everything connected to our nation's waterways will now be under federal control through this executive order," Donofrio said. "It's a complete takeover of every lake, river and stream that flows into the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, along with all the lands within."

 In an October 17, 2009 letter to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Donofrio brought up the RFA's critical concerns that the Administration's Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task Force was treading dangerously close to violating the Constitutional separation between the Legislative and Executive Branch of government. "RFA believes that enacting laws through Executive order and proclamation sets a dangerous precedence," Donofrio said.

 "RFA is concerned about the relatively rapid speed at which CEQ is advancing with this initiative and the apparent lack of opportunity the average recreational angler will have when the final Policy and subsequent bureaucracy is put in place," he added. (See RFA's official comments at www.joinrfa.org/press/CEQComments_101909.pdf).

According to Chairman Hastings, despite all the Congressional hearings and numerous requests by his Committee for more information, the Administration has refused to tell Congress what programs will be cut to provide the money to fund this new bureaucracy. "This refusal to allow a thorough and open review of the plan to carry-out the President's Executive Order is another example of the Obama Administration prioritizing their job-destroying agenda over the livelihoods of Americans from coast to coast," added Chairman Hastings.

 Donofrio said while there may be partisan gridlock in Congress between democrats and republicans at times, the House Natural Resources Committee has always provided a stellar example of bipartisan unity in support of issues related to the management, conservation and utilization of our nation's resources. (Watch Committee member Rep. Steve Southerland of Florida cross-examining Pew Environment Group consultant Terry Gibson at the most recent hearing on National Oceans Policy at www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqFgyRMzBI).

 "Some folks don't want to hear it, but the fact is that President Obama and his appointees have completely disregarded the legislative process, that they have ignored the requests by Congress, while supporting the input of environmental business leaders like Pew and Environmental Defense Fund over that of the American people," Donofrio said. "The only way to stop this federal takeover of our public resources now is to have a new executive order rescinding the previous one, and that can only be done by a new president."

 "That's not partisan politics, that's just simple truth," Donofrio said, adding "If you don't like the king's decree, you need to participate in an American revolution on Tuesday, November 6."

 RFA encourages anglers to sit down and view testimony from the 10/26/11 House Natural Resources Committee hearing archived it its entirety at:http://resources.edgeboss.net/wmedia/resources /112/2011_10_26_fc.wvx. 

 For a select look at NOAA's bad day in Congress in support of the President's National Oceans Policy, use the scroll bar in the media window to fast-forward ahead to a few of the best parts:

 1:15 - Committee Chairman Doc Hastings describes lack of response from Obama administration regarding National Ocean Policy bureaucracy.

 40:20 - Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) provides single token letter of angler support for the executive order, that of John McMurray, an advisor for Environmental Defense Fund hand-picked by Dr. Jane Lubchenco to represent New York fishermen at the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 

 1:34:10 - Rep. Don Young (R-AK) grills Dr. Lubchenco on her comments that "quite a few fishermen" support the executive order, though she's unable to produce a name except to say the MAFMC ("same one as you put catch shares involved into," replies Young.)

 1:42:00 - Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) questions the use of new "regulation" under the executive order, though neither Dr. Lubchenco nor Sutley seem willing or capable of appropriately answering the congressman's question about regulations and enforcement.

  1:54:40 - In his opening five-minute remarks, Donofrio calls executive order "a complete government takeover of our fisheries," while criticizing NOAA for not funding scientific efforts which he calls the "administration's complete disregard of personal liberties and state's rights."  

2:13:03 - In answering a question from Chairman Hastings about science, Donofrio says NOAA "couldn't run a kindergarten playground," charging the fisheries service with perjuring itself in a recent black sea bass lawsuit, saying "they lied to the judge, yet they're keeping us at the dock based on MRFSS data." 

 2:23:30 - Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) calls the ocean policy "ideological" and asks Donofrio about how stakeholder input is considered by NOAA. "Dr. Lubchenco's administration has been whacking people off the councils and stacking them with their own people," Donofrio replied. "So of course she throws it back to the council now and said 'okay the councils are going to make the decision.'" 

