TRCP has a member in the Olympics!

Lowell Bailey, U.S. Biathlon Team, shooting

The TRCP is proud to have a member, Lowell Bailey of the U.S. Biathlon Team, headed to the Sochi Olympics! Photo courtesy of US Biathlon/Nordic Focus.

Not only is Lowell Bailey one of the top biathletes in the world, he’s a TRCP member!

If you’ve never seen a biathlon race, be sure to tune in to the Olympics. The sport is a combination of precision target shooting and long-distance Nordic skiing (while carrying your rifle). Americans have never medaled in this event. But this year, the team is stacked and ready to go.

We heard Lowell grew up in the Adirondacks, a conservation (and fly fishing) haven. So we chatted with him to learn more about the sport and talked about everything from custom rifles to fly fishing and even T.R.!

________________________________________________________________________________________________

TRCP: Biathlon is not a sport you hear a lot about. How did you get involved with it?

Lowell: I’ve cross country skied my whole life and began racing probably around 5 years old. When I was 13 or so I was asked to a talent ID camp in Lake Placid, N.Y. Well, you put a .22 in the hands of a 13 year old kid, and I fell in love with the sport right away.

TRCP: What do you like most about biathlon?

Lowell: Biathlon is unique because you have two entirely different sports that couldn’t be farther away from each other, and you have to figure out a way to make both of those sports work together. To have a good biathlon race you have shoot well and ski fast, and the pursuit of doing those two things is extremely challenging and extremely motivating.

TRCP: How does the shooting aspect of a biathlon race work?

Lowell: The shooting in biathlon is different from other competitive shooting sports. Because you’re racing, you’re always under the clock. A typical shooting stage lasts around 20-25 seconds. In that time you ski into the range, take your rifle off your back and get into position, take five shots and put your rifle back on. That all happens in 20-25 seconds.

TRCP: Wow. So, what’s the distance and size of the targets?

Lowell: There are two different positions in biathlon: prone, which is lying down, and standing. Prone position you’re shooting at a target roughly the size of an Oreo cookie from 50 meters. The standing target is a little bigger, roughly the size of a CD, because the standing position is less stable than the prone position.

TRCP: Here at the TRCP, we are a bunch of gun geeks.  Can you give a rundown of what you’re shooting?

Lowell: We shoot .22 caliber long rifles with iron sights, no scopes or anything like that. The rifles that 95 percent of the World Cup field uses are made by Anschutz, in Germany. They’re highly precise, accurate rifles. They weigh roughly seven pounds, and we wear the rifles on our back during the entire race. Each athlete’s rifle has a customized stock, made of wood or carbon fiber, that’s made to fit that athlete’s body type and shooting preferences.

Lowell Bailey, fly fishing

Lowell Bailey, fly fishing in his free time. Photo by Erika Edgley.

TRCP: We’ve been told you are an avid fly fisherman. How did you get into fishing?

Lowell: Well, I grew in the Adirondack Park, and as you may know, the Adirondacks has some of the best fishing in the country due to the fact that it protected as a state park. My parents always encouraged my sister and me to be outdoors, and fishing was something we just did for as long as I can remember. At some point I moved from spin casting to fly fishing, and now I do both. I’m lucky to live in Lake Placid where I can fish the AuSable River, which is a great trout stream.

TRCP: Do you ever get to go fishing while you’re on the road for competition or training?

Lowell: I do actually. I’ve fished a few times on the Traun River in Germany for rainbows and brown trout. Rudi Heger is a world renowned fishing guide out of southern Germany, and he’s also a big biathlon fan, so he’s taken me and some of my teammates out on a few different fishing excursions that were pretty amazing.

Rudi actually set up a biathlon/fly fishing competition, for a promotional video and just because it was funny. There were three athletes, and we skied with fly rods on our back up to the edge of this private pond that’s just chock full of rainbows. We had to quickly assemble our rods and the first person to catch a fish was the winner. It’s all on video somewhere…(It didn’t take us long to find this video…check it out here!)

Lowell Bailey, with trout

Lowell with a trout. Photo by Erika Edgley.

TRCP: How did growing up in the Adirondacks shape your views on conservation?

