This area does not yet contain any content.
Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 

Entries in anti-fishing (146)

Monday
Mar102014

Anti-Fishing, Anti-Hunting Movement Spread by 'Transplants'

Up in Maine, one outdoorsman is angry that “transplants” are attacking his state’s rich hunting and fishing heritage.

 “In Maine, Secretary of State Mathew Dunlap certified more than 63,500 petition signatures, more than enough to qualify a ballot measure for the fall election that will ask voters if they favor prohibiting hunting black bears over bait, with hounds or using traps,” he said.

“In 2004, Mainers rejected an identical ballot measure by a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent. I can guarantee you that most of the signatures are from transplants who have moved here from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York.

Maine also is the state where some want to ban plastic baits, although no scientific evidence suggests that fisheries are being harmed by their use.

Of course, evidence is irrelevant. These types of measures are being pushed by a well-funded animal-rights movement that is adamantly anti-fishing and anti-hunting, and it has found a supportive base among urban populations whose only knowledge of nature is what they see on television.

Unfortunately for those of us who fish and hunt, these people also are moving out of the cities to improve their “quality of life.” In the process, they threaten ours as they attempt to impose their values on us.

Fishing and hunting is under siege as never before, and it’s only going to get worse.

Go here to read what else the Maine outdoorsman has to say.

Monday
Feb172014

Reality Versus the Anti-Fishing Movement

Anti-fishing groups are experts at using labels and implication to drive their agendas. Mistaken assumptions by the public because of that tactic are just fine with them as long as they further the cause.

For example, they talk about “overfishing” with no regard for the vast difference between recreational and commercial tactics and harvest. As a consequence, by implication, one is the same as the other.

Also, they cite statistics without putting them into context. For example, if two dead loons have been found at Lake X during the past decade and one of them was revealed to have died of lead poisoning, they will say “Half of loon mortality at Lake X is attributable to lead fishing tackle.”

That is true, of course, but misleading in its importance. Almost certainly the loon population during that decade was harmed much more by habitat loss and predation.

When the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act was passed, its authors--- intentionally or otherwise--- did much the same thing. The act defined any stock of fish that is not at a high enough level to produce the maximum sustainable yield as being “overfished.” Yes, some stocks are overfished. But depletion could be attributable to other factors, including disease and weather.

Because of that wording, though, the act has been used to penalize both recreational and commercial fishing.

A blog at FISHupdate.com explains it this way:

“This law is without question the most important piece of legislation that deals with U.S. domestic fisheries management. Thus, equating ‘not enough fish’ with ‘overfished’ contributes to a blame-it-all-on-fishing mindset and a gift to the anti-fishing activists.”

A proposed amendment would change “overfished” to “depleted” throughout the act.

That amendment is contained in draft Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

“The draft legislation aims to alleviate a number of concerns that recreational and commercial fishermen and the businesses that depend on them have had, since the original intent of the Magnuson Act has been severely distorted by a number of agenda-driven organizations,” said FISHupdate, which cited a previous blog about this at Fishosophy.

Friday
Jan312014

Threat to Your Right to Fish Grows With Animal 'Rights' Movement

No long after I posted the article below, I learned of this attack against recreational fishing in Australia.

Sooner or later, someone is going to try to stop you or someone you know from fishing. Possibly it will be attempted with legislation. Possibly it will be related to prohibiting catch-and-release because it is “cruel.” Or maybe it will be tied to giving “rights” to fish and wildlife.

This anti-fishing front is part of an aggressive animal rights campaign with origins in Europe, where catch and release already is illegal in places, as is the use of live bait. And the movement is growing here, as a growing percentage of our population is urbanized with little to no direct contact with nature.

Following are some of the latest news stories regarding the animal rights movement on this side of the ocean:

  • In Maine, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) opposes hunting tactics that the state allows for management of its bear population. You remember the HSUS. You’ve seen the commercials. It’s that noble organization dedicated to taking better care of homeless and abused cats and dogs.

The only problem is that very little of that money goes to pet shelters. Rather, it funds radical animal rights campaigns.  Check out this great parody of those misleading tear-jerker commercials: Lawyers in Cages.

Here is what two state representatives have to say about the HSUS campaign in Maine:

 “It was not the Humane Society of the United States that stepped up to protect and elevate the public perception of bears from a pest to one that that should be conserved and protected. Indeed, this was the effort of sportsmen, the Legislature and conservationists through a new license fee that would be used to establish an ongoing revenue stream to guarantee trained, professional biologists and wardens would closely monitor and protect bear populations . . .

“Since 1969, with the oversight of the Inland Fisheries & Wildlife bear biologists, the legislative Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and sportsmen, Maine’s black bears have flourished. The population has grown from 23,000 in 2004 to 31,000 in 2012, with healthy bears found throughout Maine . . .

“Enter the Humane Society of the United States, who, with their team of lawyers and millions of dollars slated for media manipulation, would hijack this success story and replace it with wildlife management based on 30-second emotional TV commercials.”

