Fed Joins Assault on Bass in Northwest

No evidence exists that big smallmouths like this have contributed to the decline of salmon in the Northwest. But anti-bass bias persists.

That haze you see above the White House is from the smoking gun of anti-angling bias.

Most alarmingly, this time the shot was fired at bass fishing.

That’s right. No longer are saltwater anglers the only ones under assault from an administration just beginning its second term. Now the danger has moved inland, and “plausible deniability” is going to be far less convincing with this latest assault.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is encouraging the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to remove size and bag limits for bass in the Columbia and Snake Rivers and their tributaries. Additionally, it says that an alternate proposal to remove daily limits but limit harvest to three fish over 15 inches “would imply a desire by WDFW to maintain a healthy population of large, non-native predators.”

And, no, we must not have that. Never mind that the Columbia River arguably is one of the top two or three smallmouth bass fisheries in the United States.

And never mind that 25 to 30 percent of anglers in the Northwest now fish for non-native warmwater species, including walleye and channel catfish, as well as bass.

“What we’ve seen the last 20 to 30 years is a noticeable shift in anglers who prefer warmwater fish,” says Jeff Dillon of Idaho Fish and Game. “It was 10 percent.  Now, on a statewide basis, it’s more than 20 percent and, in some regions (southwestern) it’s closer to a third.”

And never mind that anglers who fish for bass recreationally and competitively support Northwest economies by spending millions of dollars annually on tackle, boats, tow vehicles, and travel.

No, no, we must eliminate these non-native fish, even though they have been established in the rivers for decades and even though no evidence exists that they harm native salmon and trout populations through predation. NMFS Regional Administrator William Stelle Jr. says as much in his letter:

“While it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of predation by these species on salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act, predation by these species was noted as an increasing threat in NMFS’ recent 5-year ESA status reviews.”

 He also admits that the outcome from waging war on popular warmwater species is questionable:

“The extent to which a regulation change will affect the harvest of these species and thereby reduce predation rates on at-risk salmon and steelhead population is uncertain . . .”

But, hey, let’s do it anyway, even though stomach surveys of bass show that salmon smolts “don’t even make the top 10” among prey species, according to Mark Byrne, conservation director for the Washington B.A.S.S. Nation.

In truth, dams, development, and agriculture have caused the decline of coldwater fisheries by destroying habitat, degrading water quality, altering flows, and blocking migrations. But bass and bass anglers are high profile and easy targets.

No, no bias here.

Just as there is not in the National Ocean Policy, which would “zone” uses of our oceans and Great Lakes, telling us where we can and can’t fish. Just as there is not in heavy-handed enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Marine Fishery and Conservation Act, which has devastated coastal fishing communities. Just as there is not in Catch Shares, a scheme to privatize a public resource and, inevitably, limit access.

In truth, none of these are directly anti-fishing. Neither is the NMFS letter. But what all of them reveal is a disregard for the popularity and importance of recreational fishing and a willingness for sportfishing to be collateral damage in the imposition of a preservationist ideology.

President Obama, meanwhile, told Keep America Fishing:

“My administration is committed to maintaining fishing opportunities for America’s fishermen.”

But that does not seem to be the case for the National Park Service, which has limited angler access at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and now is attempting to do the same at Florida’s Biscayne National Park.

And it certainly does not seem to be the case for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which would like to obliterate one of the nation’s best bass fisheries.

Someone probably should tell the President that.

(A variation of this opinion piece appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)

Architect of Catch Shares Leaving NOAA

Dr. Jane Lubchenco is stepping down as administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She orchestrated the attempt to privatize a public resource --- saltwater fisheries --- through a scheme known as Catch Shares.

The Washington Post provides this vanilla assessment:

“Still, Lubchenco was praised Wednesday by the Ocean Conservancy. 'Dr. Lubchenco and NOAA were quick to respond to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster and continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that the Gulf region, including the marine ecosystem, is restored,' said interim president and CEO Janis Searles Jones.

“Lubchenco also oversaw in 2010 the controversial transition to a new fishery management system in New England that allots fishermen individual shares of the catch, which they pool and manage in groups.

