Bredesen fishing for angler votes with proposals to combat Asian carp?

Former Gov. Phil Bredesen, now running for the U.S. Senate as the presumptive Democratic nominee, says he learned a lot about Asian carp at the recent Paris Fish Fry and now has suggestions for dealing with the piscatory problem – including government subsidies for fishermen and sterilization.

Excerpt from an article written by Bredesen, as appearing in the Columbia Daily Herald:

Here are my thoughts as to some things that should be done:

Increase the commercial harvest of Asian carp

One very effective way to do this would be to provide some financial subsidies to commercial carp fishermen so that the harvest and sale of Asian carp would be more attractive economically. On land, we have subsidized the farming of some products for decades as a matter of national policy; it seems to me that some carefully tailored support for this aspect of commercial fishing would be a natural extension of this concept.

Physical removal of carp by wildlife management agencies

In addition to commercial and recreational fishing, wildlife management agencies can take an active role in trapping and otherwise removing these fish; federal grants to support this would be welcomed.

Release of sterile Asian carp to reduce the reproductive success of the species.

This has been employed successfully with other invasive species, and would need to be done on a broader national basis — it does no good to clean up Tennessee’s waters of these fish if there is a vast pool of others just waiting to move in.

Asian carp are not the biggest problem our country faces, but the problem is real and has a large impact on local sportsmen and local economies here in Tennessee. I’d like to help.

Note: Bredesen’s position is perhaps reminiscent of Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander fishing for angler votes by crusading against a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal to prohibit fishing immediately below dams on the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers a couple of years prior to his 2016 reelection campaign. Post from the period HERE. (The Corps of Engineers proposal was ultimately scrapped.)

10 Responses to Bredesen fishing for angler votes with proposals to combat Asian carp?

  • James White says:

    We do not need more unconstitutional federal subsidies for anything. Not a good idea.

  • Steve L. says:

    He is a Democrat. Federal subsidies are what he will do best if he gets to the Senate. Or will it be business destroying/job killing regulations? Or impeachment proceeding? Or open borders? So many different expertise’s in just one guy. Or should we just vote for Blackburn…..

  • James White says:

    Blackburn supports unconstitutional spending too. Next .!

  • Bob Fischer says:

    Where in the constitution are federal subsidies deemed unconstitutional?

  • Steve L. says:

    Bob, the question is where in the Constitution does it say they are? The Tenth Amendment stated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Pesky document…. And James, who is “next”…?

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Ah, but that’s the point Steve. There’s is no “next.” No one who lives up to James’ exacting qualifications for public office. So if we follow James’ prescriptions we are to relegate ourselves to be observers in the gallery shooting spitballs at those in the arena while the leftists are on the march depriving us of more and more of our individual liberty and confiscating and redistributing more and more of our income or plunging the nation into disabling debt. I think I’ll pass, how about you?

  • Bob Fischer says:

    That’s the point. The constitution explicitly give the federal government the power to tax and to act in the general welfare of its citizens. It also lists certain absolute services (Article One) that government is required to fund and support. See, if you read the constitution from start to finish instead of insisting its afterthoughts and postscripts define its purpose, you get a totally different document. Yes it is a pesky document when you read it from start to finish and study its history. It doesn’t
    mean what you claim it means and there are over two hundred years of Supreme Court rulings to back up my position and your opinion to back up yours.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      I believe that the “general welfare” phrase, which those on the left use to justify the federal government doing just about anything the leftists would like it to do is found in the preamble of the constitution and therefore has no substantive legal meaning. As a preamble it is merely a general statement of underlying values so it neither grants nor limits power. That’s why it was passed by the same people who insisted on the Tenth Amendment which expresses the principle that is the foundation of the entire federal system i.e. the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it and according to Federalist No. 39 “leaves to the several States the residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

    • Steve L. says:

      Seriously? I have read the Constitution all the way through. A big part of the problem with our current culture is the confiscation of productive citizens wealth to give to others who did not earn it. You miss that larger issue. To make those subsidies happen MY money is stolen from me by the Federal Government and used for stupid fishy projects that are outright bribes in exchange for votes. “Consent of the Governed” is a massive concept clearly not familiar to most RINO’s and Liberals. I do not Consent to that use of MY MONEY. Bob. And James is full of warnings (well founded, no doubt) with no solutions. Vote Black and Blackburn. Better than Bredesen and Boyd.

  • James White says:

    There are Plenty of people on the ballots, and I will never vote for the Lesser of two Evils.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *