Why We Fish on the Radio

Please check out the radio shows and podcasts listed at the right and below. I was interviewed about my new book, Why We Fish. Hosts and I also talked about how and where to catch fish, B.A.S.S., and conservation and access issues.

And if you want to order a copy of Why We Fish as a Christmas present for your favorite angler, you'd better do it soon!

The Outdoor Guys at ESPN Radio in Kansas City.

The Outdoor Scoreboard Podcast.

Fish Bait Radio Show.

Brown Trout Can Interfere With Brook Trout Conservation

Photo of brook trout by Mark Sagan

No big news here: Brook trout populations throughout the East long have been damaged by stocking of non-native rainbow and brown trout. Brook trout have more specific habitat needs and they are less aggressive, both negatives in a world where species are moved about and ecosystems altered. And they are not trout, but char, related to Lake trout, bull trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic char.

But this study by USGS does provide interesting insights into the brook trout/brown trout dilemma in New York.

Brown trout introductions could hamper the conservation of declining native brook trout populations, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey study.

Brook and brown trout are valuable sport fish that co-exist in many parts of the world due to stocking introductions. USGS researchers found that, in New York State, direct interactions between the two species, such as competition for food, have minor effects on diminishing brook trout populations compared to human-caused habitat disturbances. However, repeated, disproportionate stocking of brown trout in brook trout habitats could drastically decrease brook trout numbers.

"There is great potential for brown trout stocking to reduce native brook trout populations," said James McKenna, USGS scientist and lead author of the study. "But brown trout aren’t necessarily causing the current brook trout declines, and managers may be able to develop sustainable scenarios to support both fisheries."

The USGS study found that human-induced degradation (from dams and roads, among other causes) of the habitats of both species can affect the populations of either. However, because brook trout do better in forested watersheds, whereas brown trout can thrive in more agricultural environments, degraded watersheds and/or the elimination of forests may affect brook more than brown trout. Improper brown trout management could further threaten vulnerable brook trout populations.

Fisheries managers in New York use stocking to maintain brook trout—a native species—and/or brown trout—a non-native species stocked in New York for over 100 years—in some streams. Brook trout have been declining within its native range in recent decades, and there has been concern that the stocking of brown trout has caused these declines.

The report is published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management and is available online.

For more information on USGS Great Lakes ecosystem research, please visit the USGS Great Lakes Science Center website.

Catch-And-Release Latest Target for Anti-Fishing Movement

Here is something that you didn’t know: You are a hypocrite if you practice catch-and-release.

That’s right. If you care enough to turn a fish loose after you catch it, then you should be smart enough to realize that you shouldn’t catch it in the first place.

Don’t laugh. That’s the latest strategy by animal rights activists in this country to kill recreational fishing. Twice now it’s been used in comments at my Activist Angler website. The latest was in response to a post of mine that ridiculed PETA for distorting facts to support its anti-fishing ideology.

I was accused of being so steeped in a “pro-fishing, pro-industry dogma” that I have lost perspective. “Attempting to demonize people who are concerned about the ethics of sport fishing is a clear act of bigotry,” said commenter Rob Russell.

“Any thoughtful angler will reach a point where he or she desires to lessen their impacts on fish. When you engage in premeditated C&R, when your only goal is ‘sport’ (gratification), how do you rationalize putting a fish’s life at risk?

“If you are not concerned about this, then you have some thinking to do.”

Well, Rob, I have been thinking about it, and I am concerned. And if you fish, you should be concerned too. As irrational as this ploy seems, it already has worked in Europe.                        

The Swiss Animal Welfare Act of 2008 makes catch-and-release illegal because “it is in conflict with the dignity of the fish and its presumed ability to suffer and feel pain.” A similar rule has been in place since the 1980s in Germany, where anglers also must take a course in fish handling before they can obtain a license.

“The argument runs (in Germany) that it is legally acceptable to go fishing only if one has the intention to catch fish for food,” say the authors of a disturbing study, “A Primer on Anti-Angling Philosophy and Its Relevance for Recreational Fisheries in Urbanized Societies.”