2:28:10 - In response to a follow-up question from Rep. Jon Runyan (R-NJ) about the state of the fishing industry, Donofrio said fishermen are "disgusted with federal regulations that are not allowing them to fish on rebuilt stocks and NOAA's not doing a thing about it."

 About Recreational Fishing Alliance The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, call 888-JOIN-RFA or visit www.joinrfa.org.

Show Me State; Going to the Dogs

Show Me State; Going to the Dogs

 What does Jim the Wonder Dog, Seamen and Old Drum have in common?

Elke's warning

Everybody in America ought to listen to this; especially the last couple of minutes, as it reflects of our movement today from the fisheries to the courts and classrooms. The taking of God out of our equation and our rights. I remember, my Dad, standing at "Check Point Charley" and saying it was unbelievable that a wall would someday keep them in. The surrounding area, from what I remember, was barren, with lots of barbed-wire, machine gun towers and a kill zone, my dad used to say, where bouncing Bettie’s were everywhere and not a place to be. Wow! Can't believe I remembered that. The video brought up younger days in Europe as a lad.

“The Sackett” Ruling; the tides are turning, to a sea of change.................

Ever Hear of “The Sackett” Ruling? Well, if not, you should sit up and take notice because with the Sackett's winning against a Federal Entity, the EPA; I suspect, the tides are turning, to a sea of change, in a domino effect, as others will re-examine the governments rule over “the people's rights.” Backing up a couple of years ago, one has to examine the Governments first Clean Water Act of 1972 & its land to water grab that has followed.

Now to present day starting around 2005 and ending with a US Supreme Court ruling:

 Mike and Chantell Sackett, like many of us married couples, had a dream of owning their own piece of paradise. The couple loved to fish but more importantly, loved nature and the outdoors. That is why they purchased a lovely parcel of property near Priest Lake, Idaho. The lake is known for its boating, fishing, hiking, camping, snowmobiling, hunting, cross-country skiing; get the picture? So too did the Sackett's! The Priest Lake Chamber of Commerce bills it as a place where “Mother Nature Vacations.” What a wonderland to settle down in and build your wonderland! The 2/3rd acre parcel was located within a new development, other homes too were there and about to be there; too include theirs. As with any home, the lot needed to be leveled and fill put in. Just after leveling and filling their dream lot, the US Corp. of Engineers and the EPA showed up in a fever ordering all activities to stop and the land was to be restored back to its original appearance as it was a natural wetlands. How could this be a wetlands if the parcel was located within a subdivision that was established in the 1980's. The other problem is also compounded by the fact that there is not a good definition from Congress as to what a wetlands constitutes. In the Sackett's case, there were no soil tests, no scientific evidence in proving it was a wetlands and only the EPA's say so, which is a over  reach of EPA oversight!




