New Hampshire Latest Front for Loon-atic Assault on Fishing

In case you missed it, preservationists and their political allies in New Hampshire are pushing for a broader lead ban as part of an ongoing campaign to restrict recreational fishing. They profess that their objective is to protect loons. It is not, as no evidence indicates that loon populations are at risk because the birds ingest lead fishing tackle.

This is part of the same offensive that includes an attempt to ban the use of plastic baits in Maine, as well as implement “marine protected areas” in the nation’s coastal waters, where fishing would not be allowed. Some also are using concerns about the spread of invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels --- real threats--- as means to force restrictions on access to inland waters. 

Recreational fishing is under assault, no doubt about it. And you can either help defend it or stick your head in the sand until it’s too late.

New Hampshire Senate Bill 89 would ban the use of any lead sinker or jig weighing 1 ounce or less. That would make use of just about any small fishing lure illegal in state waters.

Keep America Fishing makes these points:

• This bill would expand an already restrictive policy on the use of lead jigs with no scientific data to back up such a ban.
• The ban would have a significant negative impact on the state’s economy and fisheries conservation, but a negligible impact on the waterfowl populations it seeks to protect. In fact, New Hampshire’s loon population is increasing.
• This ban is more restrictive than the Consumer Products Safety Commission’s levels for lead in paint, children’s toys, plumbing fixtures and non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting.
• Technology does not permit manufacturers to supply alternative metals 100 percent free of lead so the practical impact of the legislation is to ban all sinkers and jigs less one ounce or less.
• This size range represents the most commonly used sinkers.

And it adds, “By banning lead completely the state is effectively banning fishing!

“Join us by signing the petition and protect recreational fishing by stopping this overly restrictive and unrealistic ban on fishing tackle!”

 Go here to voice your opposition.

Recreational Fishing Threatened in Australia

Recreational fishing in Australia is perhaps even more imperiled than it is in the United States.  Down under, officials are considering a Marine Reserves Network, which the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) says “would close millions of miles of water to fishing and boating.”

In response, Australia’s anglers and fishing industry have formed Keep Australia Fishing, similar to our own Keep America Fishing. A “Don’t Lock Us Out” campaign generated nearly 10,000 submissions to stop the reserves network.

But Keep Australia Fishing warns, “The fight is not yet over. There is still a long way to go on fighting the government’s decision.”

Anglers in the United States would do well to check out the Keep Australia Fishing website to learn what will be coming our way if President Obama wins re-election and continues implementation of the National Ocean Policy (NOP).

The NOP will “zone” uses of our waters, telling us where we can and cannot fish. And you can bet that preservationists, both within the administration and in environmental groups, will have a seat at the “big table” as those zoning decisions are made.

Dry Tortugas Protected Area Yields Benefits

Anglers across Florida are seeing more fish, thanks to the collaborative benefits of the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), according to a joint release from the two agencies.

Researchers have spent five years examining how fish and other natural resources responded to the protection offered in the Dry Tortugas National Park Research Natural Area, a 46-square-mile area within the park. Fishing and anchoring are prohibited in the area, which was created in January 2007. Their verdict is that the collaboration “has been a success, not only to local populations of fish, but for fisheries management across Florida.”

“I believe marine protected areas should only be implemented as a last resort, but, if one was going to be implemented, this was the right place to close and this was the right place to do the research,” said FWC Vice Chairman Kathy Barco. “They did it right. They talked with the fishermen and the other stakeholders.”

Using modeling techniques, University of Miami researchers predict that the spawning groups in the Tortugas supply larvae that settle throughout Florida waters, including the Keys, the West Florida shelf, and eastern coastal areas north of Miami. Research also shows that seagrass beds in the area serve as nursery grounds for many exploited reef fish species, such as red and black grouper.

Inside the Research Natural Area, researchers found the number and size of mutton snapper, yellowtail snapper, red grouper and hogfish all have increased during the past five years.

Dry Tortugas National Park is about 70 miles to the west of Key West and includes 100 square miles of marine waters and seven small islands. Congress established the park to protect and interpret the exceptional biological, cultural and recreational values of the area, including its pristine subtropical marine ecosystem and intact coral reef community.

