ENVIROS, ANGLERS AND THEIR CHILDISH FIGHTS
By Capt. John McMurray
The bickering and mud-slinging between angling and environmental groups has been going on for quite some time. It boiled to a head about 5-years ago, mainly because of a Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) report recommending 20% of all waters be closed to any type of fishing. Yes, it was preposterous recommendation being that the 20% they were recommending was the only water anyone really fished, and since then the environmental community has backed down, and the moderate ones have been trying to work with angling groups and those “moderate” angling groups have been receptive (eg. The Menhaden Matter coalition). Of course, working together has indeed been somewhat difficult when angling groups are comparing environmental groups to terrorists in their fundraising letters and enviro groups, in many instances, are publicly blaming anglers for the bulk of overfishing.
Fortunately, the debate over access and marine protected areas ignited by the NRDC report 5 years ago has largely subsided, although there is still much disagreement. But, there is another issue that has arisen creating more “hate-and-loathing,” mud slinging, and ridiculous rhetoric from both sides of the fence. The argument is over summer flounder (what we call fluke), and despite the fact that most flyrodders don’t target them, how things turn out with this fish will have large repercussions on how all sportfish will be managed in the future.
The Magnuson Stevens Act requires that fisheries management plans end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks within 10-years and that all management plans have at least a 50% chance of achieving their goal. That simply is not happening with fluke because managers have refused to make the difficult but necessary decisions required. And so, there is no other choice but to cut harvest back substantially in 2007 and this will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the party-boat industry in NY and NJ. That’s not good and I feel for those fishing charter captains that will suffer as a result. But, what is worse is the fact that some angling industry groups have joined forces with the commercial fishing industry and are exploiting the bad news by using the fluke situation to help promote efforts to remove the most effective conservation provisions from the Magnuson Act, an action which, if successful, would permit overfishing even of badly depleted stocks to go on indefinitely. The 10-year rebuilding time frame provision in the Magnuson Act may not be popular in some circles, but it assures that managers will rebuild stocks despite political pressure to continue overfishing.
But those conservation minded anglers like me (and probably you because you are taking the time to read this) who support the existing rebuilding time frames and real success rates are being labeled “environmental extremists,” “animal rights supporters” or “want to take you off the water.” That’s simply not true, and claims to this effect are cynical attempts by members of the angling industry to drive a wedge between the “environmental” community and anglers and to use that rift to raise more money for their own self-serving purposes. To throw environmentalists into the category of “extremists” or “animal rights advocates” is as wrong as PETA labeling an angler a “bloodthirsty killer.”
Yes, there are most certainly environmental extremists out there, but they’re the exception, not the rule, just as some angling industry groups that disguise themselves as representatives of individual recreational fishermen are one extreme of the angling community, and don’t represent the average conservation-minded angler like you and I.
Of course enviros are not squeaky clean in any sense of the word. Those regular readers of this site know that I’ve been steadfast in defending the enviro community in the past; however, I must admit that I continue to get more and more annoyed with them. In many cases, they fail to make a distinction between Anglers and commercial fishermen. For example, a Type 2 MPA that prevents bottom trawling–or perhaps all bottom fishing in order to protect deep-water species, but permits low-impact angling activities like catch and release could be a win-win situation for both sides, and might make the rare occasion when a complete closure is justified more palatable to anglers. Instead, there seems to be little effort to acknowledge the very real difference between gear types, and at times the enviro groups seem to go out of their way to poke a stick in the eye of the angling community (the Pew-financed paper emphasizing the impact of recreational fishing on fish stocks being a perfect example). Most anglers in the know are fully aware that they have an impact of fish stocks, but releasing an inflammatory report that drastically overstates this fact was just a bad move on the enviros side.
And, with the current fluke issue, enviros should consider trading a couple of more rebuilding years–which may well be biologically necessary anyway–for a lessened chance of weakening the Magnuson Act. If they remain too dogmatic, and don’t buy a compromise, they can end up screwing up things and pushing the mid-Atlantic angling community farther toward the extremist anti-enviro camp.
By taking some of the actions they do, which are perhaps aimed at the extreme and irrational branch of the angling community, the enviro groups anger all anglers while needlessly provoking the angling industry extremists into reaction. This sort of thing is poisoning the attitudes of the angling community as a whole. None of us–the enviros, the rational anglers or the resource– will benefit if it continues, yet I don’t expect anyone’s behavior to change. I’m not sure whether it is arrogance or just a strategic blind spot on the enviros’ behalf; but, if they don’t make a conscious effort to reach out to their natural allies among the sportsmen and if the sportsmen then, all of us are going to lose.
With out a doubt, sportsmen have historically been and continue to be the most effective leaders of the conservation movement, and enviros should acknowledge that. No one’s rhetoric, whether it comes from the envro side or the angling side should allow this to change. Stop bickering kids! Put the darn egos and ideology aside for the time being and think practically. Working together on the important fisheries conservation issues that could very possibly result in what the both of us want: Clean water and more fish in the sea.