Lowell: I think that the Adirondacks is one of the more unique areas in the country because you have private land ownership within a state park, so development and the way you are allowed to use the land is highly regulated by the Adirondack Park Agency. As a result, we have this robust tourist industry that drives the local economy in Lake Placid and the surrounding areas, and it’s all because of conservation. We have mountains for people to hike in; we have lakes for people to fish on; the recreational possibilities in Lake Placid and the greater Tri-Lakes Region are really endless.

TRCP: Your sister leaked to us that you use a T.R. quote as your pre-race mantra. Which one?

That’s true. The quote is “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” I use that quote almost daily and definitely every time I go into competition. On the World Cup circuit, there are typically 25,000 to 35,000 spectators in the stands as well as media, coaches, other athletes. It’s a very distracting environment, and in order to maintain my

Lowell Bailey, U.S. Biathlon Team, Nordic Skiing

Lowell Bailey of the U.S. Biathlon Team, competing. Photo courtesy of US Biathlon/Nordic Focus.

focus I repeat that quote in my head while I’m warming up. It reminds me to stay focused on things I can control, and the things that I can’t control, they’ll be what they will be. The only thing that I can do at that given time, on that given day, is focus on the elements that I can control.

TRCP: Very cool. Lowell, we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. And we wish you the very best in Sochi.

Lowell: Thanks. I’m psyched the TRCP thought of me. I think what you guys do is awesome.

Follow in Lowell’s footsteps and become a TRCP member.

 

The first biathlon race of the Sochi Olympics will occur Saturday, Feb. 8. For the full schedule of biathlon events and to learn more about Lowell and the U.S. team, visit the Olympic biathlon website.

The State of the Union that sportsmen and -women would like to hear

Below is the State of the Union address that sportsmen and -women would like to hear.

My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk about what it is that makes America great and what we need to do to keep it great. And I want to talk about jobs.

America was built on the notion of rugged individualism, and no one personified this more than Theodore Roosevelt. But President Roosevelt, perhaps the nation’s greatest sportsman, understood that the nation’s resources – its lands, waters, minerals, timber, fish and wildlife – were not inexhaustible. Without proper stewardship, without conservation, we would abuse nature’s bounty and leave a legacy of extinction and pollution for future generations.

So Roosevelt did something about it. He created the core of our public lands network, conserving hundreds of millions of acres where anyone could hunt, fish, hike or just enjoy God’s bounty.

Hunters and anglers across the nation picked up on Roosevelt’s challenge and chose to pay – through excise taxes, licenses, stamps and other means – to ensure that this conservation legacy would be implemented, expanded and professionally managed. Today the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the envy of the world and is responsible for more than 40 million Americans getting outside to fish and/or hunt every year.

Our conservation system is the foundation of an outdoor economy that generates $646 billion in direct expenditures every year and supports more than 6 million jobs. These jobs are growing in number every year – more than 5 percent annually, even through the Great Recession – and they’re jobs that will never be exported abroad.

But as Theodore Roosevelt understood, we need to protect our conservation legacy from those who favor today’s bottom line over tomorrow’s collective wealth. We do not need to look very hard to see that the same forces that Roosevelt battled more than a century ago are still active today. Consider:

  • Those who would put the world’s largest open pit mine, which would require toxic remediation forever, in Alaska at the headwaters of the world’s most productive salmon fishery.
  • Those who would ignore the threat of a leaking chemical storage tank in West Virginia and what it might do to a river and the people who get water from that river, and yet who argue that the Clean Water Act is an inappropriate government intrusion on free enterprise.
  • And those in Congress who propose selling off our public lands, or who would mandate unsustainable resource extraction from the public’s lands, or who would limit the public’s legitimate voice in how our public lands are managed.

Today I am proposing a seven step plan to re-affirm America’s commitment to conservation.

