View Full Version : Must Read ESPN Story


sokinwet
02-08-2010, 10:48 PM
Wild connection
Radical preservationist group could have hand in management plan
By Robert Montgomery
ESPNOutdoors.com

Whether you're attending a magic show in Las Vegas or dealing with government, it's always a good idea to "watch the other hand" if you really want to know what's going on. Both magicians and politicians are masters of deception and misdirection.

That sad fact of life has become abundantly clear to the recreational fishing community, as its advocates intensify their efforts to keep public waters open and accessible to anglers. And as they push, they need anglers all across America to push with them.

Click here for archiveThis is necessary because, as ESPN previously reported, environmental/preservationist groups are pressuring Obama to by-pass Congressional oversight and act unilaterally in approving a management strategy for our oceans, coastal waters, and Great Lakes.

This comes at a time when the recreational fishing community had been led to believe that a public and transparent process would follow the recommendations of his Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and decisions would not be made without careful deliberation.

Because of administration ties to these groups and support for their agendas, issuance of an Executive Order almost certainly would mean closure of public waters to recreational fishing under the guise of a "spatial planning" strategy.

It also would mean that the administration successfully deceived the angling community that a fair and open process would be used to develop a management plan.

To speak out against issuance of an Executive Order, go to the Keep America Fishing web site and send a letter to Obama, your elected officials, and the task force.

"Clearly the environmental community is making a push on this," said Gordon Robertson of the American Sportfishing Association. "We can't let just their voices be heard. We must make them listen to the recreational fishing community as well."

In response to this concern, Andrew Winer, a spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told angling advocates, "I want to assure all of you that the rumor remains incorrect and that there is no plan to issue an Executive Order before the public comment period is closed."

The big problem with that is deadline for public comments on the task force's management framework proposal is Feb. 12.

"If an Executive Order were to be issued — and we hope that it won't be — it shouldn't be for months," said Gary Kania of the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation. "A deliberative process is needed before decisions are made, with consideration given for all of the comments that have been made.

"We're meeting with the members of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus to raise this issue. Enhancing Congressional oversight is what's needed. Let's get them involved in something of this scale."

And while anglers seem to have been deceived about the fairness of the process, they have been misdirected as well. While they have focused their energies solely on dealing with the task force, a federal agency has been conspiring with a low-profile, but radical preservationist group, The WILD Foundation, to create a "marine wilderness" management plan that very well could interconnect with the task force.

WILD's objective: "We believe that at least half of the Earth's surface (land and water) needs to be permanently protected in an essentially wild condition, in a manner that keeps all of life interconnected."


Its partner: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


If WILD has its way, anglers would be denied access by motorized boats to half of the nation's oceans, coastal waters, and Great Lakes, with the way opened via the task force for similar limitations on inland waters.

"You could have to paddle for two miles to fish in a marine wilderness area," Robertson said.

Here's what WILD says on its web site:

"WILD has teamed up with its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) colleagues to work closely in seeking public input, with WILD spearheading the non-governmental community through the MWC (Marine Wilderness Collaborative, and the USFWS driving government agency participation through the Intergovernmental Working Group on Marine Wilderness."

The recreational fishing community didn't learn of this partnership until early February, although WILD posted information regarding the project on its web site on Dec. 18.

"It's standard procedure for the Fish and Wildlife Service to reach out to non-governmental organizations for partnerships," Kania said. "But this is a pretty radical agenda that the WILD Foundation is proposing.

"What we want to know now from Fish and Wildlife is how long we have to comment on this."

In trying to keep anglers out of vast areas, what WILD and other groups fail to grasp is "how conservation works," Robertson said. "It's paid for by the people most interested in it. If they can't be involved, they'll be less interested, and the end game would be much less investment in fisheries management."

Through license fees and excise taxes on fishing equipment, anglers contribute millions of dollars annually for fisheries research and habitat improvements, as well as coastal wetlands planning and restoration. Additionally, they assist resource agencies in numerous ways, including data collection to determine status and management strategies for sport species.

