Stocking Usually Not Solution for Improving Bass Fisheries

Grass carp can be fun to catch. But they also can cause great damage to sport fisheries, especially in small lakes.

Continued from Journal Page

I recently was asked how to improve the fisheries in the community where I live. Following is what I said. No matter where you live, you probably will be interested in what I have to say about the benefits of stocking and the problems caused by grass carp. Read on.

In Terre Du Lac, we’ve been fortunate regarding the health of our 15 lakes. They are decades old, but still maintain good clarity and water quality.

Sadly, the fisheries in those lakes have not fared so well. And in attempting to improve them every third year by stocking bass and bluegill, we are only making them worse.

I realize that some will not believe that. I’ve been dealing with the controversy regarding stocking for more than 25 years and am all too familiar with those who insist putting more fish into a lake will make the fishing better.

But that’s not true, unless a catastrophic fish kill has occurred and stocking is needed to restore the population.

Our lakes were built in the thin, rocky soil of the eastern Ozarks. That makes them infertile. That’s why they continue to have such good clarity and quality. And it’s also why stocking more bass and bluegill will not make the fishing better.

Whether fertile or infertile, a lake can support only so much fish “biomass,” just as a farm field can grow only so much corn. Not surprisingly, an infertile lake can’t support as much biomass as a fertile one. Plus, fish don’t grow as fast in infertile lakes.

Spend any time on our lakes and you easily can see that they have well established populations of bass and bluegill that reproduce naturally. In fact, the bluegill spawn two or three times a year.

If you fish for bass, what else do you notice? Most of them are small.

In short, our lakes have too many mouths eating too little food, and, when you stock more on top of the existing populations, you just make the situation worse.  You add more competition for an already limited food supply.

Sure, putting in more bass and bluegill might temporarily add a few more fish for you to catch. But the tradeoff is that you are making it even more difficult for fish in that lake, especially bass, to grow.

What needs to be done to improve our fisheries is remove some of those small fish, not add more. I’m talking specifically about keeping bass of 12 inches and less. This will eliminate competition for a limited food supply and make it easier for remaining bass to grow larger, and, when they are bigger, they can more easily feed upon the abundant bluegill population.

By contrast, bass of 15 inches and larger should be released. These are superior fish that, if given the chance, will grow faster now that they have distanced themselves from most of the population.

Over the years, too many of these quality bass have been taken from our lakes, which has added to the problem of too many small mouths and not enough food.

Grass Carp

Grass carp also have hurt our lakes and continue to do so. On the smaller lakes, they occupy so much of the biomass that other species, particularly bass and catfish, grow even slower than they would otherwise. And in at least one of our large lakes, Shayne, grass carp wiped out all of the beneficial vegetation, pushing big bass into open water and making them easier to catch. Greedy meat fishermen then caught and kept most of them.

By the way, these exotic plant-eaters do NOT “filter the water and improve water quality,” as one lakefront property owner insisted. In fact, they do just the opposite.

Aquatic plants filter the water and improve its clarity, along with providing habitat for fish and other aquatic creatures. Take them out and you get the algae blooms that you often see during summer, especially on the smaller lakes.  Grass carp feed those blooms with their wastes, as do lawn fertilizers.

The Solution

If I were managing these lakes, this is what I’d do:

1. Stop stocking bass and bluegill. That will both improve the fisheries and save money for the community.

2. Keep the 12 to 15 inches protected slot limit for most of the lakes, but more actively encourage anglers to keep bass of 12 inches or less and release bass of 15 inches or more.

3. Designate one of the lakes, possibly Shayne, as a trophy lake and make the protected slot there 12 to 18 inches.

4. Stock the larger lakes (50 acres of more) with threadfin shad to provide more food for bass and crappie. Putting them in smaller lakes would just add to the biomass problem now caused by grass carp. But even though they are infertile, the larger fisheries should be able to handle the addition, as hungry game fish eagerly gobble up the new additions.

5. If the threadfin shad do well, then maybe add hybrid-striped bass to the larger lakes to create new sport fisheries. These are open-water predators that grow fast when food is plentiful, and they are sterile, so they won’t reproduce.

Finally, I’d ask property owners and anglers to please not stock grass carp, crappie, or any other species on their own. When they do, the consequences almost always are bad.

Environmental Groups Still Using Lead Lies to Threaten Recreational Fishing

Environmental groups use the loon as "poster child" for anti-fishing campaigns.

Continued from Journal Page

If you're a freshwater angler and you think that your right to fish isn't being threatened also, I have news for you:

You’re wrong.