In other words, you can have fun catching fish in Germany, but don’t tell anyone--- and you must keep the fish. Tournament fishing is not allowed and economic benefits are not a sufficient justification for fishing.

 “It all boils down to the individual benefits experienced by the angler, and here food provision is currently the only acceptable reason,” the authors add.

Think that can’t happen here, a country of nearly 40 million licensed anglers? Think again, and don’t be misled by the fact that 9 out of 10 Americans approve of legal fishing and support using fish for food.

The authors of that study discovered that when people are asked whether they approve of recreational fishing for sport, answers change dramatically. Twenty-five to 30 percent view angling for sport as cruel in more urbanized states such as Colorado and Arizona, while about 20 percent feel the same way in more rural states, including Alaska and the Dakotas.

And then there are the useful idiots. They fish but are so narrow-minded that they support anti-fishing activists in this campaign.

The second commenter at my website said this: “Sport fishing for catch-and-release should be outlawed! We are working to keep fish for real fishermen who enjoy the taste and food. We need to keep these so called ‘sport fishermen’ out of Minnesota lakes!”

How do we combat this strategy? We don’t engage in the false argument that catch-and-release is just one step on the road to enlightenment and that, if we really care, we must stop fishing for sport. That’s like trying to answer the question “Do you still beat your wife?” and not sound guilty. An attempt to answer either instantly puts the responder on the defensive.

The reality is that catch-and-release is a conservation practice, not an action prompted by concern for the welfare of an individual fish. Since B.A.S.S. founder Ray Scott popularized the practice during tournaments in the 1970s, it has been embraced by anglers worldwide as a way to sustain fisheries. And it’s working. For example, Florida anglers keep less than 10 percent of the bass that they catch, with the vast majority released so that they can continue to reproduce, as well as be caught again.

And let’s not forget the value that we derive from catching and releasing those fish.  Yes, fish as food nourishes the body, but fishing for fun nourishes the spirit. During this chaotic and angry time in our nation’s history, nothing is more important.  

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

'Conservation Gate Keeper Robert Montgomery Weighs In'

Check out my conversation with Terry Brown about threats to fishing and my new book, Why We Fish.

Boat Builders Support Center for Coastal Conservation

Four new boat builders have joined as corporate sponsors for Center for Coastal Conservation. They include Grady White Boats, Maverick Boats, Regulator Boats and Sea Hunt Boats.

“We are incredibly grateful and pleased to have the support of these boat builder partners,” said Center for Coastal Conservation President Jeff Angers. “All four share our vision for the future of recreational fishing and boating, and their presence within our organization will serve to strengthen our abilities to advance federal public policy that benefits the entire fishing and boating community.”

In addition to participating as a corporate sponsor, Maverick Boats President and CEO Scott Deal was elected to membership on the Center’s board of directors.

“Yamaha Marine Group really got the ball rolling in January when they announced their platinum sponsorship of the Center,” said Deal. “Thanks to those pioneering efforts, the Center for Coastal Conservation is uniquely positioned to make real progress with the Congress in stewarding marine fishery resources. We are proud to step up our support for this organization as we work together to preserve and improve recreational fishing and boating.”

The Center for Coastal Conservation is a coalition of  advocates for marine recreational fishing and boating. The Center is dedicated to promoting sound conservation and wise use of ocean resources and supports federal legislators through its political action committee, Center PAC. The organization is non-partisan and focuses on having an impact in the national political arena, principally Congress and federal regulatory agencies, to promote a quality recreational fishery and improve angling and boating access.

America’s 11 million marine recreational fishermen generate over $70 billion in economic output supporting over 450,000 jobs. The Center’s membership includes individuals and the major players in marine conservation and recreational boating and fishing. Non-profit members include American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association. Corporate partners include AFTCO, Brunswick, Costa, Grady White Boats, Maverick Boats, Pure Fishing, Regulator Boats, Sea Hunt Boats, Shimano and Yamaha.