  1. I propose to reinvest in conservation. Today conservation represents just about 1 percent of the federal budget, down from about 2.5 percent in the 1970s. By 2020, America should return to a conservation commitment of at least 1.6 percent of the federal budget, the same level it was in Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
  2. We must fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, State and Tribal Grants program, WaterSmart and the other programs that invest in on-the-ground conservation. Not only do these programs meet real needs and create jobs, they leverage more than three times the federal investment from state and private funds.
  3. We must commit to expanding public access for all Americans, including our hunters and anglers. We will fully fund the USDA Open Fields Program and LWCF and target the acquisition and easement funds to projects that help reconnect the public’s access to its public lands.
  4. We must pass a Farm Bill that rewards stewardship. America’s farmers are the most productive in the world and farmers are by definition land stewards. But if we incentivize poor stewardship, we have no one but ourselves to blame when we lose topsoil, foul our rivers, and watch pheasants and other species disappear. The new Farm Bill must help farmers and ranchers act as stewards through a robust commitment to conservation programs and by eliminating any programs that encourage unsustainable practices.
  5. We must balance energy production with conservation. In 2010, I proposed sweeping changes to how the nation does energy development on our public lands, and in 2014, I will finally implement those changes. All of them. In addition, we must recognize that renewable energy also has impacts. Wind farms and solar arrays must be sited in the right places, as must transmission corridors. We will invest in cellulosic ethanol and eliminate unwise mandates for additional corn ethanol production. We will do all this while recognizing that we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and challenge the rest of the world to do the same.
  6. We must invest in sustainable fisheries. America has done a remarkable job over the last decade of reducing overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish stocks but the time has come to invest in recreational anglers. Recreational anglers represent about half the economic benefit generated by our marine fisheries, but they are managed under a system almost exclusively designed for commercial fisheries. I call on my administration and Congress to work together to amend the current system so that broad social and economic benefits can be maximized while we maintain our commitment to conservation, thereby ensuring that future generations can enjoy catching and eating the ocean’s bounty.
  7. Finally, we must work together to address the oncoming water crisis. For California, that crisis is already here. For other states, it’s on the way. We need better water planning and a stronger investment in water conservation. I am not suggesting that we change the basic tenets under which water is managed, but unless we work together and with a sense of urgency, drought emergencies, dry rivers, lost fisheries and withered crops will be our legacy. We must also strengthen the Clean Water Act so that wetlands and streams can play their natural role in water conservation and ensuring water quality.

In closing, Theodore Roosevelt once said that “There can be no greater issue to this country than that of conservation.” He was right. The legacy we leave to future generations will define this generation. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, nor liberal or conservative. It is an issue that is core to what America is today and what it should be in the future.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Sportsmen Should Be Optimistic in 2014

No one will remember 2013 as a great year in federal conservation policy. Every day we lost more grasslands and wetlands in the prairies to agricultural development. Congress could not pass a Farm Bill and the administration would not use its powers to reverse or even slow the losses.

Sequestration indiscriminately cut more funds from already strapped federal agencies as Congress failed to pass normal spending bills. In fact, Congress’s political posturing led to a 16-day government shutdown, which happened to coincide with the beginning of hunting season in many states. While federal workers got back pay once the government reopened, the same cannot be said of the guides and local businesses impacted by the shutdown. Billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was wasted as most government activity came to a halt.

And comprehensive sportsmen’s legislation, once poised to pass Congress, was delayed in early 2013 when partisan politics again trumped good policy.

With this backdrop, it is remarkable that I look to 2014 with optimism. Why? Because the adults appear to be back in charge of Congress, and the administration seems to realize that it has less than three years to leave a conservation legacy. Some examples:

House and Senate conferees appear to be close to finalizing a Farm Bill that may prove to be one of the best pieces of private lands conservation legislation ever passed. If all goes well, it will come before Congress for a final vote by February.

Maybe we had to hit rock bottom before we could move forward. Few of us expect the next year to be free of acrimony and election year politics but, if events fall the right way, 2014 could prove to be a great year for sportsmen. It will take a strong commitment from all in our community to work together and make it happen.

As always, the TRCP and our partners will continue to advocate for legislation that strongly funds responsive fish and wildlife management, conserves important lands and waters and increases access for American hunters and anglers. Join us.

