Eamon Bolten started the ReBaits program.

Fishing at Lake Amistad, Joe Ford hadn’t intended to keep the 10-pound bass that he caught on a Senko. But he placed it in the livewell because it was deep hooked, and the fish died there.

As he was dressing it out, he noted a big plastic mass in its stomach. That mass turned out to be 12 plastic baits of assorted sizes and colors.

“Most of them were large,” says Ford, a Colorado angler who competed in three Federation championships.

 “There were no hooks in there. Just the baits.”

During his 35 to 40 years of bass fishing, Ford says that he has caught several bass with worms in their throats or hanging out of their mouths, and even some with baits “sticking out of their butt.”

But he never had seen anything like this. “It was amazing to see all of those worms in there,” he says. “I don’t know how it was going to pass them.”

I agree with Ford. And what most disturbs me about this is that anglers don’t normally keep and cut open 10-pound bass --- even 5-pound bass, for that matter. Yes, that one large bass at Lake Amistad could have been a rarity.

More likely, it is not, and, because of our catch-and-release ethic, we just don’t realize how much ingestion of plastic is occurring below the surface of our lakes and rivers. Maybe the fish that we set free have plastic in their stomachs as well, and they suffer no ill consequences.

Or maybe some of them die from intestinal blockages and we never know about it. Odds are, some of them do. Passing a dozen plastic baits through its digestive system can be no easy task for a bass, no matter how large it is.

“Bass may or may not be able to pass or spit out a plastic bait,” says Gene Gilliland, assistant chief of fisheries for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.

 Having collected thousands of bass via electrofishing for display at outdoor shows, the fisheries biologist is all too familiar with the unhealthy connection between bass and plastic.

 Captured fish are kept out of the public eye for a couple of days, before being moved to the show tanks. That way, they can purge their systems and are not as likely to foul the tanks.

Often, Gilliland and the other biologists see plastic baits on the bottom. “Either they throw them up or they come out the other end,” he explains.

“What really surprised me is that there are almost no hooks. These fish are eating and throwing up torn or ripped baits that someone discarded.”

Almost certainly, though, not all baits are expelled --- through one end or the other. A long bait, like a worm, could work its way into the intestine and stay there, Gilliland says. The bass then may try to feed, but whatever it eats is not going anywhere. “When that’s happened to a fish, it will look really skinny,” he adds.

I’ve seen plenty of skinny bass. I’ll bet that you have too. But before Gilliland told me about this, I usually thought “spawned out” or “too many bass and not enough forage,” not “intestinal blockage.”

Salt-impregnated baits can be even more lethal because they swell up in the water.

“Those fish that we are holding had picked plastic baits up off the bottom,” the biologist says. “Scent attractants put in the baits make them seem like something good to eat.”

Based on Ford’s experience and what Gilliland sees year after year in the tanks, it’s logical, then, to wonder just how many plastic baits are lying at the bottom of our lakes and rivers, and how many bass die each year from ingesting them.

How those baits get to the bottom, however, isn’t a subject for speculation. Too many anglers tear worn baits off their hooks and toss them over the side.

Either they do so without thinking about it, or they believe that a little plastic can’t hurt anything. They are wrong.

“If anyone I’m fishing with throws a bait overboard, I pitch a fit,” Gilliland says. “When you drop a bait in the water, it’s going to stay there. Most baits are not biodegradable.”

The biologist says that he’s seen angler behavior improve a bit over the years. But still too many of them toss discarded plastic baits into the water.

“We know bass eat plastic,” Gilliland says. “This is a behavior that we are certain of.

“What we need to do now is get fishermen to not throw baits overboard.”

Put another way: Catch-and-release was a good first step toward protecting the resource. Properly disposing of discarded plastic baits is an easy second.

Continued from Journal Page

Want to meet an angry liberal in the fishing business? I have one for you.

