B.a.s.s. Endorses Apdaptation To The Topic Which Shall Not Be Named

[Tim Smith]

Notice that the emphasis here is on mitigating effects. Governments and businesses all over the world have been doing this kind of thing for over a decade now. Welcome to the real world, B.A.S.S.

From the American Fisheries Society newsfeed (edited):

Sportsmen Promote Adaptation Strategies to The Topic Which Shall Not Be Named (TTWSNBN).

In letter to Senate leaders, hunters and anglers praise elements of the SAFE

Act that would enable responsive management of fish and wildlife populations

WASHINGTON - Prominent sportsmen's groups spoke out in support of measures

in proposed U.S. Senate legislation that would help minimize the impacts of

TTWSNBN and variability on fish and wildlife, the Theodore Roosevelt

Conservation Partnership announced today.

The Safeguarding America's Future and Environment (SAFE) Act, S. 1881, would

require federal resource agencies to plan for the projected long-term

effects of TTWSNBN and encourage states to prepare natural resources

adaptation plans while ensuring that these plans are guided by the best

available science. In a letter

<http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/S1881_Support.pdf> to the bill's

co-sponsors, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Max Baucus, the sportsmen

expressed concern about the future of hunting and angling in the face of

increasing human development along with the impacts of TTWSNBN .

"We strongly support legislative approaches, such as those in the SAFE Act,

that recognize the reality of TTWSNBN and create the national

leadership and structure to minimize its anticipated effects," said Noreen

Clough, director of conservation of B.A.S.S. and signatory of the letter.

"Our groups have been recommending the adoption of similar standards for

fish and wildlife adaptation for years, and we urge these elements to be

included in any forthcoming TTWSNBN legislation."

"Sportsmen are often the first to notice the impacts of our changing

TTWSNBN , which already is affecting where and how we hunt and fish," said

Dr. Steve Williams, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, a

signatory of the sportsmen's letter, and former director of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. "We commend the science-based approach that underlies

the SAFE Act, and we urge the Senate to do its part to uphold the public's

hunting and angling opportunities by advancing the adaptation components of

this legislation without delay."

Maintaining ecosystems capable of supporting fish and wildlife populations

is critical to the nation's health,

<http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/The_Economic_Value_of_Outdoor_Recreation.pdf

> economy and natural services such as flood control, water filtration and

groundwater security. With each passing season, the need to develop

strategies to help fish and wildlife adapt to a changing TTWSNBN becomes

more pressing. Guided by the members of its TTWSNBN Working Group,

the TRCP is engaged in ensuring that the issue of TTWSNBN and fish

and wildlife adaptation are properly addressed in congressional legislation.

"Abundant outdoor opportunities, including hunting and fishing, are the

dividends we reap when we exercise responsible management of our natural

resources," said TRCP Climate Change Initiative Manager Bill Geer, "and the

fish and wildlife provisions in the SAFE Act set the course for

on-the-ground actions that sustain these resources and consequently our

sporting traditions. Sportsmen and professional fish and wildlife managers

strongly support this pragmatic approach to resource conservation."

[FishinCricket]

Where are we, Hogwarts? What is "The Topic That Shall Not Be Named"? (I'm sure I could read the article and answer my own question, but childish tactics receive childish responses)

[Tim Smith]

Where are we, Hogwarts? What is "The Topic That Shall Not Be Named"? (I'm sure I could read the article and answer my own question, but childish tactics receive childish responses)

If it's childish to push recreational fishing to face the issues of the 21st century, hand me the bib. I'll wear it as long as necessary.

[Flysmallie]

I have to agree with Cricket on this one. Maybe if they would explain themselves with out trying to be so cute they would have more people backing them that don't need a bib.

[eric1978]

Since it's sad and ridiculous that climate change has been deemed TTWSNBN, I'll go ahead and post it in its original, unedited form...

Dec 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — Prominent sportsmen's groups spoke out in support of measures in proposed U.S. Senate legislation that would help minimize the impacts of climate change and variability on fish and wildlife, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership announced Dec. 14.

The Safeguarding America's Future and Environment (SAFE) Act, S. 1881, would require federal resource agencies to plan for the projected long-term effects of climate change and encourage states to prepare natural resources adaptation plans while ensuring that these plans are guided by the best available science. In a letter to the bill's co-sponsors, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Max Baucus, the sportsmen expressed concern about the future of hunting and angling in the face of increasing human development along with the impacts of climate change.

"We strongly support legislative approaches, such as those in the SAFE Act, that recognize the reality of climate change and create the national leadership and structure to minimize its anticipated effects," said Noreen Clough, director of conservation of B.A.S.S. and signatory of the letter. "Our groups have been recommending the adoption of similar standards for fish and wildlife adaptation for years, and we urge these elements to be included in any forthcoming climate legislation."

"Sportsmen are often the first to notice the impacts of our changing climate, which already is affecting where and how we hunt and fish," said Dr. Steve Williams, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, a signatory of the sportsmen's letter, and former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "We commend the science-based approach that underlies the SAFE Act, and we urge the Senate to do its part to uphold the public's hunting and angling opportunities by advancing the adaptation components of this legislation without delay."

Maintaining ecosystems capable of supporting fish and wildlife populations is critical to the nation's health, economy and natural services such as flood control, water filtration and groundwater security. With each passing season, the need to develop strategies to help fish and wildlife adapt to a changing climate becomes more pressing. Guided by the members of its Climate Change Working Group, the TRCP is engaged in ensuring that the issue of climate change and fish and wildlife adaptation are properly addressed in congressional legislation.