Denying access to the nation's 60 million anglers not only would collapse this life-support system for our fisheries, it would devastate the economies of communities dependent on recreational fishing. Just as importantly, it would do irreparable harm to a family-oriented pastime that keeps us in touch with and appreciative of the natural world.


As a Senior Writer for ESPN/BASS Publications, Robert Montgomery has written about conservation, environment, and access issues for more than two decades.

PRBuzz
02-09-2010, 06:19 AM
More about WILD:

The WILD Foundation - Marine Wilderness CollaborativeFe (http://www.wild.org/main/policy-research/marine-wilderness-collaborative/)

numbskull
02-09-2010, 07:00 AM
As much as this issue concerns me, I can see a very valid argument for restricted use areas.

Would the nation be better off with no National Parks?
Would the nation be better off with no wilderness areas?

I think we have to ask why the coastal ocean would be better off without the same.

The issue (for recreational fishermen) is not so much the creation of such areas...it would probably be good.....it is the access and rules of use that occur in such areas. To date fishermen have fought the idea and had no voice in what occurred when they lost. It becomes fishermen against the environmentalists, but the general public feels better protecting the soft fuzzy fish than worrying about how many tons of bass they can eat. Hence all fishermen lose.

I think this may be an issue where recreational interests are very different than commercial interests (people have an interest in being able to visit and use Yellowstone without being able to build hydro-thermal plants, motels, drugstores, and sports stadiums there).

The instinct is for fishermen, commercial and recreational, to stand as one and fight these enviro crazies. The smarter move is probably for recreational interests to join with the saner parts of the environmental interests and work out some compromise that allows continued recreational access with greater limits on environmental impact. Yeah this means throwing commercial interests under the bus, and obviously there is a chance to get burned when you make a deal with the devil, but such is the lot of us recreational schmucks and not every "environmentalist" is an extremist.....not by a long shot.

I don't, however, see that happening since there is no well organized recreational fishing voice/lobby (the RFA is a trade lobby). Ultimately the recreational fisherman will just end up poorer as a result. Same as it ever was.

Raven
02-09-2010, 07:07 AM
they will create a nation of terror

here is JAD -with a friggan orangutan http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/JAD.png

JohnR
02-09-2010, 08:18 AM
Site is for sale, I'm taking up ^#&%@ Golf.

Backbeach - you give lessons, right?

Sashamy
02-09-2010, 09:44 AM
well they can shut down the fedral stuff but states rights will prevail when it comes to trying to close down sections of this state...meaning the state will have the final say in what gets shut down...

Sashamy
02-09-2010, 09:48 AM
Lets not forget that you can travel, fish, hike, hunt(in some), bike, camp in most if not all National Parks, they were set aside by I believe Roosevelt to protect our wilderness but also for people to enjoy...If WILD has their way there will be no transit, swimming, diving, fishing of any kind...it is ludicrous, I can see setting up different sanctuaries and closing down dragging and dredging...but a fishing rod never had a bad impact on any fishery...Doug

numbskull
02-09-2010, 12:29 PM
WILD won't have their way anymore than the commercial interests that want unfettered access to any size fish, anywhere, in any amount. Both are extremes. The end result will be somewhere in the middle. But, for better or worse, the middle is not likely where we are now.

gone fishin
02-10-2010, 09:47 PM
Lets not forget that you can travel, fish, hike, hunt(in some), bike, camp in most if not all National Parks, they were set aside by I believe Roosevelt to protect our wilderness but also for people to enjoy...If WILD has their way there will be no transit, swimming, diving, fishing of any kind...it is ludicrous, I can see setting up different sanctuaries and closing down dragging and dredging...but a fishing rod never had a bad impact on any fishery...Doug

Sas..you would do well reading the posts on many forums regarding the closure of National, State and any other areas where extremes are trying to separate our use of the land for all types of reasons. One being a favorite of national groups such as Audubon to close all access to the shores because of real and invented endangered species.

quick decision
02-11-2010, 06:08 AM
I just cant believe this would happen. And to think the licience fees are helping to pay for some of it.:smash: