A while ago I posted something about Walmart, and the fact that they are not friends with the recreational fishing community. I should have posted this link. Read this. It's from August of last year, and from the Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Jimmy Donifrio.

Once you've read the press release, do your own research. Make sure that what Jimmy is saying is the truth. I know that it is. But do your own checking. Once you do, and you've considered what this press release says, you make your own decision about buying equipment at Walmart. I do not. As a result of what I now know about Walmart,

www.joinrfa.org/press/Walmart_081711.pdf

Ive got Walmart down to just my coffee, because nobody else carried it. Publix started carrying it too and the price is within a dollar so that will probably be the last of wallyworld for me. 1995 Walmart imported 6% of its products, now it is well over 60%. Rated as a country walmart would be chinas 8th largest trading partner.

I dont remember the last time I bought something from a walmart. I know its been over 6 months since I last stepped in one. Only time I will ever do it is if I need to get something at 3-4 in the morning.

Frankly the Foundation probably has nothing to do with the stores or the corp. Just like PEW its the hiers having too much money and have to find "causes", like the Global Warming hypocrites - they just get solicited because they have it.

Although I try and buy my stuff from local shops when at all possible.

I seen an Ohero Dehooker at a Walmart...

gee where do you think ohero products are made?

Did you ever notice the walmart checkout people? They seem to be really unhappy about life.
The management must really beat down on them. For a laugh see "peopleofwalmart.com"

Appreciate the article and your approach but I personally have a great deal of respect for environmental organizations. As a whole, I like, believe in and support the work done by the Ocean Conservancy, Conservation International, the Marine Stewardship Council, the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund. I believe that habitat destruction and pollution are the biggest threats to my hobby (and the fishing industry as a whole). I commend Walmart for supporting these non-profit environmental organizations.

Every environmental organization you mentioned are populated by the well-meaning.

And funded by globalists who feel that without centralized control over every aspect of human existence, we plebians would just get too drunk.

I completely am opposed to all forms of NGOs. Whether they are saving people from cancer, aborting babies, or protecting those polar bears, I, as a Sovereign American, oppose them all. You want money out of politics, ban NGOs. No write offs for anything. If I feel that my money should be given to the Cancer Society, or you to EDF, PEW, and the eco-terrorists at the organizations you mentioned?

It's your money. But it's my country. And if what I say pisses you off, and you never come back to the site? So be it. But the organizations you mention pay their executives million dollar salaries, and they eat meat and wear leather shoes.

They're in it for the money. Their passion comes from a Progressive viewpoint, that there are people way smarter than me that should control what I catch, where, and when.

God Bless America. And God Damned the Ocean Conservancy.

I am no partner to San Fu Lee. But he brought his seven dollars to a free nation, and turned it into millions of American Dollars. If I know how smart he is, he has a good deal of it in foreign currency while he watches our currency chase green energy and $1,500 desks at companies like Solyndra. If a man like him, based on his love for and dependence on freedom wants to sell his stuff in Walmart, let him. He does what he does for one reason. I don't.

poyssick wrote:


My money is mine, your money is yours but this country is just as much mine as it is yours. Me, I like and appreciate the outdoors and our natural resources. I also appreciate those organizations that work to benefit and protect our natural resources.

Sorry if you feel the heads of these organizations are paid too much. Me, I believe that there is a cost associated with quality management. Quality costs. If an organization (any organization) is not willing to pay for quality management, it typically gets lesser quality management. Lesser quality can also be very expensive.

I am a paying member of CCA, and I too, donate money to specific issues I feel are important.

My gripe with NGOs has to do really with the money behind politics. And the money behind the environmentalist movement is so incredible it's hard for me to be un-biased. I have been directly lied to by people from inside several of those organizations, and the reality of the politics does have to do with globalization. I have been accused by the publisher of Saltwater Sportsman -- a guy named John Brownlee -- of wearing a tinfoil hat, and that I should spend more time learning to write, instead of making stuff up.

But the reality is what the reality is. I have a dozen requests into NOAA for information about relationships between Jane Lubchenco and NGOs. Nobody in their right mind could argue that NGOs do more good than harm. The potential for insider and croney trading is just too tempting. Human nature is what it is, and the fundamental concepts behind any environmental group are wonderful. But their actions -- behind closed doors and publicly -- identify each of them as anti-fishing, or at the very least very controlled-fishing.