“The system aimed to give fishermen flexibility to fish when the market and conditions were good, and free them from being restricted to an ever-dwindling number of days they were allowed to fish. And it pleased environmentalists because it established hard, enforceable catch limits to better prevent overfishing.”

The Gloucester Times was a little more on target:

“Her departure from the Obama administration will end a four-year regimen that promised revitalization of the fisheries via a new economic system based on privatization known as Catch Shares but instead produced a declared fisheries disaster in the Northeast and a spontaneous resistance by industry all along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

“Finding her style to be imperious and rigid, U.S. Congressmen John Tierney, Barney Frank and Scott Brown were united in calling for the president to replace Lubchenco by mid-2010.

“Fishermen were galvanized by dislike for her personality and policies — especially the commodification of the groundfishery, which has been in a steady decline since her appointment — and held national rallies at the Capitol in 2010 and 2011 that drew more than two dozen members of Congress.”

This could be interpreted as good news for both commercial and recreational anglers. But the reality is that President Obama has four more years and the person whom he appoints to replace Lubchenco likely will be just as bad --- or even worse.

Family Foundation Ties Walmart to Anti-Fishing Movement

Walmart is garnering lots of headlines these days for its plans to force employees to work on Thanksgiving.

If you’re an angler, you should be more concerned about the huge contributions that the Walton Family Foundation makes to anti-fishing groups.

Here’s an excerpt from “Walton Family Greenwashing”:

“The Walton Family Foundation proudly reported ‘investments’ totaling more than $71.4 million in ‘environmental initiatives’ in 2011, including contributions to corporate ‘environmental’ NGOs pushing ocean privatization through the ‘catch shares’ programs and so-called ‘marine protected areas’ like those created under Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.”

The MLPA, by the way, has been used --- and misused --- to deny angler access to some of California’s best fishing grounds.

Read the full story here.

More Criticism of Catch Shares

Writing in Florida Sportsman, Charles Mann presents an insightful condemnation of Catch Shares, the Obama Administration’s scheme to privatize a public resource in the name of conservation.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

“In the broad sense, Catch Shares allocate a specific portion of a fishery to specific fisherman. Supporters of Catch Shares cite increased efficiency that theoretically results in greater sustainability as the rationale for these programs. However, the practical result of catch shares really just appears to be consolidation of a resource into the hands of a few.”

“Further, to the extent that concerns about the eventual invasion of catch shares into the recreational arena prove to be true, these programs could keep the average person from going out and catching a dinner for the family from time to time. Unlike other agricultural practices where the farmer largely “produces” the eventual food product, commercial fishing is purely a harvest of a resource that is produced without the help of human beings.”

Read the full story here.

Catch Shares Contributes to New England Fisheries Disaster

Here’s more condemnation of Catch Shares. This is from Food & Water Watch:

 “Food & Water Watch applauds the U.S. Commerce Department for declaring a national disaster for New England’s fisheries. The move will allow the federal government to offer millions of dollars in relief for fishermen and their communities. While this assistance is much needed, it is not the permanent solution to the problem. 

“No one could have predicted the collapse of the cod population in New England.

“What was predicted was the collapse of the region’s small-boat, independent fishing industry due to the catch shares management system. Catch shares, which has been promoted heavily nation-wide by the National Marine Fisheries Service, have forced smaller-scale fishermen out of business, paving the way for industrial fishing methods that can destroy sensitive ocean habitats.

Without significant funds to compensate for these simultaneous disasters, catch shares combined with the cod collapse will be the end of New England’s traditional fisheries. 

“Catch shares dole out allocations of fish, pitting independent fishermen against large-scale fishing operations to compete for allotments or shares, often giving preference to big, commercial operations. These quota are typically given away for free to fishermen and fishing companies who can lease or sell them. But shares tend to consolidate in a small and elite group of wealthy companies. 

“Catch shares also encourage the use of larger boats, damaging gear, and wasteful fishing practices that hurt fish populations and their habitats. More than declaring New England fisheries a national disaster, the dismantling of NMFS’s catch shares program could help the region’s most important industry rebound. If this program continues, the devastating result would be the privatization of a natural resource, which would hurt consumers, fishermen and our oceans.”