Bureaucrats Can't Improve a Day on the Water . . .

Continued from Journal Page

For at least the next two years, the greatest threat nationally to the future of recreational angling will come from the federal government. More specifically, it will come from Dr. Jane Lubchenco and her National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 If President Obama is re-elected, then that threat likely will not only persist but grow because of the structure that Lubchenco and her environmental stalwarts are putting in place. If he is not, the structure still will be there, meaning the threat will be as well, although possibly on a lesser scale.

One leg of that structure is the National Ocean Council (NOC), borne from the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. (See post below: A Ban on Recreational Fishing? Not Yet . . .)

The other is Catch Shares, a strategy that is supposed to be about conservation, but really is about federal management and control. But while the NOC would allow federal intrusion into all waters, Catch Shares is directed at marine fisheries, both commercial and recreational.

 At the American Thinker, Mike Johnson presents a revealing piece about Lubchenco, NOAA, and Catch Shares. The introduction should be enough to hook you:

 “Barrack Obama came to office with an agenda to fundamentally change America. An element of his agenda is a plan, known as Catch Shares, to restructure the nation’s fishing industry. The author of his plan is Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the environmentalist rock star and former vice chairperson of the Environmental Defense Fund. When it comes to the oceans, the protection of fish, and the punishment of the evil fishermen, Dr. Lubchenco is as extreme as Obama’s former green jobs czar, Van Jones.”

What are Catch Shares? The Coastal Conservation Association  (CCA) can explain.

As I pointed out at ESPN Outdoors, “Traditionally this management tool has been used primarily for commercial fisheries, along with a few mixed, such as for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic.

“In that context, 'catch share programs set a biologically based annual catch limit for each fish stock and allocate a specific portion of that catch limit to entities, such as commercial fishermen and cooperatives or communities,’ ASA (American Sportfishing Association) explained. 'When designed correctly catch share programs help eliminate the commercial race to fish, reduce overcapacity and by-catch, and improve economic efficiency.’

“Shares can be used, sold, or leased for the right to harvest a set percentage of the yearly allocation for a fish stock.”

Historically, once that allocation was set, it rarely, if ever, was changed, with the number of shares locked in as well.

That aspect of Catch Shares is one of the most troubling for advocates of recreational angling. They point out that using this tool for recreational fishing would trap a potentially infinite number of anglers into chasing a stagnant allotment of fish, resulting in shorter seasons and tighter restrictions.

Considering that sports anglers harvest less than 5 percent of saltwater finfish, yet contribute just as much to the nation’s economy as commercial fishing (more than $80 billion annually), utilizing Catch Shares in a recreational fishery seems exactly the wrong thing to do. It would both discourage participation and cost coastal communities millions of dollars, while doing nothing to “rebuild” fisheries.

Intervention by ASA, CCA and others seems to have slowed down the Catch Shares freight train, at least on the recreational side. “Our No. 1 victory seems to be that the new policy says that Catch Shares has no place in recreational only fisheries,” said Jeff Angers of the Center for Coastal Conservation.

But as long as Lubchenco is leading NOAA, fishermen --- recreational and commercial; freshwater and salt --- should be concerned about the NOC and Catch Shares.

Sports fishermen should educate themselves at sites such as Keep America Fishing and Coastal Conservation Association.  And they should tell their representatives and senators that they don’t want recreational angling to join banks, auto companies, home financing, college loans, and health care under federal management

 Bureaucrats can’t improve a day on the water. But they sure as hell can ruin it.

Picard Is to Blame

 Continued from Journal Page

This is a lionfish. The native range of this beautiful fish with poison spines is the western Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles from the United States. But now it is firmly established from the Bahamas and the Keys up to the Carolinas.

 And, as the Wall Street Journal and others are reporting,  its population is exploding, as it crowds out and eats native species, including juvenile snapper and grouper, as well as parrotfish. The latter isn't important as a sport fish, but it is a vital chain in  the ocean ecosystem as its grazing keeps algae from overgrowing coral reefs.

How did the lionfish come to be in U.S. waters?

Remember, you heard it here first: Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the U.S.S. Enterprise is to blame. If you'll remember, Picard kept a lionfish in the ready room. My theory is that mischievous Klingon, Worf, decided to play a trick on the captain and flushed his beloved lionfish into hyperspace, where it was sucked into a worm hole, rocketed back in time, and ended up  in U.S. coastal waters.

Oh, wait, that was just one lionfish. You'd need at least two . . . Never mind.

The truth is that we don't know why the lionfish is here. Mark Hixon, who studies lionfish at Oregon State Unversity, said, the voracious predator "almost certainly was released from an aquarium."

That's the same way that more than 30 species of exotic fish came to swim in Florida waters and likely the way that snakeheads became established in the Potomac. Irresponsible pet owners also brought us iguanas, Nile monitor lizards, and Burmese pythons, which now are spreading out from the Everglades.

