1 Look, I'm no fan of the Administration in general.  And I'm against stupid overregulation in the specific.  But when you seriously use the phrase "but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport" in reference to FISHING, I think you're overstating your case.

Social value.  To fishing.  Look, father/son bonding stuff is granted.  But other than that?  Fuck all.  Drop the hysteria and stick to the tangible.  They're over-regulating with a goal of absolute ban.  Fuck them on that.

2

I don't like fishing, mostly because I don't like to eat fish.

But..... I will defend the "social value" of fishing.

Where else can you sit around drinking beer all day and still actually get something done?

That's about as socially redeeming as you can get. IMO.

3 I think Minnesota gets a bunch of money from tourism, related to fishing, just as one state in an example. Fisheries are used to replenish a lot of sport fish. Both items definitely have an economic impact.

Exactly what probably happened in Canada, after people couldn't go on hunting trips, because of the regulation.  I have no problem whatsoever with the wording of the original item.

4 Well, I wasn't clear.  Economic and biological impact?  Sure.  SOCIAL value?  Fishing?  Seriously?

5

It doesn't matter.  Every single thing that give any one person any type of enjoyment will be legislated out of existence, or taxed until no one can afford to enjoy it.  As Hillary Clinton said:  "If it moves, tax it" 

What a bunch of fucking asswipes.  1984.  Don't worry about reading it.  It is fast becoming our reality.

We are not pussies, Congress. 

Don't count on everyone going along with all your fucking stupid taxation until we puke.  WE HATE YOU. 

 

 

6 oh, and if that isn't enough, just look at the impact of all of this Green Bullshit on California

7 I'll give them my flyrod when they take it from my cold, dead hands!!!

8 The more I think about this the crazier it sounds.
It would affect a huge percentage of Americans.

Go to any sporting goods store, look at the fishing section. It's usually freaking huge.
Not to mention bass boats and what-not.
Talk to little towns on mountain streams and lakes all over the country and ask them about reducing their fishing tourists.
That's a lot of jobs in every area of the country.

Couple angry, out of work fishing industry people with angry, sober, out of fishing fishermen and you'll see some things.

9

Too late, way way too late. The money used for government to restrict fishing comes from the excise tax on fishing equipment, and has since the 1930's, with complete support of the piscatorial community. No fishing group has ever objected to state management of fisheries; in many states, sport fishermen have led the charge to revoke commercial licences. Outdoorsmen stood in line with WaterKennedyKeepers to endorse the Great Lakes and Riverine initiatives. Fish have been wards of the state for 150 years. You just never noticed before.

The New England commercial fisheries have already--again, in case you haven't been watching--been shut down, and we freemen did not lift a finger to stop it. And the usual useful idiots have been primed for over 20 years that fish aren't safe to eat; most of us posting here believe this to be true. The battle is lost; the victors are just dividing the spoils. Spoiled fish, you see. It's a little joke.

On the seaboard, and four of the Lakes, the Canadians will "take up the slack." In the rest of the country, stop all fishing and they'll be crawling up the banks in two seasons. Don't go near the water!