Printable View
Amendment 40 just passed, which enacts sector separation for red snapper. This means that now for-hire charters will own quotas of snapper too.
You want to catch snapper from your boat? Sorry, you can either go buy some at the fish market or pay for a charter. Which fish will be next?
wonder if the pier will have a quota?
I smell strong gubmint ineptitude with this whole concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierless
Hope i'm wrong.
That would assume that they did not intend to sell out to the highest bidder, which was not us. You get the government you pay for, just like anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandflea
yes and what you vote for, cant wait til november....Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestexile
I've stolen & modified this, plagiarism = compliment.
Allow me to make a land based analogy of Amend 40, then imagine the ensuing riots in Montgomery.
-There were a large herds of deer on Federal land in Alabama
-The deer are a Public Resource.
-For decades, recreational hunters and professionally guided hunters harvested them every season for sport and food
-Due to deer hunting's popularity, the government limited both recreational and professionally guided hunts to a certain quota of deer that can be killed every year.
This made the season increasingly brief every year
-Fearing that they would lose their income to competition from recreational hunters, the professional guides petitioned the government to separate their quota from the recreational hunters
-The professional guides did this knowing that the real issue was the flawed method the government used for counting deer
-Seeing an opportunity to limit hunting, PETA joined in supporting professional guides with legal counsel and lobbyists
-The recreational hunters were outlawed from hunting deer on Federal lands in Alabama.
No individual citizen or group can be granted preferential access to a public resource.
This amendment was unconstitutional & it must be fought.
The EDF has succeeded in dividing & conquering.
The Charter Fleet can kiss my ass, I normally go out 2-3 times a year, they will never see another dime from me.
Unfortunately a republican in the white house will do nothing for this problem. Every state involved has a republican governor, and the 8 of the 10 senators involved are republicans. If anything, this is the "free market" solution (privatizing a public interest). What really kills me about this situation is there are seats on the Gulf Council, the people who passed this thing, who have charter interests and thus directly make money from this ruling. How is that not a conflict of interest?Quote:
Originally Posted by LunkertardSTL
If the people who fish from this state (Alabama)
can't participate in the Federal Red Snapper fishery in the traditional manner,
how can the state Marine Resources Division continue to place artificial reefs in those federal waters?
To do so would ONLY benefit the charter boat owners.
Alabama Reefs built with ALABAMA MONEY should be for ALABAMA ANGLERS in ALABAMA WATERS!
Our founders said that govt gets all rights from the people. If they take away our right, they have none to allocate to anyone.
Alabama voters have to be willing to vote out the scoundrels who regard the recreational angler as the enemy. If voters aren't willing to do that - for whatever reason - the recreational angler and the taxpaying citizens, will just have to say, "thank you, sir - may I have another" to the abuse of taking from the regular guy to GIVE to big business.
A Free market has never been the goal of those who claim to champion it. Politics is all about pitting competing interests against each other and essentially auctioning off political influence to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, partisan political entrenchment has the State of Alabama dug in for ONE political party at the expense of the citizenry. Big Business will always be willing and able to buy local politicians' votes. If the citizens are entrenched to the point that there's no oppositional choice, things will only get worse and the little guy gets shut out completely. It's not a conflict of interests if the people in question have no interest at all in you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierless
Here is a link to Sample Ballot for Baldwin Co.Quote:
Originally Posted by eym_sirius
http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...014-Sample.pdf
Couple points of interest Y/N?
http://www.gulfshorespierfishing.com...tid=2922&stc=1
Ya think the fish will vote for that?
;-)
You got to vote folks. It's the only leverage we have to keep our freedoms. If you don't vote don't bitch. Your vote does count, so when you say your vote don't count or I'm to tired to vote or I have other things to do, you can only blame yourself for what the politicians do to restrict your rights or make you pay higher and higher taxes. In my opinion any one who don't go to the polls and vote should be fined.
Our current political governing party cares nothing for the fishermen in this state. If you want to have someone in Montgomery listen to you then go to the polls in November and evict the current administration. Look at the fenced off area at Perdido Pass. I have talked verbally or via email with the heads of every department in Montgomery that has any piece of that pie and they all pass the buck and nothing is scheduled to be done. The same thing is probably going to happen with the Pier the State just closed at Fort Morgan. FIRE THEM ALL and maybe we can get the ear of someone new in office.
It's the only way! Passing legislation that will not stand up to Constitutional muster is a sheer satin blanket. It may feel good at first, but it's not going to do the job - and that's the point. These "new laws" that grant citizens rights they already have are designed to do nothing but give the appearance of standing up for outdoorsmen. The results are in stark contrast, since the recreational outdoorsman is presently getting screwed every-which-way by the very legislators who introduce and vote for feel good/accomplish nothing legislation. All that they understand is the vote, unless you have millions to bribe them with! So as Big Dawg said, you lose your right to complain if you don't vote and (I'll go one further) if you do vote and vote for the status quo. Then, you can just look in the mirror when you want to blame somebody for the state of recreational hunting and fishing going the way of the dinosaur.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldfisherman
The Second Amenment covers the right to keep and bear arms. "No limitations at all" is red meat for getting out the vote. As a "point of interest", this one gets a NO with a yawn. An "international treaty to restrict the second amendment"? Give me a break! Fearmongers, playing on the fears of citizens of Alabama regarding foreigners.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinChaser
Regarding the one about the "right to hunt and fish", the whole thing is made moot by the phrase, "subject to reasonable regulations". Apply that standard to the the second amendment right to see if that's the way that we want to handle rights, to make them "subject to reasonable regulations". It doesn't mean anything! Plus, why convey so-called "rights" that we already have?