Awhile back, he asked to connect with me via LinkedIn, and I agreed. He lists himself as owner of The Paranoid Lure Co., and I’ll leave it to you to pass judgment about that as you read our correspondence.

Yesterday, he was one of 50 LinkedIn contacts to whom I sent a link to my post about Hank Williams Jr. What follows is our correspondence, starting with him. His comments appear exactly as he wrote them.

Angry Liberal: Defending someone who uses such a blatent, horrible and inacurate analogy shows a lack of compassion and understanding on your part. Any employer or contractor has the right to dismiss someone for not upholding their values. Could someone who works in retail show up in dirty wrinkled clothes and barefoot? No - so ESPN has every right to not use this ass holes song anymore.

Activist Angler: You might not like it, and consider it "blatent," but there was nothing inaccurate about the analogy. And I clearly said that Williams should not have used Hitler to make his point.

And, yes, a retailer has the right to fire someone who shows up for work in dirty, wrinkled clothes and barefoot. ESPN also has the right to do what it did. But I think it over-reacted in the name of political correctness, something that it has done in the past.

Angler Liberal: Not inaccurate? You are a moron - Is hitting an ant with a hammer overkill?  Is it necessary?  It was an offensive inacurate statement - you think the old apples and oranges line would have been a little more accurate as opposed to siting the most destructive relationship in the history of our world IE Hitler vs Jews - what a ridiculous comment.  ESPN has been politically correct in the past? If you are refering to the blatently racist comment made by Rush Limbaugh about McNabb then - again - I disagree with you and you are again defending a point of view that is insensitive and destructive.

Activist Angler: And you like to call people names instead of analyzing critically. Let's see: asshole, moron. Yeah, that's the way to win arguments. I'm impressed by your vocabulary.

One doesn't justify bad behavior by offering similar examples on the other side. But certainly it can be used to point out the hypocrisy.

During the Bush administration, Greg Guttfeld was a blogger at the Huffington Post. He says that the theme he most received in comments from readers was that Bush was another Hitler.

Hitler should never be used by anyone on either side for any reason. Williams shouldn't have done it. Liberal readers of the Huffington Post shouldn't have done it.

Williams screwed up. How do you explain what those Huffington Post readers did?

 And I am not referring to Rush Limbaugh. I worked as an independent contractor for ESPN for several years. I know intimately the mentality of those who run the show in Bristol, Conn.

Angry Liberal: Good so now that I have your attention - and since you have made it clear that nobody should ever use that hateful description - then why do you still feel it necessary to defend Hank?  I dont think you actually want to anymore and that is ok with me.

Activist Angler: I stand by what I said in my original article. From the beginning, I've said that Hitler should not be used.

But Williams made an analogy, not a comparison. Liberal readers of the Huffington Post actually made the comparison. Hypocrisy in political debate, most often from the left, is what offends me the most. Did you ever see the tee shirts that depicted Bush, Cheney and Rice as Hitler and his cohorts?

By the way, I've "disconnected" us at LinkedIn so that you will receive no more of the potentially inflammatory updates on my website.

Angry Liberal: Thats a shame since you have obviously chosen to isolate yourself and not have hard fought debate - typical.  No i never saw that t-shirt and even if I had I wouldn't have condoned such a thing.  You are a dinasour and soon enough your way of thinking will be in the tar pit of history so that people in the future can piece together your ridiculous thinking and laugh at it in a museum.  Have fun being on the wrong side of history and living your life as a frustrated ass hole.

Activist Angler: Thanks!

Let’s see: Angry Liberal calls me an asshole and a moron, and he says that I have chosen not to “debate.”

Actually, I have chosen to debate, but he clearly is unwilling or incapable, and so he resorts to insults and name calling.

By the way, I didn’t know him to be a liberal until I checked out his Facebook page, following our “conversation.” He wears his angry liberalism proudly.

Continued from Journal Page

If fishing is important to you, then you should join my unofficial Anglers Against Obama and vote out this administration in November 2012.