The same folks who want to implement Catch Shares in our ocean fisheries and establish “marine protected area” where no fishing is allowed, are coming after you as well.

Only their approach is a little less in-your-face and a lot more sinister.

With the iconic loon as their poster pinup, they want to take away your right to fish in fresh water by starting with a ban on lead. And not just weights either. They want to eliminate jigheads, spinnerbaits, and anything else with a lead component.

The latest evidence: The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is looking for a lead campaign manager.  Get the job description here.

Here’s a key part of that description: Campaign Manager will work with states and agencies to put lead-free regulations into effect.

And here’s an interesting coincidence: ABC joined the usual cast of anti-fishing characters --- Environmental Defense Fund, Ocean Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, etc. --- in supporting President Obama’s creation of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which set up a massive bureaucracy for “zoning” uses of marine waters.

“Since the fishing industry is already leading with producing non-toxic sinkers, and waterfowl were the only birds really in need of a lead-free zone (loons and other birds do ingest lead shot), so to speak, this smacks to me as totally unnecessary and, therefore, more nefarious,” says a confidential source.

In a comprehensive review of all known scientific research on lead fishing tackle and wildlife impacts, he points out, no evidence was found of any significant harm to fish and wildlife, “contrary to ongoing claims by the usual anti’s like WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which has adopted the loon as the ‘poster boy’ for its anti-lead fishing tackle campaigns.”

Attempts to implement national bans on lead fishing tackle failed both in the United States and then in Canada several years ago.

Writing in 2005 for the National Post, a Canadian publication, Peter Shawn Taylor explained why:

“In fact, ingestion of lead sinkers has been studied extensively on both sides of the border. When environmentalists first began moving against lead sinkers, the U.S. National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisc., was asked to study the issue.

“Scientists there examined 2,240 individual waterbirds over four years and found only 23 birds (including 11 loons) that had lead sinkers in their stomachs. A larger study in Illinois found one bird out of 16,651 was carrying a lead sinker. As a result of these findings, the U.S. government abandoned plans for a nation-wide lead-sinker ban.”

In Canada, he adds, scientists reported an average of six wildlife mortalities annually attributable to sinker ingestion from 1987 to 1998.

“Now this might be compared with the thousands of loons that have died over the past three years on Lake Erie due to botulism. Or the fact that virtually the entire loon nesting habitat was wiped out in 2004 on Lake of the Woods when the water table rose precipitously. Or that the North American loon population is estimated at 700,000 birds.

 “Six dead birds nationwide due to lead sinker ingestion is insignificant to the point of amusing. Or it would be, if not for the fact that the federal government has seen fit to ignore its own scientific evidence when making policy. Brochures from Environment Canada call lead-sinker ingestion ‘the leading cause of death reported in adult common loons.’

“The WWF for its part has claimed that the lead-based loonie death toll ‘could be as high as 30,000 birds per year’ in Ontario alone. It is pure fantasy.”

But as the ABC job opening indicates, the zealots have not given up. They are all too happy to push fantasy over facts in their desire to end recreational fishing.

And if they can gain a precedent by achieving a lead ban, do you think that they will stop there?

Next up on the hit list might be fishing line or maybe artificial baits with treble hooks.

“There is a lot more here than meets the eye in this anti-lead campaign,” says my source, who has studied the environmental movement for decades.

“If you can’t shut down fishing with one approach, try another like ‘toxic substances harming wildlife’ and soft peddle it.”

It’s a strategy not as noticeable as implementation of Catch Shares by the federal government or creation of the National Ocean Council to tell you where you can and can’t fish in public waters.

But the objective is the same: Burdening us with as much regulation and red tape as possible until we put our fishing gear in the closet and place “for sale” signs on our boats because recreational fishing just isn’t worth the hassle anymore.

I, for one, won’t go quietly. Will you?

It's Tea Party Time for Recreational Fishermen, Starting at Walmart

Continued from Journal Page

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is calling for a boycott of Walmart because the Walmart Family Foundation donates millions of dollars to organizations that seek to damage and/or destroy recreational fishing.

I reluctantly agree.

I say “reluctantly” because boycotts are one of the legitimate strategies employed by unions, which also often resort to intimidation, vandalism, and other types of thuggery. These days especially, unions and their tactics are not looked upon favorably by many Americans.

And I say “reluctantly” because those who work and shop at Walmart are our friends, contrary to those who hand out the money at the Walton Family Foundation and those who belong to groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Ocean Conservancy. Also, those who manage Walmart stores have nothing to do with the foundation’s actions.