It get's a head-shaking, eyes-rolling NO.
Sorry guys but there is literally no one to vote for who will fix this. Gulf Council seats are appointed by governors and secretaries of commerce. Neither Bentley nor Griffith will do anything about this. Amendments 3 and 5 are typical Alabama politics that have no bearing on real life("I'm more conservative than the other guy vote for me! I love guns more than he does!" "Nu-uh I am more conservative here's me and my family in church posing with our guns!").
I have and will unapologetically continue to vote for conservative candidates who promote a pro God, pro family, pro gun, pro hunting, pro fishing, pro life, pro business, and pro job agenda. I am realistic though in accepting the fact that no matter if a candidate has a (D) or (R) by his name the political golden rule-"He who has the gold makes the rule", is still in effect.
I'm all for conservatives - I'll just be danged if I can identify the first thing being conserved. How ironic it is that individuals branding themselves as conservatives want to use up all of our natural resources in our lifetimes! How ironic it is that politicians who brand themselves as pro-jesus, but align themselves politically with the moneychangers and marginalize "the least of these"! I'm pro-hunting and pro-fishing, too and I see absolutely no benefit in supporting politicians who say they're for the recreational outdoorsman and give nothing but lip-service to our pasttime.Quote:
Originally Posted by chillinfish
It may be that a Democrat WILL do no better. Maybe he can, but he won't. But doing nothing differently as a matter of effecting change is insane. You already know what the incumbent will do. As it relates to the recreational fisherman we know that the present rascals do not support us. Just because they market themselves with certain keywords, there is sufficient evidence that they're frauds to pitch themselves as christian, pro-family, pro-recreational sportsmen -- and they're certainly not, by any stretch, conservative.
I'm a concealed-carrier. I have no problem supporting any candidate because I'm confident in the power of the Second Amendment that allows me to keep and bear arms. I do have a problem with candidates whose sole mission seems to be keeping people afraid. I'll not live my life like that and I won't support any politician who makes his way by constantly beating the fear-drum.
I hardly see not funding the pass and the Ft. Morgan pier as being anti fishing. I miss fishing the pass but I also understand that other projects that benefit the masses take priority when funds are scarce. But I do see one party that proudly affiliates itself with environmental extremists that are anti oil and gas, anti hunting and fishing animal rights extremists, and view hard working people like me who want lower taxes and border security as greedy racists. The voting records of my US and state reps are conservative and I would be insane for voting them out for the sake of change.
You articulate your position well. My contention is that the ones conserving, therefore conservative, aren't GOP. I think that everyone knows that oil and gas will remain primary sources of energy for our lifetimes. A conservative approach would be to NOT use up all of those resources during our lifetimes, but instead, to seek renewable sources to supplement. What Republican brings a forward view to the table? Republicans are presently in power in AL. Is government shrinking and are you paying less money in taxes? Or are those funds being siphoned off to support BIG business at the expense of small business? Isn't keeping our air quality and water quality at certain levels a way of conserving what we have - not letting it get worse? I look at states primarily Democrat and I don't see those states outlawing hunting/fishing/gun rights. As a gun owner/carrier, avid fisherman and overall outdoorsman, I'm not about to support a party that would take those things away. That suggestion has been implanted by the GOP, as a way of keeping sportsmen in their camp. But it's simply not true. The Second Amendment will remain alive and well, standing on its own and it's the GOP that aligns itself with big business versus the sportsmen, not the Democrats. You're right to take these concerns seriously, though. They're all important issues! Just know that the memes that you repeat have been carefully crafted in a Republican think-tank and marketed to you based on your preferences - all in the same way that any other consumer product is pitched. Just remember though, when cigarettes were pitched to consumers by doctors. At some point, you have to say to yourself, "This is just not right!"Quote:
Originally Posted by chillinfish
Intelligent thinking people form their opinions based on fact, not Fox News, MSNBC or political propaganda. I don't know any conservatives whose goal is to pollute our air and water. I have yet to see an economically feasible alternative to oil, coal, and natural gas. The exception to this is hydroelectric power which emits no air or water pollution barring a spill of some type of lubricant. But according to the EPA hydro doesn't qualify as "green" energy. TVA is forced to purchase "green" power from the grid at a higher rate than they produce on their own from coal, nuclear and hydro. The higher power rates have just taken more money out of my pocket and that of all business in the region no matter how big or small and. The Obama administration's war on coal has killed good paying union wage mining jobs. Take a look on the news some time at the air quality in Bejing and China and India's industrial cities. I wonder who's pockets BP has been lining?
Obama was top recipient of BP-related dollars in 2008 - CNN.com
I'm glad to see that you're in favor of hydroelectric dams. I'm all for construction of new dams where that is feasible. I don't hear any politicians from either side offering to build new dams. The air quality in China and India is terrible and they have ramped up the use of coal to produce electricity. Coal is some dirty stuff and pointing to the lack of air quality in China and India illustrates this point. Of COURSE it's costly to move to new energy sources. Non-renewable energy sources are, by definition, going to run out one day. As they get closer and closer to running out, the prices will keep going up. Renewable sources will have the opposite effect. At first, they will be quite costly, but as more of the nation comes online, the costs will go down. Coal PRODUCTION is up, so I don't know where you got the idea that the coal industry is declining. USAGE is the USA is down, but EXPORTS of coal are at an all-time high and that keeping coal miners going in the western/midwestern states, primarily. The Future of Coal: Despite Gas Boom, Coal Isn't Dead - WSJQuote:
Originally Posted by chillinfish