Devastated and not knowing what to do, the Sackett's met the compliance in as much as to stop building their dream home and ask the EPA as to why this was such ordered? When the parcel was purchased, it was not listed as a wetlands, nor were such found in the subdivision? Why were they being sectioned out? As they had no standing water or any continuously flowing water on their property, the Sackett's decided to challenge the EPA on its “wetlands determination” and have their day in court. As time was fleeting by, the fines of $37,500 a day, were too piling up for not doing the restoration of their own lands because the EPA said so. The Sackett's tried appeals on their fines and decisions by the EPA but were told in vain, EPA decisions are not applicable to any appeal when wetlands are of concern. Like a chess game, the Sackett's took their appeal to court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; check, as it was ruled that “landowners had no right to appeal an EPA order involving wetlands, until fines have been assessed.” This was yet to be over, as how could this happen in America and yet nothing could be done? Be Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead! As the Sackett's took the case to the US Supreme Court! It is a scary world when a government-funded organization can have no judicial oversight, such as with the EPA, except from within their own confines of themselves. If this were Roman times, the EPA would be considered a God! Thank God it is not and thank God for the Sackett's in taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court, as with their winning against the EPA, it now sets a precedents as the tides are turning, to a sea of change. Mike Sackett on "Sackett V EPA" with Tom Sullivan, as of March 22, 2012: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, in a major judiciary decision, the Sackett's had the right to file suit against the EPA, under the Administrative Procedures Act. This was made possible because the EPA's order was final against the Sackett's, too which also had fines levied against them and the EPA used in their defense, the Clean Water Act, which was and is not exempt from judicial review. He also noted that, Congress should review the Clean Water Act and write in new legislation in determining as too a definition that clearly defines just to what extent the Clean Water Act may be used for against landowners. No longer may the EPA make outrageous and arbitrary commandments resulting in daily fines greater than the value of the property by use of the Clean Water Act. The Sackett's just wanted a dream home back in 2005 but because the EPA said so, they stole their dream, in the name of conservation, at the administrative level, with no judicial oversight. In short, the EPA does not believe the Constitution applies to them. Now, with this decision, maybe, the Sackett's can build their dream home, sometime soon and through their brilliant actions and their attorney's at Pacific Legal Foundation, others too may build upon their dreams, as this could bring in a sea of change................. Sackett: A Supreme Case for Liberty Thank God we have God & a Constitution to which some of us still believe in...Yesterday, the 23'rd of March was the birth of that famous oration from Patrick Henry’s speech with its closing argument of Give me Liberty or Give me Death; the Sackett's have restored a piece of Liberty, once again to us all! Devastated and not knowing what to do, the Sackett's met the compliance in as much as to stop building their dream home and ask the EPA as to why this was such ordered? When the parcel was purchased, it was not listed as a wetlands, nor were such found in the subdivision? Why were they being sectioned out? As they had no standing water or any continuously flowing water on their property, the Sackett's decided to challenge the EPA on its “wetlands determination” and have their day in court.



 As time was fleeting by, the fines of $37,500 a day, were too piling up for not doing the restoration of their own lands because the EPA said so. The Sackett's tried appeals on their fines and decisions by the EPA but were told in vain, EPA decisions are not applicable to any appeal when wetlands are of concern. Like a chess game, the Sackett's took their appeal to court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; check, as it was ruled that “landowners had no right to appeal an EPA order involving wetlands, until fines have been assessed.” This was yet to be over, as how could this happen in America and yet nothing could be done? Be Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead! As the Sackett's took the case to the US Supreme Court!



 It is a scary world when a government-funded organization can have no judicial oversight, such as with the EPA, except from within their own confines of themselves. If this were Roman times, the EPA would be considered a God! Thank God it is not and thank God for the Sackett's in taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court, as with their winning against the EPA, it now sets a precedents as the tides are turning, to a sea of change. Mike Sackett on "Sackett V EPA" with Tom Sullivan, as of March 22, 2012:



 Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, in a major judiciary decision, the Sackett's had the right to file suit against the EPA, under the Administrative Procedures Act. This was made possible because the EPA's order was final against the Sackett's, too which also had fines levied against them and the EPA used in their defense, the Clean Water Act, which was and is not exempt from judicial review. He also noted that, Congress should review the Clean Water Act and write in new legislation in determining as too a definition that clearly defines just to what extent the Clean Water Act may be used for against landowners. No longer may the EPA make outrageous and arbitrary commandments resulting in daily fines greater than the value of the property by use of the Clean Water Act. The Sackett's just wanted a dream home back in 2005 but because the EPA said so, they stole their dream, in the name of conservation, at the administrative level, with no judicial oversight. In short, the EPA does not believe the Constitution applies to them. Now, with this decision, maybe, the Sackett's can build their dream home, sometime soon and through their brilliant actions and their attorney's at Pacific Legal Foundation, others too may build upon their dreams, as this could bring in a sea of change................. Sackett: A Supreme Case for Liberty



Thank God we have God & a Constitution to which some of us still believe in...Yesterday, the 23'rd of March was the birth of that famous oration from Patrick Henry’s speech with its closing argument of Give me Liberty or Give me Death; the Sackett's have restored a piece of Liberty, once again to us all!