In three words, here is why: National Ocean Council (NOC).

That’s the massive bureaucracy created by an Obama Executive Order to tell you where you can and cannot fish.

Although the President bypassed Congress in implementing this stealth anti-fishing policy, the House Committee on Natural Resources today is holding a hearing on “The President’s New National Ocean Policy --- A Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal, and Inland Activities.”

I’m hopeful that this exposure will reveal to both our elected officials and an uneducated public what a dangerous path we are going down with creation of the NOC.

Following are 10 things to know about the NOC, provided by the Recreational Fishing Alliance. And if you live inland and think that the NOC will not affect you, pay particular attention to No. 5.

1) Lacks Congressional Authorization. In four separate Congresses, legislation has been introduced to implement similar far-reaching ocean policies, and to-date NO bill has passed the House or been reported out of a Committee.

2) Unilateral Action. The Obama Administration has failed to cite any specific statutory authority for the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative. Instead, it throws up a smokescreen list of all statutes that impact the oceans and claims that is their authority.

3) Imposes “Ocean Zoning.” The Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative is entirely new, mandatory ocean zoning that involves up to 27 federal agencies and will cost the taxpayers millions, if not billions, in federal spending. This initiative could place huge portions of the ocean off limits to all types of recreational and commercial activities.

4) Threatens American Jobs. “Ocean zoning” has the potential to damage sectors such as agriculture, commercial and recreational fishing, construction, manufacturing, marine commerce, mining, oil and natural gas, renewable energy, recreational boating, and waterborne transportation, among others. These industries support tens of millions of jobs and contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy.

5) Far-Reaching Impacts Not Limited to the Ocean. This new “ocean zoning” authority would allow federally dominated Regional Planning Bodies to reach as far inland as it deems necessary to protect ocean ecosystem health. It specifically mentions the Great Lakes and could potentially impact all activities that occur on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries, or watersheds that drain into the ocean.

6) Creates More Bureaucracy. The Executive Order creates: 10 National Policies; a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; and 9 Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to an additional: 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning to be created.

7) Tool for Litigation. The “ocean zoning” initiative involves vague and undefined objectives, goals, and policies that can be used as fodder for lawsuits to stop or delay federally permitted activities. This initiative is poised to become a litigation nightmare.

8) New Cost to Taxpayers. This new policy will affect already budget-strapped agencies such as NOAA, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, EPA, Department of Transportation, USDA, Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. As federal budgets are further reduced, it is unclear how much funding the agencies are taking from existing programs to develop and implement this new initiative.

9) Those Impacted by Regulations Need Not Apply. The Regional Planning Bodies, created by the “ocean zoning” initiative, will have no representation by the people, communities and businesses that will actually be impacted by the regulations. These heavily federal bodies will create zoning plans without any stakeholders, yet all federal agencies, the states, and the regulated communities will be bound by the plan.

10) New Regulatory Uncertainty. The impacts of this new regulatory layer and “ocean zoning” initiative contribute to an uncertain regulatory climate that is hindering economic activity and job creation. Even the Interagency Task Force recognized this potential in its report stating, "The Task Force is mindful that these recommendations may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those who rely on these resources and may generate questions about how they align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges. The NOC (National Ocean Council) will address questions and specifics as implementation progresses." In other words, don't worry. Trust us.

Photo by Robert Montgomery

Continued from Journal Page

Most big bass are caught from fall into spring. With that in mind, Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) has provided a great primer on how to care for those trophy fish. It’s specifically targeted to Texas anglers, but most of the information applies no matter where you are fishing.

Before we get to the TPW information, here are a couple of additional tips for handling bass so that you can release them unharmed.

1. When you’re reviving a fish, do NOT pull it forward and then push it backward in the water. Think about it. When a fish swims, water flows in only one direction across the gills. Pull; don’t push.

2. When you lift a bass by the lower jaw, do NOT pull down on that jaw. Keep the fish as vertical as possible as you lift, to relieve stress on the jaw. If the bass is more than 3 or 4 pounds, get a hand under its belly as soon as possible.

