Thread: 75% of red snapper now belong to private interests

Originally Posted by Pierless

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?

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.

Originally Posted by eym_sirius

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.

Here is a link to Sample Ballot for Baldwin Co.
http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...014-Sample.pdf

Couple points of interest Y/N?

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.

Originally Posted by oldfisherman

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.

Originally Posted by FinChaser

Here is a link to Sample Ballot for Baldwin Co.
http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...014-Sample.pdf

Points of interest Y/N?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by chillinfish

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.
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.