But I also say that it’s time for a boycott because a great opportunity exists here to educate people around the threat that preservationist organizations pose to public access to public resources, including our oceans, rivers, and lakes.

You might say that it’s Tea Party time for recreational fishermen.

If you going to do it, though, do it right. Here are some things to think about:

1. Put your reason for acting into an easily conveyed message that you can deliver time after time after time. Having this ready to go in advance will allow you to be accurate and consistent when asked what you are doing and why.

I suggest something like this:

“The Walmart Family Foundation donates millions of dollars to organizations that want to damage or destroy recreational fishing. We don’t think that most people who shop at Walmart know about this, and we don’t think that they would approve if they did. We’re here to tell them what is going on.

“Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations that get this money want to set up marine protected areas along our coasts and in our oceans, where recreational fishing would not be allowed. And they want to manage our fisheries with Catch Shares, which is a scheme to privatize a public resource and allow a few to get rich, while the rest of us are forced off the water.”

If people want evidence, tell them about closures along the California coast because of the Marine Life Protection Act, legislation supported by these groups. Tell them that they want to introduce this type of management in the Gulf of Mexico and in other waters.

2. Remember your priority. Keeping people from shopping at Walmart is NOT your goal. Educating them and gaining their support is.

3. Plan your boycott carefully and make certain that you will not be in violation of any laws.

4. Use the media to your advantage both before and during the boycott.

Send out a press release and/or call newspapers and broadcast media to tell them what you are doing to do, when you are going to do it, and why. Offer to help them with their coverage in any way that they want, including doing radio and television interviews.

Keep the release short and to the point. Provide links for more information. Here are some good ones: Recreational Fishing Alliance, Keep America Fishing, Activist Angler, and The Online Fisherman.

Take out ads in newspapers.

Use a Facebook page or a page on your fishing club’s website to tell people about the boycott.

5. Think outside the box.

Instead of or in addition to a boycott, maybe you can organize a parade of tow vehicles and boats around Walmart or even through the parking lot. Again, make certain that you don’t violate any laws.

Print fliers and hand them out in the Walmart parking lot. Include alternatives for shopping elsewhere, especially for fishing gear.

Make tee shirts or other items with your message on them. One customized logo that you might want to consider is Let Us Fish.

Team up with anglers and/or fishing clubs in nearby communities. You help them, and they help you.

Finally, remember that, like the Tea Party, this is a movement that must grow from the grassroots up. As much as the fishing industry might sympathize with a boycott of Walmart, it cannot participate. The reason is obvious: Walmart is a customer for many fishing-related companies.

But we don’t need corporate support. We just need a few determined anglers who recognize the threat and are willing to devote the time and energy to get the boycott moving.

That should push us past the inertia of getting started. If we can do that, the movement will snowball and recreational anglers finally will awaken to become a powerful political force.

Like you, I’d rather be fishing. But enough is enough.

Enemies of Recreational Fishing Identified

Continued from Journal Page

If you are to defend what you love from threats, you must first identify the enemies. For recreational fishing, here are the big three:

1. Animal rights groups. Historically, organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Humane Society of the United States have been the most vocal in their opposition to fishing, as well as hunting and trapping. PETA especially has made a name for itself with campaigns that are more goofy than effective.

They aren’t the No. 1 threat anymore. But because of their deep pockets and alliances with left-wing environmental groups, they are a force to be reckoned with and concerned about. Check out their history at the Activistcash website: PETA and HSUS.

2. Big-government advocates in the Obama administration and their well-funded non-government allies, including Environmental Defense Fund and Pew Environmental Trusts. Via Catch Shares, the National Ocean Council, and other schemes, they want to limit access to fisheries and to tell us where we and cannot fish.  They pursue their objectives under the guise of ending “overfishing.”

Check out this great article about the Catch Shares scheme at The American Thinker.

And here’s one of the latest examples of the anti-fishing misinformation campaign, as reported by the Center for Coastal Conservation.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the chief threat here, with director Jane Lubchenco as the 500-pound gorilla in the room. She served on the board of the Pew Oceans Commission and was a trustee for the EDF.

Some of these people are anti-fishing. Others aren’t necessary against it, but don’t care about recreational fishing’s vast historic, cultural, and economic value. They would consider its demise an acceptable loss for implementation of their big-government vision in which public access to a public resource is limited, while a favored few reap huge profits.