And if you want a trophy, consider this: A fiberglass replica is a much better option than a skin mount. It might cost a little more, but it will continue to look good long after the skin mount starts to fade and show signs of age. Most importantly, you don’t have to kill the fish to get your trophy.

Take a couple of photos, weigh the fish, and measure the length and girth, and you’ll have all you need for the fiberglass mount.

Personally, I prefer just a “hero shot” photograph of me grinning broadly with my fish, seconds before I release it. Only cost for that is making a print of the photo and framing it.

Here’s the TPW article:

ATHENS, Texas —Largemouth bass weighing 13 pounds or more are rare. Only 523 have been entered into the Toyota ShareLunker program in the last 25 years.

Therefore, finding one on the end of their line comes as a total surprise to many anglers. Panic usually ensues when the biggest bass the angler has ever seen breaks the surface.  “Holy [unprintable]! What do I do now?” is a common reaction.

The first problem is getting it into the boat, especially for anglers fishing alone. Those with a partner but no net can have their buddy grasp the fish by its lower jaw and tail and bring it in. Ideally there will be a rubber net available for landing the fish. In either case the fish should not be allowed to flop around in the bottom of the boat. This removes the slime coat that protects the fish from infection and can also result in wounds.

Many bass are caught on soft plastic baits, and sometimes they swallow it. Removing the hook through the gill arch is the recommended method. Here is a video demonstrating the procedure.

Now it’s time to weigh the fish and put it in the livewell. You did fill the livewell before you started fishing, didn’t you?

And even before that, check out this site on livewell management.

Give yourself a gold star if you installed a livewell oxygenation system.

You can learn more about how to properly care for fish in the Outdoor Activity Area of the Toyota Texas Bass Classic on Lake Conroe Oct. 28-30. For information on the event, go here.

But now we come to the stumbling block that faces many anglers every year. Either they don’t have a scale or they have a discount-store special displaying numbers that don’t bear much resemblance to reality. Chances are the scale has rattled around in the bottom of the boat or tackle box for years and never been checked for accuracy.

There’s an easy way to check your scale. Put a gallon of water and a five-pound sack of flour or sugar in a plastic grocery bag and weigh them. If your scale is accurate, it will read very close to 13.5 pounds. The minimum weight for a ShareLunker is 13.0 pounds.

ShareLunker entries must be weighed on a certified scale. ShareLunker program manager David Campbell carries a certified scale with him, but at times he has driven for hours to pick up a fish only to find it does not make the weight. A number of reservoirs around the state have official ShareLunker weigh and holding stations that have certified scales and a tank equipped to hold big bass and keep them alive. You can find the list here.

If you are not fishing at one of the lakes on the list, many marinas, bait shops, feed stores, fertilizer plants, recycling drop-off centers, and United Parcel Service or other package-shipping locations have certified scales. So do grocery stores, and many are willing to let anglers weigh fish. You also can find a list of Texas certified scale locations here.

If you really want to be ready to catch a big bass, you can have your hand-held scale certified by the International Game Fish Association (IGFA) or an independent scales calibration company. A list of all Texas companies licensed by the Texas Department of Agriculture to certify scales is here.

Information on the IGFA’s scale certification program is here.

If all this sounds like a lot of trouble, it is. It is also a lot of trouble for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to send an employee halfway across the state, perhaps in the middle of the night, to find that some advance effort on the part of an angler could have made the trip unnecessary. It’s pretty embarrassing to find that the fish you hoped would weigh 13 pounds weighs only 10 or 12.

There’s another reason for having an accurate set of scales on board, and it’s the most important one of all: If your fish doesn’t qualify to be a ShareLunker, the best thing you can do for it is handle it carefully and get it back into the water as soon as possible. The next time it’s caught, maybe it will weigh 13 pounds.