Coming to Justice

Photo courtesy of SC DNR

 

A couple of years ago, I wrote about four Maryland commercial netters – or should I say “poachers” – who were linked to illegally setting gill nets to catch tens of thousands of pounds of striped bass. The investigation was triggered by the discovery of an illegal net off Kent Island in the upper Chesapeake Bay in February of 2011. It turned up falsified catch documentation going back to 2007. Much of that illegal catch then was traced as being sold across state lines to New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Seemingly, that would violate the Lacey Act, which prohibits such actions.

In November a federal grand jury handed down an indictment on this long-pending case. The indictment alleges criminal conspiracy in the illegal catching of striped bass and the subsequent interstate sale of the illegal catch. My sincere hope is that these alleged criminals, masquerading as hard-working commercial fishermen, become wards of the federal government for a very long time. History, however, is not on the side of that outcome.

I applaud the Maryland Department of Natural Resources officers for putting a lot of long hours into researching this case. Their perseverance and dogged determination led to the indictment. Without their efforts it is likely that the alleged perpetrators would get only a slap on the wrist and have to pay a small fine, which only amounts to a cost of doing business. State and local judges have been reluctant to throw the book at this type of criminal activity. With this indictment, the case gets elevated to a federal court as a Lacey Act violation. That carries some real consequences.

Some might say that these DNR officers are only doing their jobs. Yeah, I get it. They are, but from my standpoint I don’t know what keeps them motivated when in the past their hard work has been largely disregarded by the state and local court systems. How many times have I read coverage about illegal fishing activities only to see those who got caught pay a small fine and be back at business as usual the next day. Why courts have been so reluctant to take a harsher stance is beyond me. Something akin to the three strikes kind of process would be a deterrent. First time … OK, it might have been a mistake, but a reasonable fine should get your attention. Second offense is not a mistake. You pay a hefty fine, do some jail time and lose your fishing permit for at least a year. Third offense: bye, bye. Pay a very hefty fine, do a big chunk of jail time and be subjected to a lifetime loss of all fishing permits.

I know, I know. Judges are very reluctant to take away someone’s ability to make a living. Can’t say that I understand why. I am unable to distinguish between stealing a public resource and robbing a 7-Eleven. The courts should understand that illegal harvest of common property resources takes away someone else’s ability to earn a living. It has a ripple effect far beyond the criminal activity itself.

I want to be sure that DNR officers, environmental police or whatever they are called in different states continue to be motivated to go the extra mile in pursuing a case. These folks are protecting our resources, and their job is not easy. In today’s world of bending way over backwards to protect the “rights” of the criminals, I wonder how we are trampling on the rights of the innocent – not to mention the condition of our resources. Too often, natural resource officers do whatever they can do to bring a case to justice, and all their work is negated by too light of a sentence. Those of us who would like to see our resources around for future generations need to support their good work.

The Great Conspiracy

In last week’s blog, as well as previous blogs, I have mentioned “The Great Conspiracy.” What finally dawned on me is that I have not really addressed what I am referring to in any of these blogs. I have done so in other writings.

We’ll have to start back a few years according to the “nattering nabobs of negativism,” a term popularized by then Vice President Spiro Agnew but actually written by New York Times columnist William Safire. According to the proponents of this conspiracy theory before President Obama was elected, the environmental community led by the Pew Environment Group, the Environmental Defense Fund and maybe the Walton Foundation was infiltrating the fisheries management system and positioning the likes of Dr. Jane Lubchenco to become the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Somehow they knew the outcome of the election, but we’ll put that aside. Pretty amazing stuff! They couldn’t have simply guessed right, it had to be some sort of backroom deal. Actually, isn’t there a lot of that in politics no matter which side one is on. Yeah!!!

Well, OK, I’m getting a little sarcastic, but it does take a fairly vivid imagination to pull all the pieces of The Great Conspiracy together. So the environmental nongovernmental organizations ended up on the right side of the election, which should not be too surprising to anyone, as they tend to be more liberal than conservative in politics. According to the believers, Phase 2 was put in place with the confirmation of Dr. Lubchenco, and now EDF was running all the Regional Fishery Management Council activities. I must have been on an anomalous RFMC.

Yes, we had a council member who worked for EDF, but I’d be hard pressed to find a major or, for that matter, minor, council action that had EDF’s fingerprints all over it. Too bad, actually, as some of the ideas proposed by the council member made a lot of management sense. Oh, yeah, catch shares. Well, we have to rewind the clock on that one as well.

