New Task Force

[lonkm]

go to the in-fisherman site. they have another point of view on this subject.

[Al Agnew]

Phil, I'm going to try not to get into blatant politics here and simply give my thoughts on this whole issue...

I took the time to read the entire report of the task force. I also read the In-fisherman article. What I don't see in the report is where, exactly, the task force is advocating a "preservationist policy" as In-fisherman asserted. The report talks about "invasive species", which could be construed to mean non-native trout and salmon in the Great Lakes, but I found no recommendation to specifically control or eradicate such species. The report was big on "ecosystem-based" management, which again could be construed to have a preservationist flavor, but nothing specific there either. In fact, it seems the report was long on general recommendations and goals, but specific management strategies such as closed fishing zones were not to be found.

So why is In-fisherman (and the president of Shimano as Bigredbirdfan asked) so alarmed about this whole thing? Shimano seemed to be concerned, as is In-fisherman, that recreational fishing is not recognized as a key component of ocean and great lakes management. They are right in that, other than several references to "recreation", the report did not specifically address recreational fishing. Does this mean that recreational fishing will be ignored? Or would it be the "low man on the totem pole", first to be curtailed? Don't know. Maybe it is a problem worth pursuing. It did bother me that there were specific mentions of "overfishing" without noting that in most cases it is COMMERCIAL overfishing that is the problem. When it comes to oceanic and great lakes fisheries management, the commercial fishing industry has always had the upper hand, and if there is a conflict, recreational fishing has always had to take the leftovers. Look at any migratory fishery, and you'll see that the regulations are always the most restrictive on the "end user", the recreational angler who has to fish for what little is left after the commercial fishermen get theirs. What I would hope would happen under ecosystem-based, coordinated management like this report is advocating is that more protection would be given from commercial overfishing. With a few exceptions, recreational angling has little impact on the overall populations of oceanic and great lakes fish, and I'd hope that such management, being "science-based" as the report advocates, would recognize that fact and give the bulk of their effort to better management of the commercial fishing that causes most of the negative impacts to fisheries and ecosystems.

Still, it would be good if recreational fishing has a strong presence in the agencies and advisory committees that the task force proposes. However, I would hope that when the report talks about "state agencies" which it would attempt to coordinate, these agencies would include the fish and game departments that are supposed to be managing their states' fisheries, so indirectly at least, recreational fishing WOULD be represented.

So I'm wondering if Shimano is doing a kind of knee-jerk thing, where ANYTHING that MIGHT affect their bottom line is automatically opposed, before they even see any specifics that might affect them and their customers. It's a common thing for any industry that furnishes recreational products...I guarantee you that the ATV companies and dealerships were dead set against the Missouri law attempting to keep ATVs out of our streams--even though we all know that doing so was good for the streams and it hasn't seemed to hurt the companies' bottom line. I'd like to see some specifics of how recreational fishing is going to be curtailed, and the science behind those specifics, before I'll cry many tears over Shimano. And I think that maybe In-fisherman is doing much the same thing, worried about nebulous "preservationist policies" before they see the actual policies or the science behind them.

I guess in the end it will all boil down to the specifics, and this task force certainly bears watching during the upcoming public comment period and afterward. But there are a LOT of potential good things that they are saying. We most certainly DO need coordination and ecosystem-based management of ocean resources, as well as another thing the report advocated--better watershed protection for the great lakes and oceans. Ask anybody who lives around and fishes the Chesapeake Bay, not so slowly dying from non-point source pollution in the rivers running into it. A lot of ocean ecosystems and fisheries are in deep dark trouble, and the short-term economic interests have ruled the roost for far too long.

[eric1978]

1) The day that a legislative body, left, right or center, decides it would be politically advantageous to take away anglers' rods and reels will be the same day that pigs take flight en masse. A politician who signs a bill that removes the right of a citizen to catch and release gamefish in a stream that his taxes pay to manage, will be signing one of his last bills as a Congressman. If you thought the "anger" over health care was impressive, wait until you see tens of millions of disgruntled lure-tossers march on Washington. Legislators, both state and federal, know this very well, and it simply will never happen. The recreational angler will never lose his right to catch fish. Fishing for fun is just too American to be stopped. It would be like outlawing baseball because deforestation is a problem and bats are made of ash.

2) Biologists will be making recommendations on proposed regulations. The word "overfishing" implies that fish are being kept for harvest, not caught and released. If a biologist (who we will assume knows more about biology and ecology than we do) deems it necessary to restrict the gross tonnage of cod that can be harvested in a given time on a given area of ocean, then who am I to argue? I'll eat more chicken. As Al pointed out, it may be possible that any regulations enacted could impact commercial fishing, the same as it may also impact other environmental detriments such as industrial waste management, etc. That is a problem for those who make a living exploiting the planet. I know everyone has to make a buck, but if some folks have to lose their jobs in order to save parts of our ecosystem, so be it. The world's health is more important.