But for right now, at least, it is the lionfish that marine anglers should be most concerned about. To learn more, the Center for Aquatic Nuisance Species recommends that you watch a video, courtesy of the New York Times.

Although they are right at the top of the list, irresponsible pet owners aren't the only reason for the invasive species problems plaguing this country. Fish farmers, plant nurseries, and commercial shipping also are to blame, as are cowardly politicians who bow to special interests, such as the exotic pet trade, and allow the invasions to continue in a world that grows steadily smaller because of ease of travel and trade.

Getting the Lead Out a Good Idea

Continued from Journal Page

Since the mid 1990s, the environmental community has been trying to convince the federal government to ban the manufacture, sale, and use of lead fishing tackle, including weights and jigheads. With the latest rejection of their petition by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, three groups now are suing, in hopes of forcing a ban.

The main argument for the ban is that loons and other waterfowl ingest the weights and die of lead poisoning. Additionally, eagles that eat those birds also can suffer the same fate.

The problem with their argument is that studies do not show that these deaths harm the overall populations of these species. In fact, loon populations are increasing in some locales, and eagles are thriving. The main threat to loons is lakeshore development, which destroys nesting areas.

That being said, anglers voluntarily should do more to get the lead out. Why?

1. It's a poisonous metal and we shouldn't continue to litter the bottoms of our lakes, rivers, and oceans with it when we don't have to.

2. The fishing industry has come up with some great alternatives, especially for weights.

My favorite is tungsten. It's denser and harder than lead and thus weights are smaller and more sensitive. You feel the bottom, the brush, and the bite better with tungsten than with lead. It's also a bit more expensive. But improved performance makes it worth the cost.

Teeg Stouffer, executive director of Recycled Fish, says that getting the lead out is a "no brainer for anglers and for the fishing industry."

Stouffer also says this:

"The object of fishing is not to obtain and distribute toxins; it’s to catch fish! Can we catch fish effectively in a way that doesn’t involve a toxic substance? You bet!

 "Tungsten is great because it’s so dense – so heavy. That makes it sink even faster than lead, and it’s harder, so you feel more of what’s going on at the end of the line. Its fishability is actually GREATER than lead. Problem: cost. Are you willing to spend a little more to protect our waters and wildlife, while having a better shot at catching more and bigger fish? If so, tungsten is for you!

 "Steel, like Bullet Weights' 'Ultra Steel' product, is another awesome option. While it’s not as dense as tungsten or lead, it’s much harder than lead. This means it also has excellent 'feel' underwater, and it makes a clicking sound that attracts fish. Again, fishability GREATER than lead and – better yet – it’s cheap. Same price or just pennies more than lead. For the budget-conscious angler, Ultra Steel is a good idea.

 "Tin and tin /bismuth mixtures offer other alternatives. Like lead, they are soft enough to be malleable. This lets us pinch them onto our lines, allowing for split shot. It's hard to do split shot in tungsten or steel, but very easy with tin. It’s pretty affordable, too. The only problem is that it’s not as dense, so you need a larger sinker to get the same amount of weight. Will that have any measurable impact on fish-catching abilities? Ask 10 people and get 10 answers. Who knows? We can’t ask the fish.

 "Composites are now on the market, and these have the benefit of combining metal dusts in a polymer to make a weight that is dense but cheap. Some are made with iron, others copper, tungsten, or mixtures of metals. Moldability of composites allows sinkers to be made in shapes for different presentations and for use in different lures.

 "Real stones have even been presented as an option, and one company, Stonz/Pallatrax, is manufacturing factory-milled stones with different methods of line attachment. Talk about a natural presentation! Designed for bottom-fishing anglers, these are the ultimate in natural alternatives.

 "These are a few of the most common non-toxic weight materials being added to the market, but certainly not all of them. The point is that we don’t have to use lead to fish, and in general, we can fish for about the same cost with the same or better results without lead.

 "Why would we work so hard to cling to the toxic material when we don’t have to?

 "What we often object to is being told we have to do something. At Recycled Fish, we aren’t much for laws and bans. Laws take enforcement and enforcement is expensive.

"But what we do believe in is education. And as anglers, we want to be good stewards of our waters. We want to be leaders. We don’t want some 'environmentalist tree hugger group' stealing the title of “the true caretakers of our woods and waters,” when it’s us – through our license purchases, taxes on tackle, and our volunteerism – who are doing the MOST for our natural and wild places. The way we prove ourselves as leaders is to actually lead!"

Stouffer recommends these sites:

Green Tackle

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Boss Tin

Why Anglers Aren't Environmentalists

Continued from Journal Page

 

 By ROBERT MONTGOMERY

I’m for a stronger Clean Water Act. I want to preserve old-growth forests. I think that it’s a disgrace that our federal government hasn’t acted more decisively to keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes. I believe that we need stiffer regulations to protect our streams from strip mining, our groundwater from herbicides, and our estuaries from the runoff pollution of urban sprawl and farm fields.