But some of my best friends are progressives. I don't hold it against them. If you feel strongly about the pro-fishing aspect of any organization you've mentioned, write about it. I can promise you that 25,000 sets if eyeballs will see the headline before it vanishes into the archives where it will always live. How many people read it, and how your following will view our open discussions about the actual agenda is up to them.

I asked the same thing of people from PEW and EDF and NOAA. They all passed. I want to ask how PEW stands on recreational fishing. Or EDF. A public statement that goes outside flyfishing catch-and-release only on federally controlled lands. Any one of them.

Get one of them to make a public statement on our magazine. I dare you.

And are you aware of PEW's role -- and EDF's role -- in identifying what the term "Overfishing" means? In federal law? It's called the Magnuson/Stevens act. You want to find out what PEW is doing with your money, and what EDF is doing with your money, get familiar -- deeply familiar -- with the reality.

It ain't about polar bears, brother angler. It's about you and me. It's about access privileges, and IFQs, and Catch Shares, and relationships equaling big dollars and big voting blocks. It ain't about grouper, and it ain't about polar bears.

I could supply you with two years worth of research. I ain't making this stuff up. None of us are making this stuff up.

Here is my personal opinion of PEW and Fishery Management. I didn't write it, but I now act as Communications Director for the Recreational Fishing Alliance. I act on the Board of RFA Florida as well. I have to say that before I go any further.

www.theonlinefisherman.com/fishing-polit...nal-fishing-alliance

I became an activist when I was denied access to a federal meeting. A meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. It was there that I met legal counsel for EDF for the first time. When she told me that my camera would not be allowed in "Her" meeting. The professor running the Council told me that they were using UN rules, so cameras were a no-no.

Florida State Police, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, and the Tampa Police Department -- all of whom were called during the outburst (theirs, not mine) -- let them know in no uncertain terms that the Florida Sunshine Law pre-empted UN Protocol. (It's called the Chatham Rule; that cameras and the Press -- of which I am a card-carrying member stifles speech in meetings. It is why cameras are never allowed inside UN meetings other than the General Assembly).

So this is a subject -- where environmental dollars go -- I am well versed in. Prior to my writing this article and being denied my Constitutional Rights as a member of the Press -- I drank the Koolaid too. I could show you the cancelled checks to EDF and PEW. So you're right -- my money is mine. It was just misguided being "donated' to the likes of PEW or EDF.

www.theonlinefisherman.com/fishing-polit...of-the-united-states

poyssick, I am not an activist; obvious that you are. I do however know a number of fisheries scientists, professional environmentalists, professional ecologists, marine biologists, etc. Good folk, every single one of them. A few would be wise to purchase stock in a good tinfoil hat company. They tend to be very headstrong and opinionated but their hearts and minds are also very well placed. I like 'em and I trust them. They are the people that do the research for and comprise the very vocal membership of the environmental groups that you so dislike. Not a single one of them has any money. They work for peanuts but, in my opinion, they do a world of good. I am not a conspiracy theorist. These folks chose their profession because they care about wildlife, fisheries, the environment.

You and I have very differing opinions. I appreciate your activism. All the best to you and good fishing.

I'm gonna give my 2 cents for what its worth. Poyssick, I respect your opinion. Everyone has the right to theirs. I come from Puerto Rico where the few regulations there are no one abides by them cuz no one is enforcing it. Because of RECREATIONAL fisherman that abuse, there are hardly any red snappers and grouper numbers are very low. At one time Snook and Redfish were plentiful there but now they are harder and harder to find. The only thing that was enforced, to my understanding, was crabs because they were on the verge if being completely wiped out. Its a small island where fishermen made a living with small wooden boats that rowed for a long long time. When I read people complaining here it bothers me sometimes but I have to remember that most of you haven't never lived in a place where these strict rules are absolutely necessary. Live in a place where your livelihood and hobby, which is fishing, is on the verge of being jeopardized and tell me what you think. I know some older people that still make a living fishing in PR that have told me personally that strict enforcement is needed! yes in PR tarpon fishing is great, shark fishing, and when Mahi do their run. No one eats tarpon their and sharks are plentiful everywhere. All other fish are have been getting smaller and smaller., just keep that in mind. That's my 2 cents

michaeltsully wrote:


its not 3916 W Osbourne Ave????? lol