RFA Special Edition: "America's Right to Fish Is Under Attack in DC"

OBAMA'S 'ANTI-STIMULUS' PACKAGE HITS MASS COAST

SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN 

March 13, 2012

 

 

Behavior Modification Study Aimed At Reducing Angler Participation

 

What would you be willing to give up in exchange for $500?

 

 

If the U.S. Department of Education offered you $500 to keep your kid out of school for a few weeks, would you take it? What if the government explained that this was simply a study designed to determine exactly how much you felt your child's education was worth? Would the results of such a study encourage your support for such behavior modification analysis? How about if the Department of Health offered you $500 to give up coffee with sugar for one month? Or, what about a government-funded study where random voters are given the option of accepting $500 in exchange for their right to vote in November? Would you accept a $500 check to read only certain types of books or download specific kinds of songs? If you think about it, such 'willingness-to-pay' research could prove invaluable in providing our state and federal government agencies with important data about the financial line which Americans are willing to cross in exchange for valuable goods, services, rights & privileges. Sociologists love this type of data, and it's arguably an excellent way to determine a financial threshold for changing behavioral habits of American citizens. The problem that most Americans have with studies like these is that it's social engineering at U.S. taxpayer expense. This type of behavior modification might be fine for a grad student working on some Ivy League college campus, but the thought that our own government would freely support such 'willingness to pay' studies through taxpayer funds is one that liberals and conservatives alike should each find quite troubling. Regrettably, our government is actively engaged in just this type of behavior modification study, whereby Massachusetts anglers are being asked to accept $500 in taxpayer funds to give up their right to fish recreational in marine waters there for the rest of 2012. The obvious question is how on earth our Department of Commerce can justify paying Americans to stay at home and not spend their money on items of commerce, notably sportfishing in Massachusetts? In any other American business, this type of government action would be met with quite a bit of disdain and discomfort, worthy of national headlines - for our recreational fishing industry however, it's just another one of a thousand cuts felt by local business people every single day of the year. Here's what we do know; NOAA Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which is managed under the auspice of the Department of Commerce, is currently undertaking a socioeconomic study in conjunction with the state of Massachusetts whereby approximately 700 saltwater anglers have been offered cash in exchange for the anglers' willingness to give up his/her right to fish. Those licensed Massachusetts anglers who accept the offer will receive up to $500 apiece following their willingness to give up their fishing license and all rights to fish in state coastal waters in 2012. In a recent conference call with stakeholders, NOAA Fisheries explained that approximately 25% of those 700 anglers had responded favorably by agreeing to give up their right to fish in 2012 in exchange for cold, hard cash. In agreeing to accept the government's terms, these particular Massachusetts residents are agreeing to not fish this season, which means no need to visit the local tackle shop, giving up any charter/headboat trips this summer and making plans other than those surrounding a saltwater angling trip with family and friends. If NOAA Fisheries' estimates are correct, 175 respondents will actually be giving up their right to fish in saltwater this season. According to socioeconomic data on saltwater angling habits that already exists through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service however, the final economic impact within the Massachusetts coastal fishing community amounts to approximately $201,425 in overall consumer spending. For anglers 16 and older, total trip and equipment expenditures by saltwater anglers averages about $1,151 per person, with $219 spent annually on food & lodging, $137 on transportation expenses, and $795 per angler directly related to fishing equipment and services. It doesn't take too long to figure out that if dad is spending over a thousand bucks a year on fishing for fluke, cod, sea bass or other inshore species, if he sells off his 'fishing privileges' for the season then he's probably not taking the teens and pr-teens on a fishing vacation in 2012 - which means there's more economic loss than even the statistics show. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's data indicates that there are approximately 298,000 saltwater anglers in the state of Massachusetts who in 2006 spent more than $494.6 million on saltwater fishing tackle alone. Approximately 69% of those anglers fished by boat in 2006, meaning that there is also money being spent on boat preparation and docking, fuel, and other services related to the marine industry. If nearly 70% of those 175 respondents and their families keep their boat under wraps in 2012 to take advantage of the government's recreational fisherman buyout study - that too will have a trickle down financial impact within the Massachusetts coastal community. At a time when our Department of Commerce and the entire Obama Administration should be helping spur economic growth in America, it's hard to fathom how the sociologists and economists at NOAA Fisheries can justify such a deplorable study in behavior modification theory. It's essentially the counter-opposite to a federal stimulus package, one which is micromanaged at a state and regional level to see what happens to businesses when customers are lured away to other pursuits. Spending priceless taxpayer dollars on ways of limiting consumer spending in beleaguered coastal communities is the worst kind of social engineering one could possibly imagine, and it provides a perfect example of why this Administration's jobs initiatives have failed miserably.  Are you tired of NOAA Fisheries paying $$$ to anglers to not fish, instead of applying these important taxpayer funds towards proper fisheries science and data collection improvements? On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at noon, several thousand fishermen from around the country will be at Upper Senate Park in Washington DC in support of legislative efforts which would ensure that NOAA Fisheries is living up to its Congressional mandates to fix the recreational data collection. Join the RFA on 3-21-12 - for details, visit www.keepfishermenfishing.com.  Or, call 888-564-6732.

