Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.











Entries in anti-fishing (167)


Help Stop Attempts to Ban Recreational Fishing Off New England Coast

Anti-fishing groups are asking the Obama Administration to ban recreational fishing off portions of New England, significantly impacting the recreational marine community in the Northeast and setting a precedent for future closures across the country’s coastal areas.

Despite zero evidence to suggest recreational fishing poses a threat to the habitat or fish populations in these areas, these groups are lobbying the government to include a ban on recreational fishing if, and when, it designates a large section of the Northern Atlantic as a new Marine National Monument.

You better believe if these groups get their way, they won’t stop. And with more than a year left in the White House, the Administration could soon be adding similar bans across more and more offshore waters. 

We can’t let that happen. We can’t let anti-fishing groups dictate the government’s agenda. We need to respond.


Marine Monuments Could Include Ban on Recreational Fishing

Does anyone remember  President Obama's National Ocean Council (NOC), formed early in his first term to "zone" uses of our oceans, coastal waters, and even inland. In other words, its intent is to tell us what we can do where, and, while it may start in blue water that few ever venture out to, that's not where it will stop. The inevitable result will be restrictions on where we can fish--- unless we fight back.

If you don't remember the NOC, check out this earlier post National Ocean Council Is an Executive Power Grab of Our Fisheries.

A more recent move to impose "fully protected" marine monuments is part of that same effort. It may not be Obama's intention to restrict or ban recreational fishing, but it certainly is the intent of many of those with whom he allies himself.

Keep America Fishing reports that some anti-fishing organizations are pressing for these bans off the New England Coast.

"The federal government is currently exploring this issue," it says. "There is the potential for all recreational fishing to be banned, even though there’s no evidence to suggest we pose a threat to the habitat or fish populations in these areas.

"It's time to make your voice heard above our opponents --- send a letter today.

Go here to learn more and send a letter.


Are Anglers, Hunters Endangered Species In Minnesota, As Well As California?

Slowly, but inevitably, anglers and hunters are becoming endangered species in California, the most Leftist state in the nation.  Based on an editorial that I read in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, I fear that Minnesota's anglers and hunters might not be far behind, despite the state being the "land of ten thousand lakes."

While many Democrats do fish and hunt, Leftist ideology is anti-fishing and anti-hunting both directly and indirectly. Directly it takes the form of many preservationist and animal rights groups, which want to restrict access to public lands and waters, as well as ban fishing and hunting outright. Indirectly it manifests as a nanny-state bureaucracy which over-regulates and over-taxes.

For example, California fishing licenses cost an average of 76 percent more than in other states, according to the California Sportfishing League. It's no surprise, then, that fishing license sales have dropped nearly 55 percent since 1980, even as the population has increased from 23 to 38 million.

Now, to Minnesota, which, sad to say, was turning Left before this editorial. Just last year, a Democrat state senator proposed and the legislature approved changing the name "Asian carp" to "invasive carp" so as not to offend the state's Asian population. If that's not a sign that the state has fallen into the PC rabbit hole, I don't know what is.

Here is the headline for the editorial, written, it seems, by people who learned about the outdoors solely through Disney movies: "From hunting to fishing, humans are doing damage as 'super predators.'"

And here are a couple of choice excerpts from the editorial, which was prompted by a study: 

"The upshot is that humans have evolved into 'super predators' unwilling or unable to maintain the natural equilibrium. All manner of 'normal' human activity — including global trade, fossil-fuel subsidies, food processing, and recreational hunting and fishing — contribute to failing ecosystems worldwide."

"Scientists said last week that global warming caused by human emissions has exacerbated the severity of the current California drought by 20 percent. Scientists in Minnesota have said repeatedly that agricultural practices and suburban-style development are helping to destroy the state’s cherished lakes. We’ve met the enemy, and the enemy is us."

Here's something that might be pertinent and that the Star-Tribune staff obviously has no clue about: Recreational fishing and commercial fishing are NOT the same thing. And recreational anglers do far more to sustain and enhance fisheries than they do to damage them. This includes catch-and-release, which has become almost universal, as well as millions of dollars contributed annually by anglers for fisheries management and conservation via license fees, excise taxes on equipment, and private contributions to fishery groups.

And that global warming thing? Yes, the climate is changing. It always has, and always will. But it is a disturbing indication of the lunacy of the newspaper's editorial staff, and possibly an indictment of readers in Minnesota that "global warming caused by human emissions" is presented as fact. It is not fact. No quantifiable evidence exists to support that statement.

The best part of finding that editorial was reading a lengthy comment from at least one Minnesota resident who has not fallen into the Leftist abyss. Here are some excerpts:

"License fees and contributions collected from hunters and hunting advocacy groups (Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society) account for most of the wildlife conservation dollars spent in this state." 

"The hunters I associate with are ethical. We won't take the shot unless we are certain it will result in the most humane kill possible. We'll never kill something that doesn't end up on the dinner table (coyotes being the only exception) and we never kill more than we need."

"I'm also a landowner. I manage my property to benefit all wildlife. I leave my corn and soybeans standing over winter to provide winter food for deer. I've planted countless trees, shrubs and grasses that benefit birds, mammals and pollinators."

"It's obvious that the authors of this study have a confirmation bias. It reads like it was commissioned by PETA." 

And it's obvious that the editorial staff of the Star-Tribune has that same bias.


California Could Ban Lead, Zinc, Copper Fishing Tackle

Unless public outcry forces a reversal by the California Department of Toxic Substances (CDTS),  the state is moving ahead with regulations that could ban fishing gear that contains lead, zinc, and copper. This follows quickly after the recent announcement that lead ammunition will not be allowed on state property and for all bighorn sheep hunting.