But, alas, I’m also an angler, and anglers aren’t environmentalists. It’s not that anglers don’t want to protect the environment. They do. It’s that they don’t want to be called “environmentalists.” They associate that term with agenda-driven campaigns for preservation policies that often are not backed by scientific evidence.

For anglers, “conservationist” is the term of choice. Conservationists believe in both protection and sustainable use of our lands, waters, and other natural resources. They follow an ethical code of behavior and embrace a stewardship philosophy in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt.

So we have two factions, conservationists and environmentalists, sharing many of the same values, but more often viewing each other as enemies than allies.

Perhaps the most climactic moment of that divide now is occurring as environmentalists embrace a strategy to use Marine Protected Areas and other designations by governments at all levels to deny recreational anglers access to public waters. In doing so, they are shamefully insulting and dismissing a constituency that does more to protect those waters than any other.

 

For example, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) compared the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) to the Tobacco Institute because the latter is opposed to a rush-to-judgment approach on closing California coastal waters to recreational angling. CLCV said PSO “is nothing more than a front group for the fishing industry and boat manufacturers that are more interested in short-term profits than the long-term health of California’s fisheries and marine life. Its misinformation campaign about the science of marine protected areas and the hefty campaign contributions from its backers to anti-environment candidates in California show this industry group’s true colors.”

First, those fishing industry groups that support PSO are not endorsing a product that has killed millions and cost this nation billions of dollars in health-care costs. Rather, they are supporting a family-oriented recreational pastime enjoyed by nearly 60 million Americans annually. This is an entry-way activity that has introduced generation after generation of children to the beauty of and the pleasure to be derived from the outdoors.

Yes, these industries do profit from recreational fishing. But here’s what the environmental groups fail or choose not to see: Since 1952, fishermen have contributed more than $5 billion for betterment of our aquatic resources through the excise taxes that they pay on the fishing equipment produced by those industries. Through the federal Sport Fish Restoration Program(SFR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service distributes that money to the states for fisheries research, management, and stocking, as well as access improvements and expansions. Thanks to SFR, state wildlife agencies have acquired 360,000 acres for public enjoyment and taught aquatic education classes to more than 12 million people.

Environmental groups also fail or choose not to acknowledge the difference between recreational angling and commercial fishing. Regrettably, this suggests that their agendas are not nearly as noble as they pretend them to be. If they were solely motivated to protect our aquatic resources, they would work with recreational anglers, who could be valuable partners, instead of demonizing them.

But organizations of like-minded individuals also desire to grow memberships and increase contributions to ensure their survival. Creating crises, if one doesn’t exist, and focusing energies on enemies, real or imagined, are great ways to do this. Thus, the PSO is compared to the Tobacco Institute.

And there is that aggravating philosophical rub. Anglers acknowledge that our oceans, lakes, and rivers possess incalculable intrinsic value. They appreciate the spiritual restoration that nature provides just as much as they do the experience of catching fish.  In fact, many fishermen view themselves as “closet environmentalists” because of this enjoyment of nature beyond the material, and they believe that the environmental movement has done much good for this nation’s natural resources.

But die-hard environmentalists with tunnel vision believe that humans exist apart from nature, rather than as a part of it, and they act immorally when they disrupt it in any way (e.g., recreational angling).  

No question exists that some waters should be closed to commercial fishing. And with scientific research to support such a move, possibly some waters should be closed to recreational angling, at least temporarily.

Commercial fishing, however, is mostly responsible for the decimation of fish stocks and destruction of fish habitat. By contrast, recreational anglers are stewards and environmental watchdogs for the waters upon which they fish. Some do keep fish to eat, but the majority today practice catch-and-release, knowing that good fishing in the future depends on sound conservation practices today.

Yet the President’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force made no distinction between the two in its Interim Report on how to better protect oceans and the Great Lakes. Rather, its high-level members from departments such as Commerce, Interior, and Homeland Security referred to “overfishing” and “unsustainable fishing.” And this time, ignorance was no excuse. Advocates of recreational angling made certain of that before the report was written.

Based on the task force’s recommendations, the Obama Administration now has created a National Ocean Policy and a National Ocean Policy to manage our oceans, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes, with ambiguous wording that would allow federal intrusion inland as well. As with the task force, the council is populated with and/or heavily influenced by those who follow “environmental” dogma, as opposed to those who see and appreciate the multiple value provided by the nation’s angler conservationists.

As a consequence, anglers could lose access to thousands of miles of public waters, as those same waters lose their most stalwart of champions.

That’s why anglers aren’t environmentalists.