The New England Fishery Management Council began the catch shares discussion in 2001, well before any NGO infiltration, and the rollout of more extensive catch shares was just an extension of that discussion. What happened at the NEFMC may not be typical of what happened at other councils, but I am familiar enough with other council actions to know that the NGO community was not railroading a lot of new council actions through the system. Was the environmental community part of the council process? Yes, of course it was. It is one of the three constituent groups represented on the council.

If we look at inside the Beltway (Washington, D.C., for those not familiar with the world of politics), the story is different. The NGO community has been very active in the political process. In fact, it has been extremely influential in the legislative process. Environmental NGOs were able to get much of what they wanted in the Magnuson- Stevens Act reauthorization passed in 2006 that included annual catch limits, accountability measures and the continuation of mandated rebuilding periods.

This is not meant to be a debate about the merits of those measures but a discussion about our political system. Let’s face it: the environmental NGO community has deep pockets to use in pushing for the issues it wants enacted. From my standpoint the community has been very effective at using that influence to get what it believes in. It also has been effective at working collaboratively. Is that a conspiracy? If it is then organizations like the National Rifle Association, the farm lobby and for that matter all of K Street are involved in serial conspiracies. I am not saying that I agree with all the outcomes. Unless we change the system, the environmental community is simply using it to the best advantage. Money talks and BS walks. Do we need to change the system? I tend to think so, but that is a discussion for another time.

I always have wondered what the response would be from those who think that the environmental NGO community is hell bent on eliminating extractive uses of the ocean environment, if these NGOs used all their clout to do what the conspiracy theorists want. Would there still be a hue and cry of conspiracy then? I doubt it. Folks would happily say that is just the way the system works.

Call me crazy, oblivious or naïve. I do not believe that all environmental NGOs are out to end fishing. Nor do I support all of their proposed measures. I do believe that most are interested in having sustainable resources for the future. They have some very substantial economic clout and are not afraid to use it. What the recreational fishing industry should do is to find a way to partner with them … or would some see that as conspiratorial?

Join the TRCP in Shaping a Future for Conservation

Every day, hunters and anglers see wetlands drained and buffer strips bulldozed – and valuable acres once enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program plowed into corn fields. Guides cancel hunts with their clients because there are so few birds – and the habitat needed to support them is quickly disappearing. 

Click here to see how you can help.

Read John’s story and support the TRCP’s efforts to mobilize leaders and get a full Farm Bill through Congress.

Ocean Planning Makes Sense

Photo courtesy of Flyfishinsalt.com

This is being written on what was going to be “Black Thursday.” The day the idiots in DC wanted to see what might happen if the United States welched on its promise to pay. Don’t get me started on this subject. Needless to say, in their infinite wisdom, they have kicked the can down the road for a couple of months, so we can ruin the Holiday Season listening to their partisan bickering.

Despite this aberrant behavior, the process of trying to have some control over the development of our territorial oceans continues. I know that some in the recreational fishing industry think that “ocean planning” is part of the great conspiracy to totally eliminate extractive activities like recreational or commercial fishing. They feel that this process is simply “ocean zoning” intent on removing fishing. Maybe it is and I am just too naive to see it, but there are too many signs pointing in other directions. First, I don’t believe in the great conspiracy theory and secondly, I think that doing some real planning makes a whole lot of sense and I understand that in that process there will be winners and losers. The best description, IMO, of how ocean planning should work is found on Sea Plan’s, an independent ocean planning policy group, website: “Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) aims to distribute and accommodate both traditional and emerging ocean activities to produce sustainable economic and social benefits while minimizing spatial conflicts and environmental impacts.  CMSP is an iterative process that uses the best available science along with stakeholder input to support integrated, adaptable, and forward-looking ocean management decision-making.”

The part of the process that I find objectionable is the building of more bureaucracy to complete this task. There are already agencies at the federal, regional and state level that deal with these issues. Do we need several layers of bureaucracy just to get these organizations to play in the sandbox together?