About Recreational Fishing Alliance The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. If you'd like to tell Washington that your right to fish is NOT FOR SALE, join RFA now at www.joinrfa.org.

Print Media...Chromium on Dead Trees

Print Media...Chromium on Dead Trees; the leaves have spoken! From my backyard with that four years old oak to the forests over our streams, to which we fish, that rustling of the leaves may be but the wind whispering through the leaves but to me, that rustling of the leaves are but the trees speaking to me! They are speaking in unison with the wind in shouting out of the “Lorax” principal, yet only a few can hear them. We, in the digital print media, are the voices to those who have no tongues; the Lorax Factor. The Clean Water Act of 1972 and CERCLA of 1980, Congress granted legal rights to natural resources; hence the Lorax Factor was born! This means that trees and other natural resources have rights to exist and that we should be entitled to speak for them and to present their claims in court, if unheard. In a legal sense, this would mean that trees do have standing, no pun intended. All of this nonsense is all because of the introduction of the code word “sustainability.” Under this pretext of law, a government or NGO may sue for damages; "natural resource damages" provisions of these laws, entities can sue for compensation for injury to natural resources—on behalf of those resources. In doing so, they are acting as "trustees" for natural resources, not suing in their own right as themselves and the law requires that all recoveries be spent on the resource itself; it cannot spend natural resource damages, on anything except as a or on behalf of that resource for that resource. I wonder if our planets trees will go on strike and take print media to court? I would hope not as the Lorax Factor or principle was originally article character, from a Dr. Seuss book, The Lorax where Lorax stated again and again, "I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.” Did the Lorax predict the future or did Dr. Seuss listen to the rustling of the leaves; as “the leaves are speaking!”

All my long life I loved the feel of books in my hand. This week in Saint Petersburg, Florida, there will be a gathering of antiquarian book sellers from all over the world, gathered together with wares ranging from thirteenth-century manuscripts, in all their golden glory, to maps of the latest combat theaters where the art of warfare is plied as it's been for millenarian. Maps once hand-drawn with ink made from nature are today rendered in pixels, but the art of the book and the feel of printed communications has, and I hope never will be, lost on me but with that said; at the value of a good read, must we still kill trees? The 21^st Century, a digital age, a time when being “sustainable” should really mean something, not just a code word for something else. Manuscripts and books to maps; skins of long-dead animals inked with what appears to be the same red ink that comes from the Bic I write notes with. All of this, through time, mixed by men, indistinguishable from the alchemists that populated the same whiskey bars in the same time 200 years ago. I have a book called The Words and Mind of Jesus Christ. Written in the inside cover are the words "Pledged as warrant to the landowner Mrs. Oliver Wilson in the Year of our Lord 1634." Pressed in letterhead at the base of the page, where the writing indicated the value of a single book, we're the words "Printed at the Peacock in the Poultry near the Thames River. The book was worth the rent and board for the student's year in school, and had been printed by a company that felt its brand was worth putting on the book's front matter. I can feel the student's hand scratching that ink on the paper from a quill pen. I can see it, feel it be part of this work of art.

