(Author's note: This is Part 2 of my feature on the anti-fishing movement. Part 1 was posted on Aug. 31. Read it below. An abbreviated version of this piece was published originally in B.A.S.S. Times. Tomorrow, I'll post a related opinion piece that reveals how and why the anti-fishing movement has succeeded in Europe and why that same thing might happen here.)
Preservation
Government agencies and environmental groups, meanwhile, present larger and more dangerous challenges.
For example, the National Park Service has limited angler access at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and seems intent on doing much the same at Florida’s Biscayne Bay. It cites the need to protect species and habitat for its actions.
“The National Park Service likes people who drive through on paved roads, get out to look, and then drive on,” said ASA’s Robertson. “It doesn’t like people who require a higher degree of attention, like anglers and snowmobilers.”
Sandlin added, “The National Park Service and some others seem solely and exclusively focuses on preserving. They have little experience with hunting and fishing and they don’t understand that people in those sports support conservation.
“They don’t implement a broad enough mission. It’s not just about preserving a pristine area, it’s about enjoying and interacting with nature.”
Preservation also is what drives many environmental groups and charitable foundations, including those that worked with the current administration to develop a National Ocean Policy, designed to zone uses of our waters. First and foremost on their agendas are implementation of marine protected areas and preserves, where recreational fishing and other sustainable uses are not allowed.
Their ranks include Oceana, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as PEW Oceans Conservancy, Packard Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Their actions don’t suggest any appreciation for the value of recreational angling to society, economies, and conservation. But are they anti-fishing per se?
Shimano’s Morlock thinks that at least some in their ranks might be.
“After years of various fishing organizations pointing out these negative impacts (caused by closures) to key members of the environmental community, one could ask how it is that they continue to fail to consider the negative impacts of their efforts on recreational fishing,” he said.
“It would be reasonable to draw the conclusion at some point that these actions and initiatives by Big Green groups translate from incidental to intentional.”
Considering that preservationists believe that we should live apart from nature --- to protect it --- instead of as a part of nature, that’s a logical assumption. Like animal rights groups, preservationists embrace an ideology based more on emotions than facts, and they’re finding an increasingly receptive audience in today’s urbanized society.
In fact, it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that preservation is driving most of the threats, from lead ban attempts to NPS actions and the National Ocean Policy.
“With urbanization, you see a detachment from the outdoors,” said ASA’s Robertson. “That lends to a lesser understanding of recreational fishing and management.
“Fishing still enjoys a high approval rating in survey after survey, but the drift from country to urban is a challenge.”
What to do about it?
No matter how popular recreational fishing remains in surveys, it cannot survive without aggressive support from individual anglers, fishing groups, and elected officials --- educated elected officials.
“Too often we see a knee-jerk reaction (among government officials) to any sort of information presented about a declining population or some other perceived environmental problem,” Max Sandlin said.
“Many attempts to address these issues are well intentioned, but often are reactionary and lack a basis in sound science. It is critical that issues such as economic benefit, access to public lands, recreational opportunities, and similar matters be considered as vital elements of proposed solutions to an perceived problems --- problems which, after further inspection, often don’t exist.”
The education process begins with the individuals and groups, extolling the “collateral benefits” that recreational angling provides, according to Tom Sadler. They include clean water and healthy fisheries, as well as economic benefits.
“We have to look for ways to better get that message out to the American people, especially people who see fishing as a recreation easily replaced.
“We have to do more to support and empower groups like Recycled Fish, the Izaak Walton League, Trout Unlimited, B.A.S.S., and the Federation of Fly Fishers. These struggle for support, energy, and resources.
“And we have to do what we can to talk to people other than the choir. Social media create that opportunity.”
Chris Horton added that anglers must pay attention to issues and communicate with both their state and federal representatives regarding those issues.
“Through the network of state sportsmen’s caucuses, as well as the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, we have legislators who are willing to protect and advance our angling heritage,” he said.
“There’s a great opportunity to make a difference today. Right now, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act passed the House and is currently in the Senate. We encourage all anglers to contact their senators and express support for a strong pro-sportsmen’s legislative package.
“With 60 million anglers in this country, we have the ability to significantly impact legislative and administrative decisions regarding recreational angling --- but your elected officials must hear from you.”
Friday, May 10, 2013 at 11:17AM 
Photo by Robert Montgomery