3) I also read the "Task Force" report, and found within its text nothing that should alarm recreational anglers. Contrarily, we should be looking forward to seeing the results of the yet-to-be-proposed regulations, since it appears the goal of the project will be to clean up certain bodies of water and return them to a healthier state of being. I welcome them to start right here in Missouri, on the Meramec. Get to work scientists! I look forward to your assessments and proposals.

And do you know why I'm not worried about it? Because on the list of factors that contribute to the degradation of stream ecology, recreational catch and release anglers are at the very bottom of that list, if they're on it at all. So I welcome new laws and regulations pertaining to my favorite waters. They will only make the river cleaner, the species healthier and the fishing better.

Once more into the breach dear Task Force. Once more or close the wall up with our smallmouth dead.

[Al Agnew]

Here's another thing that just occurred to me, re Bigredbird's question about why Shimano is so alarmed about this...

If you like your conspiracy theories, Japan is one of the biggest exploiters of ocean resources, and is notorious for overfishing the oceans and other oceanic environmental ills...and they kick and scream and then generally ignore it whenever any new regulations on their fishing are proposed by any international body or nation. Shimano is a Japanese company. Think maybe the president of Shimano is being pressured or just thinking about his corporate cronies from the home country by opposing the task force? Fact is that the U.S. angling market is actually a relatively small part of Shimano's international business...they do other things besides fishing equipment, and even in fishing equipment they have a bigger market, believe it or not, in Japan and Europe. I would not expect them to be in the forefront of fighting real or imagined restrictions on angling in the U.S...there are other companies that do more business in the U.S. and would have more to lose IF this is a bad thing. Are the other fishing tackle manufacturers screaming about this? Hmm.......

And if you want to carry the conspiracy a bit further...Shimano IS a major advertiser for In-fisherman. Maybe they are pressuring In-fisherman to vocally oppose it?

[ozark trout fisher]

Here's another thing that just occurred to me, re Bigredbird's question about why Shimano is so alarmed about this...

If you like your conspiracy theories, Japan is one of the biggest exploiters of ocean resources, and is notorious for overfishing the oceans and other oceanic environmental ills...and they kick and scream and then generally ignore it whenever any new regulations on their fishing are proposed by any international body or nation. Shimano is a Japanese company. Think maybe the president of Shimano is being pressured or just thinking about his corporate cronies from the home country by opposing the task force? Fact is that the U.S. angling market is actually a relatively small part of Shimano's international business...they do other things besides fishing equipment, and even in fishing equipment they have a bigger market, believe it or not, in Japan and Europe. I would not expect them to be in the forefront of fighting real or imagined restrictions on angling in the U.S...there are other companies that do more business in the U.S. and would have more to lose IF this is a bad thing. Are the other fishing tackle manufacturers screaming about this? Hmm.......

And if you want to carry the conspiracy a bit further...Shimano IS a major advertiser for In-fisherman. Maybe they are pressuring In-fisherman to vocally oppose it?

I like conspiracy theories when they are based on sound logic... And this one is.

Interesting outlook.

[bigredbirdfan]

1) The day that a legislative body, left, right or center, decides it would be politically advantageous to take away anglers' rods and reels will be the same day that pigs take flight en masse. A politician who signs a bill that removes the right of a citizen to catch and release gamefish in a stream that his taxes pay to manage, will be signing one of his last bills as a Congressman. If you thought the "anger" over health care was impressive, wait until you see tens of millions of disgruntled lure-tossers march on Washington. Legislators, both state and federal, know this very well, and it simply will never happen. The recreational angler will never lose his right to catch fish. Fishing for fun is just too American to be stopped. It would be like outlawing baseball because deforestation is a problem and bats are made of ash.

2) Biologists will be making recommendations on proposed regulations. The word "overfishing" implies that fish are being kept for harvest, not caught and released. If a biologist (who we will assume knows more about biology and ecology than we do) deems it necessary to restrict the gross tonnage of cod that can be harvested in a given time on a given area of ocean, then who am I to argue? I'll eat more chicken. As Al pointed out, it may be possible that any regulations enacted could impact commercial fishing, the same as it may also impact other environmental detriments such as industrial waste management, etc. That is a problem for those who make a living exploiting the planet. I know everyone has to make a buck, but if some folks have to lose their jobs in order to save parts of our ecosystem, so be it. The world's health is more important.

3) I also read the "Task Force" report, and found within its text nothing that should alarm recreational anglers. Contrarily, we should be looking forward to seeing the results of the yet-to-be-proposed regulations, since it appears the goal of the project will be to clean up certain bodies of water and return them to a healthier state of being. I welcome them to start right here in Missouri, on the Meramec. Get to work scientists! I look forward to your assessments and proposals.

And do you know why I'm not worried about it? Because on the list of factors that contribute to the degradation of stream ecology, recreational catch and release anglers are at the very bottom of that list, if they're on it at all. So I welcome new laws and regulations pertaining to my favorite waters. They will only make the river cleaner, the species healthier and the fishing better.