While growing into a life where books - reading, writing, and ultimately publishing them - would be an important part of my professional career, I have also been a pure, died-in-the-wool magazine subscriber. For heaven's sake I still get Bonnier Corporation magazines in my mailbox.

That said, I know the value of books. They last. You can hold them. In the case of textbooks in classrooms, where desktop real estate (real real estate, as in the form of a physical desk) is at a premium, they can fold, and do not take up monitor space. If you are learning to use software, the book you are learning from has to stay out of the way of the program you are learning. Books that work on i Pads or tablets are cool, but regular books are still the top choice in the colleges and classrooms but magazines in this new digital age, are but another story. I have yet to see an advertisement from environmental groupers like PEW, and EDF, and the Ocean Conservancy in my American Rifleman or the books to which I read but they are found in publications put out by Bonnier AB. According to their Vision: To continuously reinvent the art of publishing, they need to step back and listen to the leaves as for now, it would seem, they cannot see the forest for the trees! Just as, PEW, EDF, and the Ocean Conservancy are spending a great deal of money to "save" the earth, at the expense of mankind. They are part of a global secular movement that vilifies me, if I have faith in an invisible but (to me) very real God, yet treats "Mother Earth" as if she was theirs to rule. I know how truly conscious I am of the environment. I live in it. Unlike the Energy Secretary that testified before the House that he doesn't even own a car. How can he feel my pain at the pump?

I do own a boat. I do fish. I do clean up after others that were on the water before me. Those organizations, and the magazine they use to supposedly reach our community, spend a lot of time on another thing besides saving mother earth. Related, but ideologically used as a cornerstone. That is the concept of "Sustainable Fishing" or "Sustainability". The word has become the mantra of the progressive, anti-free-market globalists. Their core ideology says that everything has to be sustainable. So I have a couple of questions for the Magazine media:

• When are you going to get sustainable? You create your magazines by pressing chromium inks - a toxic and eternal pollutant - onto paper made from dead trees.
• What is up with that?
• When are you all going to stop killing trees and go digital?
• And if you go digital, will your magazine be free of charge, like all other content is on the world wide web?
  
  
  
• And why do you take money from organizations that are clearly a anti-fishing in their actions. Perhaps not in their words, or in their ads on your expensive pages, but why take money from them that will help them reduce our access to the water, increase closed seasons, and that support placing an increasing number of target species on the endangered list?
  
  

Be our community, or be part of the problems facing our community; being concerned and know how to say no in taking their Sustainable money, and stop killing trees. Get over your special self; the world has gone OpenSource. If we care about our earth, we need to stop putting poison in dead trees and charging money for the waste product and stop supporting people who want us off the water and watching the nature channel instead, like a couch potato. I really do see now what Lorax was saying; in fighting for their rights, we as intelligent keepers to our planet, should embrace this digital age, as it speaks out for the trees in read me and save those tall skins a standing for all to enjoy. Books, I hate to say, are but a relic and should be an antiquarian ware for collectors world-wide. Much akin to Jules Vern's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, an underwater craft that carried people for the protection of mankind, science-fiction at its best! Who would know it to come true, like a Dr. Seuss book, The Lorax, where Lorax stated again and again, "I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.” Did the Lorax predict the future or did Dr. Seuss listen to the rustling of the leaves?