Toyota ShareLunker season opened Oct. 1. Are you ready?

Anyone legally catching a 13-pound or bigger largemouth bass from Texas waters, public or private, between October 1 and April 30 may submit the fish to the Toyota ShareLunker program by calling program manager David Campbell at (903) 681-0550 or paging him at (888) 784-0600 and leaving a phone number including area code. Fish will be picked up by TPWD personnel within 12 hours.

The Toyota ShareLunker Program is made possible by a grant to the Texas Parks & Wildlife Foundation from Gulf States Toyota. Toyota is a long-time supporter of the Foundation and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, providing major funding for a wide variety of education, fish, parks and wildlife projects.

Continued from Journal Page

We are losing the war to retain our rights to fish public waters.

The other side --- the preservationist movement --- has money, the media, the motivation, and, for the moment, the administration on its side.

On the side of recreational fishing, we have numbers and we have truth. But too many fishermen are unmotivated to act, and, sadly, truth seems to become increasingly irrelevant in an age when so many people are both ignorant of history and uneducated regarding current issues.

These people come to believe as truth the lies with which they constantly are barraged simply because those lies are repeated long enough and loud enough by a corrupt media to make them “sound true.”

The latest barrage from the anti-fishing side appears in Rolling Stone Magazine, entitled “Environment: Ten Things Obama Must Do --- How the president can help slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet --- without waiting for Congress.”

In case you are not familiar with the publication, it deals in entertainment, popular culture, and liberal politics. It has a circulation of 1.4 million. I doubt that most of those subscribers fish or care one way or another about fishing. But they will believe  the drivel in this article.

And that drivel includes advocating for closures of 20 percent of U.S. marine waters to fishing. The argument cited is so ridiculous as to be laughable, but that does not make it any the less threatening to the future of fishing simply because it is read --- and believed --- by so many people.

The reason that we need these closed areas, described as “fish production zones,” is that, “Our addiction to fossil fuels is making the world's oceans more acidic – which in turn makes it harder for marine life to thrive and reproduce.”

One “expert” source is given in support of the closures, but he makes no reference to fossil fuels or acidic waters. Rather, the Rolling Stone writer simply crafts his article in a way to make it appear that there’s a connection.

As best as I can determine from research, the “threat” of acidic waters was presented in an article that appeared in Scientific American awhile back. It detailed a report from the U.S. Environmental Programme --- you know, the same organization that used false data to argue for manmade climate change.

Here’s an excerpt from the SA article:

Scientists say that, without emissions cuts, the world's oceans could become 150 percent more acidic by the end of the century -- a rate of change that "has not been experienced for around 65 million years, since the dinosaurs became extinct," the UNEP report says.

"Although studies about the effects of ocean acidification on marine resources are comparatively new, early results indicate there is no room for complacency," the UNEP analysis says.

Color me skeptical.

Are our oceans more acidic than they were before, say, the Industrial Revolution? Probably.  But pollution, habitat destruction, and overfishing by commercial fleets, especially those from foreign countries, pose far more of a threat to ocean fisheries than fossil fuels.

By contrast, recreational anglers account for less than 5 percent of harvest of saltwater finfish. But as I said, facts don’t matter so much when you’re battling zealots intent on indoctrinating an uneducated populace about the justification for closing 20 percent of U.S. waters to fishing.

I do have a question, though: If acidic waters are making it “harder for marine life to thrive and reproduce,” how will denying access to anglers help solve the problem?

If fossils fuels and acidic waters are killing our oceans --- and no evidence exists that they are --- then “fish production zones” are at best feeble attempts to delay the inevitable. If fish don’t reproduce, they disappear.

Could such an argument simply be an excuse to further the desire by preservationists to kill recreational fishing?

That makes more sense to me.

And if increasing acidity really is the problem, why not add one more thing to President Obama’s to-do list? If he can “slow the rise of the oceans,” he certainly should be able to stop the (acid) rain.

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 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?

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.

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?