Once more into the breach dear Task Force. Once more or close the wall up with our smallmouth dead.

You deserve a great big buffett of crow and the power being assembled in Washington might just give it to you.

Nobody is against healthier fishing as a principal. It's just how you plan on doing it where the rubber meets the road. This type of "if your not for your against" is getting very old these days.

What if the final legislation or executive order goes like this: "it shall be unlawful to disturb any habitat native to species for the purposes of recreational or commercial fishing" now while I agree reefs shouldn't be distrubed I disagree with the gravel banks on the rivers and streams access. What if this means you can't even hit the bank with a lure?? And maybe that can be inturpreted to mean less access or no access to streams. You really need to reconsider a "carte blanch" approach to ecology and the enviroment.

[bigredbirdfan]

I like conspiracy theories when they are based on sound logic... And this one is.

Interesting outlook.

Doesn't appear like "conspiracy theory". Al usually won't touch that stuff, but he's no fool either and obviously when the president of a fishing eq co that sells roughly $322 million dollars worth of eq is concerned he takes note.

BTW are you looking for any assualt weapons yet??

[FishinCricket]

You deserve a great big buffett of crow and the power being assembled in Washington might just give it to you.

Nobody is against healthier fishing as a principal. It's just how you plan on doing it where the rubber meets the road. This type of "if your not for your against" is getting very old these days.

What if the final legislation or executive order goes like this: "it shall be unlawful to disturb any habitat native to species for the purposes of recreational or commercial fishing" now while I agree reefs shouldn't be distrubed I disagree with the gravel banks on the rivers and streams access. What if this means you can't even hit the bank with a lure?? And maybe that can be inturpreted to mean less access or no access to streams. You really need to reconsider a "carte blanch" approach to ecology and the enviroment.

IS it truly sensible to you to think that the administration would turn a blind eye to the expressed wants of 65 million anglers? I'd think if they were willing to do that they would have made tobacco completely illegal long ago. Does this correlation make sense?

Sorry, I don't see it happening. I'll gladly slide up to your "crow buffet" if I am wrong.

Meanwhile (unless you or I are willing to run for office), the most we can do is be vocal to the people who can make that call (ie your senator or representative).

[eric1978]

You deserve a great big buffett of crow and the power being assembled in Washington might just give it to you.

Nobody is against healthier fishing as a principal. It's just how you plan on doing it where the rubber meets the road. This type of "if your not for your against" is getting very old these days.

What if the final legislation or executive order goes like this: "it shall be unlawful to disturb any habitat native to species for the purposes of recreational or commercial fishing" now while I agree reefs shouldn't be distrubed I disagree with the gravel banks on the rivers and streams access. What if this means you can't even hit the bank with a lure?? And maybe that can be inturpreted to mean less access or no access to streams. You really need to reconsider a "carte blanch" approach to ecology and the enviroment.

Maybe you should re-read this part of my post:

"1) The day that a legislative body, left, right or center, decides it would be politically advantageous to take away anglers' rods and reels will be the same day that pigs take flight en masse. A politician who signs a bill that removes the right of a citizen to catch and release gamefish in a stream that his taxes pay to manage, will be signing one of his last bills as a Congressman. If you thought the "anger" over health care was impressive, wait until you see tens of millions of disgruntled lure-tossers march on Washington. Legislators, both state and federal, know this very well, and it simply will never happen. The recreational angler will never lose his right to catch fish. Fishing for fun is just too American to be stopped. It would be like outlawing baseball because deforestation is a problem and bats are made of ash."

This isn't something the President has the right to mandate under executive order; it has to be a bill. If the final legislation looked, as you wrote, something like this:

"it shall be unlawful to disturb any habitat native to species for the purposes of recreational or commercial fishing...What if this means you can't even hit the bank with a lure?? And maybe that can be inturpreted to mean less access or no access to streams."

then I believe, as I said, that that legislation would never pass any house of Congress, state or federal. And if it did, I would be right there with you, sign in hand, protesting.

And by the way, it's not a "carte blanche" approach to ecology. The government's power is not unrestricted or unconditional. We have elections, remember? We all have an opportunity every so often to speak our minds in the form of a vote. If a Congressman signed a bill that took away our right to fish recreationally, he would wind up with many less votes the next election cycle. Don't think they don't know it.

Why are you so afraid? The government is not out to take away your rights. If they did, they would be out on their butts, and they think about it every time they go to push that vote button. You should stop listening to propaganda. It dilutes one's ability to think rationally.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The American Sportfishing is also questioning it. I don't know about Trout Unlimited or Steelheader.net, I haven't heard.

I think the bottom line is that without any reference to the huge support of the environment they are speaking of by the sport fishermen, fishermen should question why?

There's a lot of concern by profit and non profit organization about this, but the bottom line is, no matter what their reasons are, if they lose we lose. I don'r see any other way to look at it.