Government Shutdown 2015

[Benton]

(09-25-2015, 02:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Don't you need a kentucky fishing license to fish the Ohio River?   These are easy fixes.    It's not a bad thing to promote border states working together.

Just because it's called the Ohio River doesn't mean you have to have an Ohio fishing license.



I'm not a fisherman, but generally, the states recognize each other's fishing license. IE, if a game officer in Kentucky "pulls over" a boat on the water and the guy has an Indiana or Illinois license, they accept it. Fishing limits vary by state. If your state only allows harvesting of 20 bass, and you come to shore with 25, you broke the state law. If you dock across the river where the limit is 26, then you're ok.

And rivers fall under federal regulation as waterways. They're already regulated at the federal level for their effect on commerce. They're also (supposedly) under guidance by the EPA for entities dumping legal waste. Those sorts of oversights don't exist for prairies and large tracks of trees... unless they fall under the Forest Service or BLM. Which puts you back in federal.

I'm wasting my time here, but I'll try and give you an example. If Kentucky doesn't like having the Ohio, they can't drain it. It's a federal waterway. If they want to put a dam on it and generate electricity, they have to check with the Corps and EPA because of the impact it'll have on the environment and rest of the river. It's federally regulated. With what you're proposing, with the 140,000 acres of trees in the LBL, if Kentucky decided it didn't want to manage it's share, they could just clear cut 90,000ish acres all the way to the Tennessee line... and Tennessee would have no say in it, even though it would impact their tourism and environment.

I don't like a bigger fed, but some states are just overpopulated with dumbness.