Who likes to Fish?

[Grizart]

You better get out there and enjoy it now....

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

My first thought was...what the hell are these catholics going to eat for Lent?
My second thought was...how many jobs will be lost if this was to go through.
My third thought was...How could this even be something being looked at and studied?

Then I recalled the little fish out in California that caused an entire county to go without water, crops to dry up, and people to lose thier jobs...then it all made since.

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

[Shreder]

Something smells fishy...

[Gareth]

Something smells fishy...

booooo!!!

[Grizart]

Something smells fishy...

It's that right wing ESPN!

I agree with you shreder...this would be complete political suicide...and I don't think any administration is that foolish. It still suprises me that this even makes a headline as though it was even considered and discussed though. I think 99.9 percent of america if sitting in any type of position of power was approached/lobbied by anyone saying "hey...let's stop fishing all oceans, great lakes, and inland waterways" would have the person escorted out of the building immediately and not give it a second thought.

Yet...here we have committees, a cease in public discussion, and headlines about it. WTF? You also would think this would be all over the news by now. I want to see if anyone else picks up this story, or if it's squashed like a bug immediately.

www.drudgereport.com picked up the story I noticed. So it's only a matter of time now I would think.

[Starfire]

Griz do you really believe that the President is going to ban fishing?

[Chemistrius]

Only in red states...

[Darian_Carr]

I LOVE fishing...

It'll never get banned...but this shows what kinds of nuts are out there on the fringe...lol

[Grizart]

Griz do you really believe that the President is going to ban fishing?

Did you read my post right above yours?

this would be complete political suicide...and I don't think any administration is that foolish. It still suprises me that this even makes a headline as though it was even considered and discussed though.

As I said...why is this even on the presidents desk and even being considered? Does he look into issues like "No more farming in central USA", "No more cars, everyone must walk.", "No more domestic pets, it's cruelty to animals"... I mean common, the fact that this is even being considered is a joke...yet here he is, looking into it.

My guess is he's just appeasing his radical base and telling them that he is looking at it.

[Sisio Delser]

You better get out there and enjoy it now....

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

My first thought was...what the hell are these catholics going to eat for Lent?
My second thought was...how many jobs will be lost if this was to go through.
My third thought was...How could this even be something being looked at and studied?

Then I recalled the little fish out in California that caused an entire county to go without water, crops to dry up, and people to lose thier jobs...then it all made since.

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

You misquoted Griz.

The Obama administration has ended public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

Only a sith speaks in absolutes.

[Sisio Delser]

I'd also like to point out that the article did not cite any secondary points of view, spoke opinions as fact and was based almost entirely on one source. To me, it looks like an opinion piece, not a news article.

[Grizart]

"SOME" was added between yesterday and today. I have printouts of the original article and it did not contain the word "some".

So, at the time, I did not misquote.

here are some others, that did not contain the word "some"

http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/5411

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f46/wtf-these-people-crazy-no-fishing-allowed-2783/

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=4726974

[Sisio Delser]

"SOME" was added between yesterday and today. I have printouts of the original article and it did not contain the word "some".

So, at the time, I did not misquote.

here are some others, that did not contain the word "some"

http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/5411

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f46/wtf-these-people-crazy-no-fishing-allowed-2783/

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=4726974

Fair enough. I still don't think that article is any kind of worthy source. Hell, the editor-in-chief basically redacted the article in his response to it.

[Grizart]

ESPN is a Sports News Agency, my guess is the editor is clearly trying to put out this fire before it turns into a blaze. Politics usually doesn't play a major role in sports. Unless you count steroid abuse, and College Football. If I was in charge at ESPN I would try to squash the story too. Nothing worse than losing 30% of your audiance because they don't agree with your politics, or they have a problem with what you are reporting.

[Sisio Delser]

ESPN is a Sports News Agency, my guess is the editor is clearly trying to put out this fire before it turns into a blaze. Politics usually doesn't play a major role in sports. Unless you count steroid abuse, and College Football. If I was in charge at ESPN I would try to squash the story too. Nothing worse than losing 30% of your audiance because they don't agree with your politics, or they have a problem with what you are reporting.

My problem with the article is that it seems like an editorial parading as a news article. It represents only one point of view and doesn't seem to make the effort to represent another. If it was labeled an editorial, then I'd be fine with it, but it isn't.