To How many people reading this believe that paper, a by-product of trees is no longer needed to fulfill your need to read, now that it is all available on the internet by those who care? Sign the petition in showing your support of our trees. Will it make a difference? That depends on how many of you tweet it up and get this ball rolling. With enough signatures, publishers in print may just sit up and notice, saving a tree to an entire forest and too the story, still gets told but this time with NO CHROMIUM ON DEAD TREES: Sign the petition and pass it on..............................

Petitions by iPetitions.com

Exposing the Delphi Technique in Public Meetings.mov

 Keeping in mind, this is a Chapman rules to UN protocol type setting. It happens and is apart of the protocol used in NMFS & Council meetings when discussing SEDAR, IFQ's, Catch Shares and such! While watching this type of BRAINWASH, in the film below, think of those meetings to which you have gone to and felt nobody was listening; guess what? THEY WEREN'T!

Delphi Technique in CATCH SHARES;

though this is about Spatial Planning,

There is a interrelationship here!

See where chanting ‘U-S-A!’ not allowed

See where chanting ‘U-S-A!’ not allowed

 Texas use to be a state to whom honored the American Flag, the nation to which it belongs and to the state that is big on everything and short to those who do not conform! "Don't Mess With Texas" and we LOVE THE USA! Apparently, the officials to this school and those supporting them are ICLEI in nature, believe in the Blue & YELLOW of the UN Flag and ought to be escorted out of the country to which they are ashamed of! I smell major, class action lawsuit! Maybe those who support this ban on my honor should move to Romney's state of Mass., where they could enjoy regulation out the wazoo by the government. Glad I am not back home in Texas or I would lead a choir to see them all losing their jobs and moving elsewhere! USA! USA! USA!

What are Catch Shares?

"Catch Shares are a tool in the hands of fishery managers. Or are they?"

 Catch Shares


What are Catch Shares? In case you never heard the term, we want to spend a few minutes telling you a story. It is a political story, and as such might be something you think has no place in the world of sport fishing. But if you do, you're wrong. Because politics - large scale, global, high-dollar politics - are every bit a part of the world of fishing as they are the world of oil, the world of health care, or the world of the environmental protection agency, and in turn our federal government. If you fish it is time to start learning about a clear and imminent danger to our way of life. It is called Catch Shares.

The regulators and a tofu-diet ruling the meat eaters of the world
Catch shares are simple to understand. But before we define how they work, realize that the environmental movement is now more than 20 years old. The radical among the movement feel that mankind, in it's rush for gold and oil and i Pads, is destroying the earth. It has gotten to the point where the United Nations recognizes mother earth as a being, with every right granted to the humans that live on her skin. Look; I am as kind to the environment as anybody I know. In fact, it is the anglers, hunters, and outdoors people I know that are the true conservationists, not the pale-skinned tofu-slurping vegans whose idea of the great outdoors is a channel on cable tv called the Animal Planet. But the earth is our home. We need to keep it clean but we are the dominant species. We do not belong controlled and wrapped in little dream cities.

We belong outside, and benefit from tribal politics. We protect our own. It is human nature, not dirt and rocks with human legal rights. There is no fairness except that provided by the law. Law it not controlling our fisheries; regulations written by people who think we are less than intelligent for wanting to kill those poor little fish are and have been controlling our sport. After all, you can watch them on tv! Why in science's name (their form of God) would a civilized person rip those innocent creatures from their homes and EAT THEM?????
But make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen. It is the tofu-eaters among our regulatory bodies that are making the rules now changing our lives. When I was a kid, tarpon tournaments resulted in thousands and thousands of dead tarpon hung from the porches and roofs of public buildings and colleges. Despite that devastating and environmentally unconscious introduction to the beauty for sport fishing for the Silver King, the sport - and the fish - are alive and well.