3. Preservationist ideologues. These pose the greatest threat. Basically, they believe that man exists apart from nature and that we are a blight upon it. They assert that the only way for the planet to survive is by denying humans access to vast areas of its lands and waters.

In addition to being anti-fishing, they also provide much of the muscle behind the crusade to implement costly and inefficient schemes to stop “manmade climate change.” They are soul mates with animal rights groups and big-government devotees.

They also populate many of the environmental groups. Here’s one that you probably don’t know about, but should: The WILD Foundation.

When I first reported on this organization for ESPN Outdoors in early 2010, its stated objective was this: “We believe that at least half of the Earth’s surface (land and water) needs to be permanently protected in an essentially wild condition, in a manner that keeps all of life interconnected.”

And it listed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a partner in its efforts.

It since has toned down its rhetoric with a “nature needs half” slogan --- doesn’t want to scare away donors and government types --- but its objective remains the same.

In the WILD world, anglers would be denied access by motorized boats to half of the nation’s oceans, coastal waters, and Great Lakes, with the way opened via the National Ocean Council for similar limitations on inland waters.

In trying to keep anglers out of vast areas, what WILD and other groups fail to grasp is “how conservation works,” said Gordon Robertson of the American Sportfishing Association. “It’s paid for by the people most interested in it. If they can’t be involved, they’ll be less interested, and the end game would be much less investment in fisheries management.”

Through license fees and excise taxes on fishing equipment, anglers contribute millions of dollars annually for fisheries research and habitat improvements, as well as coastal wetlands planning and restoration. Additionally, they assist resource agencies in numerous ways, including data collection to determine status and management strategies for sport species.

Denying access to the nation’s 60 million anglers not only would collapse this life-support system for our fisheries, it would devastate the economies of communities dependent on recreational fishing. Just as importantly, it would do irreparable harm to a family-oriented pastime that keeps us in touch with and appreciative of the natural world.

Now you know the enemy. Are you going to do something about it? Or are you going to sit back, wet a line, and wait for someone to take the rod out of your hand?

Public Schools Endanger Public Education

Continued from Journal page

It’s time to speak up for future fishermen, many of whom are being denied a quality education if they attend public schools.

That’s because our public school system, once the envy of the world, has become dysfunctional and corrupt, mostly courtesy of big government interference and teacher unions, whose leadership cares about power and not children.

Check out this article in the Christian Science Monitor. Here’s an excerpt:

“Award-winning gains by Atlanta students were based on widespread cheating by 178 named teachers and principals, said Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal on Tuesday. His office released a report from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that names 178 teachers and principals – 82 of whom confessed – in what's likely the biggest cheating scandal in U.S. history.

“This appears to be the largest of dozens of major cheating scandals, unearthed across the country. The allegations point out an ongoing problem for U.S. education, which has developed an ever-increasing dependence on standardized tests.”

And then there’s this from Townhall:

“While the rest of us were celebrating the 4^th of July with BBQs and parades and recitations of the Declaration of Independence, teachers’ union ‘delegates’ from the far left (National Education Association) were giving Obama the thumbs up. Not coincidentally they also voted to levy a $10 tax on union teachers nationally to help support “messaging” in front of his reelection bid . . .

“It’s just the latest example of far-left union reps fleecing hard-working teachers by aligning themselves against teachers’, kids’ and parents’ interests, in a quest for power, money and greed.”

Do teachers have the right to support Obama? Absolutely.

But here’s my problem: Not all teachers want this president re-elected, and they do not want to support “messaging” on his behalf. Yet they are forced to contribute if they want to teach in some states and/or school systems.

What is evolving from this is a system in which a far-left ideology totally permeates, and students whose parents can’t afford to send them to private schools are indoctrinated --- not educated --- from kindergarten forward. Of course, this already has happened in some places. In others, often rural and/or Midwestern, students still can get a quality education in public schools --- for now at least.

A former president of the NEA says that organization has “used our power to block uncomfortable changes, to protect the narrow interest of its members, and not to advance the interests of students and school.” Read more in Powerful Failure: How the National Education Association fails to use its influence for education.

In case you can’t tell, I’m as mad as hell about this. I’m a former teacher. I loved teaching. I know that many teachers are great people who have at heart the best interests of their students and try their best to give them a good education.

But more and more, they are being co-opted by a corrupt and dysfunctional system that does NOT care about students.

Still not convinced? Check out Trouble in the Hen House, brought to you by the California Federation of Teachers. It’s described as “A puppet show about unions and how they work. It is suitable for elementary grades and can be a component of your Cesar Chavez (March 31) unit.”