By now -- unless you live completely off-grid or you've just returned from a two-week yak hunt in the wi-fi-free wilds of Mongolia -- you've probably heard that the Obama Administration is planning to ban fishing as we know it.
 
From ESPNOutdoors.com:
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. This announcement comes at the  time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean  Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these  waters. Fishing industry insiders, who have negotiated for months with  officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task  force, had grown concerned that the public input would not be taken into  account.

Basically what the story said was that environmental groups which may have an anti-fishing bias have way too much influence on how the Obama administration is  shaping the NOAA's new ocean policy guidelines, and that as a result of that influence recreational fishing opportunities in many  areas were in danger of being shut down as part of these new management  guidelines. 

The story, originally published on the ESPN Outdoors website as straight news, went immediately viral. We're talking Ebola viral. Basically,  everyone went completely ape%*@*. Within hours headlines were proclaiming the end of fishing, pundits were sputtering and chat rooms and message boards were on fire with the news  that the Obama Administration was in league with animal rights organizations  to limit or ban recreational fishing in many areas across the country. 
 
The only problem was, of course, that it wasn't  quite true. The news story wasn't a news story at all, but the opinion of BASS reporter Robert Montgomery. ESPN Outdoors Executive Editor Steve Bowman issued a statement saying "ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday  when we posted the  latest article in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's  newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery,  a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors  in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has  included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of them -- it  was an opinion piece, and should have been clearly labeled as commentary. And  while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this  particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary  points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and  reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the  series, but failed to do so in this specific  column."
 
The right thing to do, of course, but said  retraction was about as effective at stemming the speculation as a certain Jerry Jeff Walker tune.

The Obama Administration was quick to point out that it has no such plans. And Trout Unlimited yesterday reiterated what most of those familiar with the situation already knew:
 
Dear TU Supporters:
We wanted to  take a moment to respond to a number of you who have written to us this week  concerning an ESPN piece that appeared on the ESPN Outdoors website about the  draft proposal recently published by the President's Ocean Policy Task Force.  The first sentence in the piece said the following: "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."
 
...The confusion over the ESPN  article led the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the coordinating  entity for federal environmental efforts, and the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Association (NOAA), to issue the following  statements (from Eric Schwaab, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for  the National Marine Fisheries Service)
 
"The Ocean Policy Task Force has not  recommended a ban on recreational fishing. The draft reports by the Ocean  Policy Task Force do not contain a zoning map and do not establish any  restrictions on recreational fishing, nor make any judgments about whether one  ocean activity or use is better than another. Instead, the reports set up a  policy and framework for effectively managing the many sustainable uses of the  ocean while upholding our responsibility to be stewards of our  oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. As a member of the task force, NOAA  Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, has said, and I echo her on this, that  saltwater recreational fishing is vital to this nation and NOAA is committed  to building a strong partnership with America's saltwater anglers to ensure  that Americans have opportunities to fish sustainably for generations to  come."

"Saltwater recreational fishing matters to me on a personal  level as a recreational fisherman, it matters to millions of Americans who  enjoy this great sport and it matters to our economy. Our most recent economic  report shows it supports a half million jobs and generates $82 billion in  sales each year. NOAA is committed to adopting policies that will ensure that  current and future generations have the opportunity to enjoy the great  tradition of recreational fishing."
 
In our view, there is no evidence that  the Obama Administration intended to use the work of the Ocean Task Force  to undercut marine sport fishing.
 
At least one good thing might have come out of this farce: if the administration wasn't paying attention to the concerns voiced by recreational  anglers before, you can bet it is now. And that's a good thing regardless of who's in office.  

From the Missouri Department Of Conservation website:
For Scott Sandusky, the most exciting fish in the world is the Missouri state-record brown trout he landed Nov. 20. For the rest of us, the most exciting fish are the even bigger brown trout that might still be prowling the depths of Lake Taneycomo.

Sandusky, a 49-year-old resident of Arnold, caught his 28-pound, 12-ounce fish on Berkley Power Bait and 4-pound-test line on a spinning rod and reel. The fish – which bore some resemblance to a football – bested the previous record – another Taneycomo fish – by more than a pound. It measured 37 inches from nose to tail.

From a Southwick Associates Press Release:
In an October 2009 survey, Southwick Associates asked anglers and hunters which type of organization they trust the most for accurate information regarding fish and wildlife conservation. The results of the monthly AnglerSurvey.com and HunterSurvey.com poll show that state fish and wildlife agencies are considered the most trustworthy source of conservation information among hunters and anglers.

Of the 2,771 anglers surveyed, 54.4 percent reported state fish and wildlife agencies were their most trusted source. Of the 3,378 hunters surveyed, 50.7 percent agreed.  The second most trusted source, with 25.1 percent of anglers and 29.5 percent of hunters, was sport-fishing and hunting non-profit conservation groups.

Other options included federal agencies, outdoor television, and outdoor print media. Who do you trust most?

I've been blogging for Field & Stream for a year now, and to be honest it's grown a little stale for me. It's a lot of work to come up with a topic, a news item or a link every day and then figure out some way to make it relevant, thought-provoking or funny for the F&S readership.
 
You may not think so, but blogs are damn hard things to write and they often fail miserably. Sometimes the only reaction they get from you, the reader, is the sound of your mouse clicking to some other page. Other times you respond only to point out what an idiot you think I am. And you usually manage to misspell idiot in the process. More often than I care to admit I simply can't think of anything witty and I have to resort to that great suckhole of intelligence, Youtube. And let's face it, if you've seen one Youtube clip of some ignorant jack*ss and you've pretty much seen them all.
 
Quite frankly, I'm tired of thinking, and I want a job that doesn't require it. And I think I've found one ...
 
From the want ad on the PETA website:
Position: PETA Blog Writer
Position Objective: To write content for PETA's blog The PETA Files
Term of Employment: Full-time
Primary Responsibilities and Duties: Analyze and interpret public events and provide commentary via PETA's blog The PETA Files Write witty and unique blogs on topics ranging from PETA's naked demonstrations to regulatory testing on animals, dogfighting, and celebrities who support the cruel fur industry. Brainstorm daily content for PETA's blog with a small team. Monitor trends in blogs and assist with the implementation of new strategies for PETA's blog. Create and maintain relationships with other bloggers and pitch relevant content about PETA to them. Perform any other duties assigned by the supervisor
 
So long, folks. It was fun while it lasted. I've always wanted to know what color the sky was in their world, and now I'm finally going to get my chance.