Today we cannot catch gag and red grouper, and American Red Snapper are so abundant that they are driving grouper off their natural reefs. But out of our reach.  Little wonder the gag and red grouper counts are down. Jewfish, now politically-corrected to the label "Goliath Grouper", eat ten percent of their weight a week. A four-hundred pound grouper that eats forty-pounds of gags and reds for lunch. But they are protected, and now so, too, will be their food sources. And didn't a Jewish kid kill that Palestinian? Isn't that the story, and isn't Bill Ayres and his wife and code pink sponsoring flotillas to protect Goliath offspring?
Regulations and the environmental left are and have been completely out of control. They do not fish, but regulate our fisheries. They believe in their form off science, and silence other voices. And they are destroying our angling way of life. You want proof? As the mayor of Madeira Beach, Florida, Travis Palladeno watches his business and life fade away. Regulated away. His city, far from becoming the utopia Vibrant Coastal Community envisioned by former EDF board member Jane Lunchenco (now Obama's Director of NOAA), it is on dry dock, and dying a slow death. They were the sports grouper fishing capital of the world. Now they are dry docked. The families cast asked for the protection of abundant fisheries.


Catch shares

So onto our definition of catch shares. Catch shares are a set of regulations where by the government and their globally-warmed scientists count the fish. Since they do not go on the water, that use computer models. Right now the computers tell them that the recreational angling community is killing all the grouper, so using what is called precautionary science, they shut us down. The grouper are there, but the computer models do not see them. Like they failed to see the clouds covering our planet in the computer models that warned of imminent global heating to the point of global death of all things living.
Once they count the fish, they, in their infinite wisdom, distribute them. Or we should say redistribute them. Some go to the commercial guys, some to captains and head boats, and some to us. Us regular Jo's with boats bought with money we earned. The taxpayers who support the recreational industry in all it's forms and reach. In Florida, that is $50 billion a year according to reliable statistics.

We come last. First comes the commercial boats (Tyson foods, anyone?). While shutting down half of our national fleet with over-regulation, Walmart has been gobbling up the paperwork - called Individual Fishing Quotas- that will let them populate many  boats all those independent fishing families lost as a result of the overwhelming number of new "environmental" regulations. They have given millions from their "foundation" to the tofu tr-sexual regulating us off the water. And it is going to be at Walmart you will have to go and buy your government permission-ticket before going out to catch those (now safe) grouper. If you buy a ticket and you don't catch any that day? Or the weather stops you before you reach your fishy spot? Too bad. Next time you go, you buy a new permission ticket at Walmart. And if you think there won't be flounder and redfish tickets at the same place in the same aisle soon after the grouper tickets, you are out of your mind. Let a camel into the tent, and their nose makes room for their humps.

Hold your nose and follow the money

One more thing on catch shares. There is only one protein food source you cannot yet buy on the Chicago Mercantile, where the values are determined for the future prices of the world's commodities. You can bet on the future price of everything from pig bellies to cows to natural gas. But there is one thing you cannot bet on. One thing still a public resource. Fish.
Think about it. The argument that catch shares are "an effective tool in the hand of scientists and other government officials responsible for managing our fisheries" nonsense. What it is is a thinly veiled strategy to move money and power. Catch shares can be made to sound perfectly sensible. Until you smell the stink of corruption. Some $70 million in money is being moved around between tax-exempt organizations, and the threat to our freedom is obvious. If you want something on the Mercantile, you have to first allocate it. Who better than people who think that having goldfish as pets should be illegal? Do not laugh. Check city law in San Francisco, California. Give it some time and you will be paying for those goldfish police.

Catch shares have drawn millions of dollars in support from groups like Walton, Alyson foods, PEW, EDF and George Soros' Tides Foundation (among a dozen other like-minded and globally-sympathetic nongovernmental organizations, why not follow the money? If we follow the money, we might find the truth. Is mankind killing the fish, or are they just another collection of victims? Because causes needs collections of victims.

Next in the series: Crony Capitalism, PEW, and Biodiversity channels  

By Gary Poyssick, aka Gary Fisherman;
 The Online Fisherman:
 FISHING POLITICS at its best!

Censoring the National Anthem for Copyright Violation

Censoring the National Anthem for Copyright Violation

And I'm telling Conan O'Brien, just where he can put the pole!