Despite its remote location, the park attracts more than 53,000 visitors a year for fishing, snorkeling, diving, bird watching, camping and viewing Fort Jefferson.

“These scientific findings are very encouraging and are exactly what we were hoping for when the RNA was established five years ago,” said Dan Kimball, Superintendent of Everglades and Dry Tortugas national parks.

The collaboration also brought about several advancements in mutton snapper research, including the first-ever observation of repeated mutton snapper spawning events at Riley’s Hump, a protected fish-spawning aggregation site in the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve.

Taken to­gether, the results of the five-year science review suggest that the RNA has played a substantive role in enhancing exploited reef fish species populations in the region and, especially in the case of mutton snapper, likely contributed to the recov­ery of the spawning aggregations at Riley’s Hump.

An observation from the Activist Angler: The release did not mention when or if the prohibition would be lifted in the research area.  Instead, it said this: "The FWC and NPS hope to continue this work well into the future."

I'm not suggesting that recreational fishing should be allowed right away in this case. But anti-fishing groups too often push for "marine protected areas" simply because of preservationist ideology, with no scientific rationale to justify their implementation.

If I Wanted America to Fail . . .

I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact.  I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions.  I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private.

The paragraph above is from an essay (both in print and on video) at Free Market America. Check it out.

It speaks to the same mentality that threatens the future of recreational fishing via the Marine Life Protection Act in California and the National Ocean Council and Policy nationally.

Those who follow this ideology believe that we exist apart from nature instead of as part of it, and they want to preserve it from human intrusion. If they have their way, you’ll see more and more “marine protected areas,” “marine preserves,” and “no fishing zones” on our public waters.

Here’s some background about the essay:

“Based on Paul Harvey’s seminal essay, ‘If I were the devil,’ Free Market America’s provocative video-letter to America rings with the same thoughtful intensity.  ‘If I wanted America to fail’ addresses the perilous side-effects of hitching our nation’s economic well-being to the bandwagon of environmental extremism.”

Future of Fishing Threatened by Preservationist Ideology

A Callifornia sign of the times. Is something like this coming to a fishery near you?

In the previous post, I warned about what’s coming down the road for anglers nationwide, with California providing the example, especially in regard to fisheries closures.

Here’s a comment that I received from Tammyli, who disagrees with me:

"I think it's just right to designate places where and where not to fish since there can be ecological consequences that can affect both the marine life and the people."

See what I mean? Recreational fishing, an important part of our heritage, our culture, our economy, and our happiness, is threatened as never before.

Don’t know whether Tammyli is a card-carrying preservationist, but she agrees with those who are and who believe that we exist separate and apart from nature, instead of as a part of it.

On the other hand, I believe that we are inextricably tied to nature and that we are better people because of it. I believe that, as anglers, we are obligated to be good stewards of our fisheries as we enjoy them, so that they will be healthy and productive for future generations.

Here is my response to Tammyli:

You are entitled to your opinion, you are not alone in your belief, and I doubt that anything I say will change your mind.

But the closures in California and those that might be coming for the rest of the nation are based on imposition of a preservationist ideology, not on science and facts. Closing areas to recreational fishing will do next to nothing to better “ecological consequences.”

For decades, states have managed their fish and wildlife based on science and facts, and they have done a brilliant job of it. Abundant whitetail deer and turkey populations are but two examples.

The states have succeeded in sustaining and enhancing our game and inland fish populations with bag and size limits, as well as seasons --- not by permanently closing lakes, rivers, and forests.

And here’s an interesting take from Capt. Scott Hickman, an offshore captain out of Texas:

“The feds need to get out of fisheries management biz and let the states manage their own EEZs (exclusive economic zones) --- a properly state-run catch share system where states have their own allocation and do whatever they want with it.

“Tags for overfished species, an offshore saltwater stamp that could give more reliable harvest data to managers, and have the universities help with stock assessments . . .

“Give me one example where the federal government has managed something right (other than the military, but it runs itself).

“Catch shares being dirty words since the feds are involved would be a whole different thing if the states got to design and run their own programs, thus solving the problems of identifying which species need more intense management and which ones don’t.

“Look at the terrestrial game management in this country, all done by the states and very successful. Why not handle fisheries the same way?”