In any case, here in New England, we have the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC), which appears to be a regional version of the National Ocean Council (NOC). However, it was organized by the NE Governors about 5 years prior to NOC, which was established under an Executive order from President Obama and likely the genesis of the anti-ocean planning movement. Many feel that this was merely an end run around the failed legislation called Oceans 21. Again, maybe it was, but that does not negate the need for some real thinking about how we use our oceans. Things such as renewable energy development, at sea LNG terminals, pipeline construction, ocean mining, etc, etc are going to happen. In comparison to those industries, fishing doesn’t stand a chance. We would be road kill on the developmental highway without some controlling structure.

While, I don’t happen to believe that it is enough, fishing does have some representation at the Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) level. This is through a representative from the New England Fishery Management Council sitting at the RPB table. Yes, fishing is just one voice among many, but without any representation, there would be no chance.

Recently, a coalition of marine interests including SeaPlan, representatives of the boating industry, New England states and the state of New York, U.S. Coast Guard, and NROC conducted a survey titled Northeast Recreational Boating Survey. This effort was designed to get stakeholder input on how boaters use the Northeast waters. It was a very comprehensive survey that got input from 12,000 participants. The survey shows the importance of boaters who generated $3.5 billion in economic activity. A much older survey conducted by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) indicated that 75% of all powerboats were used for fishing at some point. I don’t know if that holds true today, but it indicates fishing is still a substantial part of this economic engine. The take home message is that NROC is concerned about the recreational fishing industry and how it fits into the planning process.

I am also aware of efforts that are being taken to reach out to individual anglers to get their input into the process. These are being developed as this is written. NROC also has made an effort to include the party/charter fishing industry as well. If they had no interest in the fishing industry, I doubt they would make this level of effort to include stakeholder input.

While there are and will continue to be concerns about the whole Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) area, the idea that this is simply an underhanded plan to end all fishing just doesn’t carry any water (pun intended). As users we need to be involved with this type of planning and we need to try to make sure that our access to marine resources is not compromised.

More Recreational Fishing Closures in South Atlantic Fishery

More waters could be closed to recreational fishing when the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council meets this week in Charleston, S.C.

 

On Wednesday morning, the council’s Snapper Grouper Committee will discuss whether closed areas are beneficial. Then the committee will consider the establishment of 12 new marine protected areas and habitat areas of particular concern and the tweaking of four current closed areas to increase the population of speckled hind and warsaw grouper.

The waters in question range from North Carolina to Florida. If everything that has been proposed is approved, the total amount of protected area would increase by a few hundred square miles. Whatever the committee decides, public hearings won’t be held until 2014.

I am not against having closed areas as long as there is a need for them and they protect the species in question. Unfortunately, the federal government has a track record of claiming a species is in dire need of protection and goes ahead with plans to close an area to fishing.

When anglers and, in the case of Florida, for example, biologists with the state’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission challenge that claim, the feds suddenly announce that the species in question is actually doing quite well and the closure is no longer needed.

Another problem with closed areas is they often prohibit all types of fishing. In the case of bottom-dwelling species like speckled hind and warsaw grouper, it makes sense to prohibit bottom fishing for other groupers and snappers because there is a chance of accidentally catching the species in question.

Not allowing anglers to troll or live-bait on the surface for species such as dolphin, wahoo and billfish, even though the chances of catching a grouper or snapper are between slim and none, makes no sense. In this case, the South Atlantic Council could allow trolling.

One other problem I have with closed areas is they rarely ever become open areas again, despite the promises of the reigning federal fishery managers. What often results is a perverse type of Catch-22.

If the protected area doesn’t work, the managers and environmental groups, many of whom believe that no one should be allowed to fish, will say that the area needs to be expanded to make it work better.

If the protected area does work, those same people will say that since it is doing such a good job of increasing fish populations, it makes sense to expand the area to protect even more fish from the hooks of recreational anglers.

Then there are the factors that do way more damage to fish and their habitat than recreational anglers, but are never considered, like fertilizer-laden runoff and minimally treated sewage.

In Florida, those things lead to algae blooms and bleaching of coral reefs, which negatively impact the juvenile fish that fishery managers are so concerned about protecting from anglers.