  • In Oregon, an animal rights activist and eco-terrorist was sentenced to just five years in jail by a sympathetic judge.

"She was a member of a group blamed “for 20 fires across the West from 1996 to 2001 that did $40 million in damage. They burned a ski resort in Colorado, wild horse corrals in Oregon and Northern California, and lumber mills and Forest Service offices in Oregon.”

  • Finally, check out No, Animals Don’t Have Rights, in to a New York Times piece that declared “an era of what might be called animal dignity is upon us.”

“Let me be clear: I'm all in favor of treating animals decently, with special sensitivity to their pain and suffering. By all means, let's pass stricter regulation of factory farming and laboratory experimentation.

“But the basis of these reforms should not be any quality we presume the animals themselves possess. It should grow out of an expansion of the sphere of human concern and sympathy, along the lines of the old aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige — the notion that one's superiority obliges one to act nobly toward commoners. In other words, we should treat animals decently not because they're just like human beings, but rather because they're not.

“The animal rights movement, by contrast, invariably takes the opposite tack — either reducing us to the level of animals or attempting to raise them up to ours. Both should be resisted.”

Thursday
Jan302014

Green Decoys Exposes 'Radical Environmentalists' in Outdoors Camouflage

For awhile, I’ve been concerned that the interests of anglers and hunters are being weakened and compromised, as groups that supposedly represent them embrace friendship and funding from preservationist and left-wing organizations and financiers.

In fact, I wrote about this awhile back, when I discovered that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka had been named to the board of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). (You can read my post about that here.)  I also was concerned about its acceptance of grants from left-leaning trusts.

Others in the fishing and hunting community share my concerns, it seems, as the launch of a new website, Green Decoys, demonstrates. Founded by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), its intent is to “expose radical environmentalists camouflaged under outdoor-sounding names whose real objective is to serve the interests of their wealthy backers.”

Its targets: TRCP, Izaak Walton League of America, Trout Unlimited, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and Bull Moose Sportsmen’s Alliance.

“These self-anointed sportsmen’s groups posture as advocates for the hunting and fishing communities, but their funding tells the real story,” said CCF Senior Research Analyst Will Coggin. “Given the millions they collectively take from radical activists, it’s clear they serve an environmentalist master, not America’s sportsmen.”

My biggest regret regarding this campaign is that it clearly is based on the assumption that real anglers and hunters can be only on the right-side of the political spectrum. Traditionally, I don’t think that’s true.

But the sad reality today is that the leftist ideology in general is anti-fishing and anti-hunting, as its direction is shaped by environmental preservationists who want to force us off the water and out of the woods.

I write about the difference between being an environmentalist and a conservationist in my new book, Why We Fish.

Here’s an excerpt from the essay “I’m Not an Environmentalist”:

“We don’t want to be called 'environmentalists' because we associate that description 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.

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

Sunday
Dec222013

Anglers Win Access Battle in Australia

Good news for anglers everywhere: Our brothers and sisters in Australia won a huge victory for public access.

And there’s an important message here for U.S. fishermen: Get involved in the political process. Aussie anglers wouldn’t have won if they had just gone fishing instead of fighting back.

Here’s an excerpt from the report in Fishing World, and please note the mention of Pew:

“We are pleased the Coalition Government has listened to Australia’s recreational fishers and are conducting a scientific review of the proposal, which will give a sensible balance for Australia’s unique marine environment,” said Allan Hansard of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation.

“It was clear that the decisions to ‘lock’ recreational fishers out of vast areas of our seas by the previous government was not scientifically based and was done to meet a political agenda.”

The Government’s marine parks announcement marks an historic win by the recreational fishing sector against powerful international environment groups, including the US-based Pew organisation which spent millions of dollars in its failed attempt to ban fishing across huge swathes of Australian territorial waters.

Meanwhile, here’s things are not going so well in the United States. President Obama’s National Ocean Council is moving ahead with plants to “zone” uses of our oceans, telling us where we can and cannot fish. And in Maine, officials are considering a proposal by anti-fishing advocates who want to ban plastic baits.

Down in Georgia, a fishing editor said this:

Fishing is a way of life for millions of Americans. It’s a pastime all can enjoy, as well as a multi-billion-dollar industry through the sale of boats and motors, fishing tackle and even live bait.

The state of Maine, though, seems hell-bent on becoming the nation’s first anti-fishing state, according to a news release from Keep America Fishing.

Not long ago, the state legislature voted to impose restrictions and downright bans on the use of lead-headed jigs and lead sinkers, claiming the loon population was being adversely affected by ingesting that tackle while diving for bait fish.

Earlier this year, Maine’s Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife called for a study to determine the effects of soft plastic lures on fish. Maine’s Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department is using online research, ice angling reports and litter assessments to determine if there are adverse effects on fish . . . 

Legislation introduced during early 2013 legislative sessions called for the outright ban of soft plastic lures.

The state study also includes the impact of hooks! What a waste of time! If soft baits are banned, what’s next?

I’m glad I live where I live!