"Abundant outdoor opportunities, including hunting and fishing, are the dividends we reap when we exercise responsible management of our natural resources," said TRCP Climate Change Initiative Manager Bill Geer, "and the fish and wildlife provisions in the SAFE Act set the course for on-the-ground actions that sustain these resources and consequently our sporting traditions. Sportsmen and professional fish and wildlife managers strongly support this pragmatic approach to resource conservation."

[Tim Smith]

I have to agree with Cricket on this one. Maybe if they would explain themselves with out trying to be so cute they would have more people backing them that don't need a bib.

You can choose to ignore that this topic has been thoroughly excoriated, defamed, twisted, sabotaged and distorted on this forum and elsewhere to the point that the moderators have set a policy of having it removed whenever it comes up...

...that would indeed be pretty immature.

So would ignoring a topic that is going to affect us and our children for decades and centuries to come.

Keep throwing the eggs. I've stopped caring.

[Al Agnew]

Phil's policy, borne out of frustration with the level of vitriol engendered by the topic of climate change, is to avoid the topic. Tim IS being a little cute (not the original article, which of course named climate change) by using the acronym. But I agree with Tim that this is an important conservation issue as it DOES relate to fish and wildlife management planning and decisions. It is beyond the scope of this article whether or not anything can or should be done to slow or stop climate change, or even if human-caused climate change is happening. The article is talking about planning for what to do as far as wildlife management if and when it becomes a real problem no matter whether it is human-caused or "natural" warming. In a way, this is showing the pointlessness of arguing whether it is going to happen, what will happen, what to do to keep it from happening, or who's to blame for it happening. It's assuming that there is a possibility that it will happen, and saying that there should be contingency plans for what to do if it does happen.

Now, note, I'm NOT saying it's real, it's human-caused, or what we can do about it, and I'm not going to argue those things even if Phil doesn't whack this whole thread. But consider how a warming climate could affect the fishery resources we have right here in the Ozarks.

Trout...hotter summers would mean warmer water. The influence of the big springs that make most of our trout fishing possible would be lessened...it might mean that the only places trout could thrive would be within the spring branches themselves and in very short sections of the rivers below them. Maybe only a couple of miles of the Meramec, Niangua, and North Fork would remain decent trout fishing. Maybe by the time you got to Parker on the Current the water would be too warm for trout. And then what happens if a warming climate causes more droughts? Less constant water supplies for the tailwater fisheries if the lake levels above drop until the Corps can't keep up normal water releases. With lots of very low water on the lower White, perhaps only the first few miles below Bull Shoals remains able to harbor a good trout population.

Reservoir bass...what happens with lower lake levels due to possible drought conditions? Or what happens if the warming climate causes more big floods during the spring spawning season?

Stream bass...what happens if hotter summer weather results in considerably warmer water temps? As it is, on rivers that are not heavily spring-fed like the Buffalo, the water gets up close to 90 degrees during very hot weather. If it gets even hotter, it could actually cause bass kills. And about those spotted bass, which seem to tolerate warmer water than smallies...could mean the rest of the Meramec, Gasconade, and Big Piney would become predominantly spotted bass water. Could mean that even where spotted bass are native and have evolved to co-exist with smallies, more of the streams would become spotted bass water. And what happens if more frequent spring floods wipe out more spawns? Or what happens if something about the warming water causes something else to happen, like an important food supply diminishing?

These are just some of the possibilities. Now again, I'm not saying anything about whether it's real or not or whether we should do something drastic to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What I'm saying is that it might be prudent to start now trying to figure out what COULD happen to fisheries, and what we COULD do to help mitigate those effects.

[FishinCricket]

And we don't accomplish that (or anything, for that matter) by ignoring/deleting the issue OR using whispered tones or masking the issue with a cute name..

Sorry, Tim.. I was just crackin cause I knew this whole thing will be deleted soon anyway.. (just kidding)

[Tim Smith]

And we don't accomplish that (or anything, for that matter) by ignoring/deleting the issue OR using whispered tones or masking the issue with a cute name..

Sorry, Tim.. I was just crackin cause I knew this whole thing will be deleted soon anyway.. (just kidding)

Didn't accomplish anything? Ok well the issue is in plain sight and being discussed.

Draw your own conclusions.

As long as the topic is relevant and until the yahoos come into to sabotage the thing with personal attacks, Phil has been a staunch defender of free speech on the forum. Someone will probably drop in and sabotage this thread, but the kind of person they are will be obvious. The shame is theirs.

The kinds of issues Al is pointing out here will come home to roost in the Ozarks in the decades ahead. Shrinking ranges for cold water fish, spotted bass competition advantages, increased effects of larger less frequent storms...all those things are on the way or already here.

Past attempts to bring up adaptation in here have always been trampled under the political garbage. Maybe now that B.A.S.S. is on board, people will actually listen...or try to get the conservation coordinator fired (more likely).

There is no sane reading of the data that does not conclude that the climate is changing and there are consequences of that. No matter what the cause, it's time to brace for more change.

Natural resource researchers have been using the limited pot of funds they get to look into this issue for years. B.A.S.S. is finally catching up. Good for them. Good for the Wildlife Management Institute. They finally agree with 97% of the National Academy of Science that we'd better take this seriously.

[Outside Bend]

Excellent news. I wasn't aware of the SAFE Act, I'll have to pay more attention as it moves through the legislative process.