Of course, it’s a lot easier to tell anglers that they can’t fish somewhere than telling state, federal and municipal bureaucrats that they need to stop pumping fouled freshwater into our estuaries and the Atlantic Ocean.

For Your Information

More ‘no bottom-fishing’ preserves proposed for South Carolina, Southeast offshore

South Atlantic Fishery Council to discuss closing Georgetown Hole, other areas, to fishing

Fishy Business: Debates over Bluefin Tuna at ICCAT Annual Meeting

A School bluefin taken off Long Island with Capt. Chris Hessert of Manhattan Fly

Well it must be summer time, which is hard to tell by the current weather. Rain, rain, and more rain. It must be summer because the different sides are turning up the rhetoric for the annual debate on bluefin tuna. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) will be meeting in November, and the U.S. delegation is beginning to craft its position to take to the annual meeting.

The harvesting side of the resource users would like to see the quotas increased as, in their opinion, the western Atlantic stock is in reasonable shape and those who have sacrificed for so many years should get some benefit from that sacrifice. The other side says that the stocks are still at historic lows and need more protection if they are ever to recover. How can there be such a difference? It boils down to three differences of opinion in what is the “best available science”; recruitment age at sexual maturity; and one stock or two for management purposes.

Recruitment

The first is the question of recruitment and what is the correct recruitment scenario. Harvesters support a low recruitment scenario which, if correct, says that changes have altered the ability of these fish to reproduce at the levels they once did. This decrease in reproductive capacity means that the spawning stock biomass will never reach the size it used to be, so cutting quotas will not make any difference. The more conservative side supports the high recruitment theory which says that the stocks can recover to historic highs and that quotas should be cut in order to achieve these levels. There are some very well known scientists that support both sides of the question. I wish I thought that ICCAT could be the arbiter of this question, but it is highly likely they would support the harvesters.

Age

The next issue is the age at which bluefins reach sexual maturity. In the western  Atlantic it has been thought that sexual maturity was later than in the eastern stocks. If they reach sexual maturity earlier, then the fish add to the overall population sooner. Harvesters support the younger age at maturity. Those who are conservation minded do not.

Different Stocks

The last item is the concept of two distinct stocks, western and eastern. Some believe that they should be managed as one stock. Managing as one stock is less conservative for the western North Atlantic stock, and those who want to increase the quota embrace that concept.

So, on goes the argument as to whose science is the “best available.” If this argument about science does not make you nervous, then this should: ten northeast Senators and Congressmen are adding their “expertise” to the science debate by requesting a specific action from the head of the U.S. Delegation to ICCAT. These are the same members of Congress who cannot get the important issues resolved for our country, and now they are experts in fisheries matters. Yikes, I don’t know about you, but that makes me very nervous. Stand by and we’ll see where this one goes.

Further info:

Read the letter from 10 Members of Congress to Russell Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries and US Delegate to ICCAT

Read the letter from the Pew Charitable Trusts to ICCAT

Read the Pew document, “The Best Available Science on Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna”

Read “Response to PEW factsheet on ‘The Best Available Science on Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’”

 

“Rip” Cunningham, who got the nickname in infancy when he tore up everything in his crib, has applied the same energy to his work at Salt Water Sportsman. An accomplished writer and photographer, Cunningham has received several awards from the Outdoor Writers Association of America. His work has appeared in such magazines as Field and Stream, Rod and Reel, Gray’s Sporting Journal and Australian Boating. Among his many accomplishments, Rip was recognized as the Conservationist of the Year from both the International Game Fish Association and the Coastal Conservation Association of Massachusetts. “I’ve earned a living from fishing, and I believe strongly that people with an interest in a given area should give something back,” he says. “It’s rewarding every single day.” Cunningham received his MBA from Babson College in Wellesley, MA and his BA from Rollins College in Winter Park, FL. He has two grown children and four grand children and lives with his wife and hunting dog, Rocket, in Dover, MA and Yarmouth, ME. When he’s not fishing or working through the items on his wife’s “honey-do” list, Cunningham does some hunting, fishing, and skiing.

Lessons Learned Fishing for Red Snapper

Talking about fishing is great but it doesn’t hold a candle to actually getting on the water and catching fish.