“It appears that politics, rather than science, was the basis for CDTS’s decision. While there are many sources of pollution that pose a serious threat to California’s ocean and streams, anglers are not among them,” said David Dickerson, president of the California Sportfishing League (CSL), which is spearheading opposition to the potential ban.

An environmental attorney and former CDTS director added that sellers and retailers of fishing tackle likely will be subjected to costly and onerous regulations, as well as potential fines.

“The result could be a wide range of enforcement options requiring restrictions or bans on sale, product reformulation, additional environmental impact studies, development of disposal programs, or funding for fundamental research and development,” said Maureen Gorsen. “The bottom line is that the cost of manufacturing fishing gear will increase significantly and these costs will be passed on to consumers.”

CDTS’s intentions were revealed in its draft of a Priority Product Work Plan for the Green Chemistry Initiative, which identifies seven product types, including fishing gear, for regulation and/or ban. Legislation authorizing the initiative was passed in 2008, but implementation was delayed for more than five years because of complexity and the potential for massive costs to small businesses, according to John Kabateck, California executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business.

“Green Chemistry is yet another example of Sacramento pursuing its agenda of environmental extremism without any concern for costs to consumers or California’s economic future,” he wrote in the Sacramento Business Journal in 2013.

 “The department has issued a broad proposal that will enable it to regulate the manufacturing and distribution of any product it chooses that could impose unworkable burdens on tens of thousands of small businesses in the state.”

And CDTS is doing so with fishing tackle even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in 2010 that lead gear does not pose an unreasonable risk to wildlife.  Also, a recently passed budget bill contains a provision to prohibit the use of federal dollars to ban lead fishing tackle.

In public hearings, the department admitted that it has no scientific studies to show that lead poses an environmental problem in California, added Dickerson. “State regulators failed to comply with state law that requires them to conduct an independent analysis before including any product in this regulatory process,” he said.

The CSL president predicted that additional regulations will encourage businesses to flee California to more business friendly states. “Furthermore, when fishing is no longer an accessible and affordable source of recreation for millions of anglers, it will have a substantial impact on California’s economy and jobs.”

A recent CSL study revealed that fishing license sales have dropped more than 55 percent since 1980, with the state ranking last nationally in fishing participation by percentage of its population.

“The high cost of fishing licenses and unwarranted limits on fishing have contributed to a significant decline in participation,” Dickerson said. “Increasing the cost of gear and potential bans will only accelerate the decline, and threaten California jobs that are dependent on outdoor recreation and tourism.”

In addition to CSL, others lobbying for delisting of fishing gear include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Travel Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the California Parks Hospitality Association, the California Association for Recreational Fishing, the American Sportfishing Association,  and Coastside Fishing Club.

Anglers who want to voice their opposition to a lead ban can sign at petition on CSL’s website.

(This article appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)



Feds Ban Fishing, Restrict Boating in Biscayne National Park

Not surprisingly, the National Park Service (NPS) has just announced that it intends to eliminate sport fishing and severely restrict boating in more than 10,000 acres of Biscayne National Park, as a part of its General Management Plan. 

“Today’s announcement confirms that Biscayne National Park officials never had any real interest in working with stakeholders or the state of Florida to explore compromise plans,” said Mike Leonard, ocean resource policy director for the American Sportfishing Association.

 “The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, one of the nation’s leading fisheries management agencies, has stated that a marine reserve is far too restrictive, and that other management measures can achieve resource goals while still allowing for public access. The only conclusion that one can draw from this decision is that the public is simply not welcome at Biscayne National Park.”

The move is not surprising because the NPS did much the same thing at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area about five years ago. Extensive areas were closed to the public, with off-road vehicle access severely limited at one of the premier surf fishing locations on the East Coast.

It’s long past time to wake up to the fact that the NPS is not a friend to anglers specificially and outdoor recreationists in general. A Washington, D.C. insider once told Activist Angler that the anonymous bureaucrats in that agency have no regard for fishermen and would like nothing better than to restrict public access in our national parks to auto tours.

Go here to sign a petition opposing the Biscayne fishing ban.

“America’s  recreational fishing community is disheartened by the National Park Service’s decision to implement a marine reserve at Biscayne National Park,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation.

 “We understand the importance of protecting our natural resources and the delicate balance needed to ensure that anglers and boaters are able to enjoy these public waters. However, the National Park Service has shown little interest in compromise and today’s announcement confirms a lack of desire to include the needs of park users and stakeholders in important decisions such as this.”

For the past several years, a large coalition of partners in the recreational boating and fishing community has submitted comments, attended public meetings and organized discussions with the leadership at the National Park Service in an attempt to balance the critical need for conservation with the need for recreational access to the park’s waters. Numerous fisheries management measures were presented to the National Park Service that would balance resource conservation with maintaining public access, including size limits, bag limits, quotas, permits, seasonal closures and gear restrictions.

“Anglers recognize that the condition of the fisheries resources in Biscayne National Park needs to be addressed, but we also know that once an area is closed, the public will never be allowed back in,” said Jeff Miller, chairman of Coastal Conservation Association Florida’s Government Relations Committee.

 “These decisions should happen only when clearly supported by science, and when all other management options have failed. By not giving other, less restrictive options a chance, the National Park Service has put Florida’s reputation as ‘Fishing Capital of the World’ at stake.”

To read the most recent public comments submitted by the recreational boating and fishing community to the National Park Service on this issue, click here.