After a month spent traveling to each of the five Gulf  states and asking fishermen to recommend the kinds of habitat enhancement projects and scientific data needed to make our fishing better, it was nice to jump aboard my buddy Capt. Peace Marvel’s new 31-foot catamaran along with a handful of other fishing junkies and head down river out of Venice, La.

Kirk Rhinehart, avid angler and biologist; wrote Louisiana’s coastal restoration master plan.

The crew and I had three goals. The first was to catch a lot of red snapper with a variety of baits on light tackle. The second was to get as much incredible footage as possible to make for a good episode of Louisiana Sportsman TV to air later in the summer. The third was to discuss TRCP’s work with its sportfishing partners to improve recreational fishing habitat and opportunities in the Gulf and beyond. We succeeded on all fronts.

Exchanging fishing stories along the way and eyeing a couple of stray thunderstorms lingering right off the mouth of the river, the 25-minute trek out of South Pass passed in a blink. Ten minutes after clearing the last channel marker, we had lines in the water and were reeling in beautiful eight to 15 pound red snapper.

The cameras rolled. The rods doubled. Smiles abounded and 10 red snapper quickly came over the gunwale.

Chris Macaluso and a snapper caught in 90 ft. of water less than two miles from the mouth of the Mississippi River.

We were fishing a ledge in about 90 feet. The water on the surface was dirtied by the spring rains from the Midwest pushing their way down the river but the massive school of snapper could be clearly seen on the sonar about 20 feet under the boat. More than 25 red snapper came to the boat after eating everything from cut bait to butterfly jigs and soft plastic grubs.

Capt. Peace then pointed the boat east in search of mangrove snapper and bigger red snapper at the South Pass 70 Block, a set of oil and gas platforms in 300 feet of water famous for holding a variety of reef fish as well as big blackfin tuna and wahoo at certain times of the year.

Free-lining chunks of cut menhaden, we quickly hooked into several sizeable mangrove snapper including an impressive 10.6 pounder as well as the rest of our 14 red snapper limit. Mixed in were a couple of 40-50 pound amberjack, two slightly-too-small cobia and a bruising 40-pound gag grouper. The AJ’s, cobia and gag all went back to swim another day. The snapper were destined for the grill.

The trip covered nearly every subject discussed throughout the five Gulf restoration workshops:

Red Snapper:

Clearly, red snapper are abundant in the northern Gulf, something all researchers and fishermen alike agreed upon. Still, there is so much uncertainty in the data regarding stock sizes, catch-and-release mortality and actual angler effort that red snapper seasons have become ever shorter over the last several years.

This year, Gulf anglers get just 28 days to harvest red snapper. Without a judge’s ruling that forced a uniform season for all Gulf States, Louisiana fishermen would have had just nine days from NOAA to catch and keep the highly-prized, hard-fighting, crimson delicacies in federal waters.

Lack of data and improving survival rates:

The same lack of data restricting red snapper harvest forced the release of the two amberjack that wore me out that day. The one that hit the free-lined chunk on the surface swam away with little effort after a bruising 15 –minute light tackle fight. The one that came from 200 feet down had to be vented and revived to be able to return to depth.

Reducing the impact of reeling reef fish up from the depths, technically called barotrauma, was discussed at length at the workshops. Finding the best methods to improve survival rates of fish brought up from the deep and getting more anglers involved can hopefully increase the access recreational anglers have to harvesting more reef fish.

Habitat:

Catching abundant red snapper and other reef denizens on both natural and man-made structures illustrated well the role that both play for the fish and the fishermen. Anglers across the northern Gulf fish rigs and artificial reefs extensively but much is still unknown about what materials make the best reefs and where it’s best to locate the structures. Meanwhile, federal energy policies are forcing the rapid removal of oil and gas platforms with little regard for the fish or their habitat.

The TRCP is working with its partners to try and find solutions to all of these issues. And, it’s very rewarding to be working with federal and state agencies to ensure wise investments of oil spill recovery dollars coming to the Gulf in order to find those solutions and make sportfishing sustainable well into the future.

The chance to experience what we’re all working to sustain has its rewards as well.