My fishing buddy asked them this good question:

Wow… Am I reading this right? Are you guys really taking what is essentially RFA’s position on this? It almost appears that we’re justifying/lending support to that ridiculous protest to weaken Magnuson Act? At first read, this looks like a great big sellout. What the F happened? Did the org’s spine disappear with Walter Fondren’s death? Upsetting to say the least… It appears you guys have no direction at all here. Maybe you can clarify your position, because I don’t get it. It appears there really isn’t an org out there for the conservation minded fishermen anymore. What a shame.

From: ASA Communications [mailto:ASAComm@asafishing.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:37 PM
To: ASA Communications
Cc: ASA Communications
Subject: Coalition Calls on Administration to Make Marine Fisheries Management Changes

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Contact: ASA, Mary Jane Williamson, 703.519.9691, x227; TBF, Ellen Peel, 954.202.9267; CCC, Jeff Angers, 225.382.3755; CCA, Ted Venker, 281.953.6614; IGFA, Jason Schratwieser, 954-927-2628

NMMA, Christine Pomorski, 202.737.9774

Sportfishing Industry and Partners Call on Administration to Make Major Marine Fisheries Management Changes

Immediate administrative action needed to avoid significant problems with fisheries management

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 23, 2010 – Today, a coalition of marine recreational fishing, boating, and conservation organizations and businesses called on the Obama administration to take immediate action to address a crisis within the federal fisheries management system. In a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), The Billfish Foundation (TBF), the Center for Coastal Conservation (CCC), the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the International Game Fish Association (IGFA), and the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) laid out an initial framework to immediately address serious and escalating problems resulting from inadequate implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the chronic problems that exist within the federal marine fisheries management system.

The coalition emphasizes that there are available administrative actions that can be taken right away to address the concerns of the sportfishing and boating industries and the nation’s 13 million saltwater anglers who depend on well-managed, healthy marine fisheries. Read the full letter sent to Dr. Lubchenco here.

Given NOAA’s recent ban on recreational fishing for red snapper from North Carolina through Florida and the potential for additional bans on key recreational saltwater fisheries, much of the frustration that exists in the grassroots recreational fishing community over these management decisions has boiled over into organized protests including, one being held Wednesday, February 24, in Washington, D.C.

With today’s letter, the coalition called upon the administration to:

• Take decisive, immediate action to improve recreational fisheries data by redirecting existing funds and personnel to focus on real-time management data.
• Collect socio-economic data on recreational fishing in the communities most likely to be impacted by near-term or expected fisheries closures.
• Provide federal level direction to the fishery management councils to use common-sense in their management approaches while the administration collects the requisite data to make sound management decisions.
• Develop a recreational fishing program and staff within NMFS commensurate with the national economic contribution of recreational saltwater fishing.

The coalition’s groups look forward to working closely with the Obama administration and NOAA to implement solutions to effectively deal with our nation’s marine fisheries resources.

Below are comments made today by the coalition’s group leaders:

American Sportfishing Association

Mike Nussman, President and CEO

“We support healthy fisheries and good fishery management. It's good for anglers, our business and our economy. We’ve developed common-sense administrative and appropriations proposals that address the need for timely, accurate data while preserving efforts to rebuild our marine fisheries. We see these as a starting point for actions that must be implemented to address the short and long term problems.”

“Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is crisis management rather than fisheries management and this must stop before more jobs are lost and more of the nation’s recreational anglers are unnecessarily shut out.”

The Billfish Foundation

Ellen Peel, President

“Stock assessments for recreationally important species have been a lower priority for NMFS than is justified by the economic contribution of the recreational fishing community. Recreational fishing accounts for only three percent of the marine finfish harvested by weight, yet it produces 56 percent of the jobs from all saltwater fisheries.”

The Center for Coastal Conservation

Jeff Angers, President

“The groups represented in this effort are demanding conservation-oriented measures that deliver the best possible opportunity not only for America’s anglers and the businesses that depend on them, but also for America’s marine resources to achieve their fullest potential. We expect to see the same commitment from NMFS. Their failure to do so has led to the current crisis of confidence and is threatening to bring the entire system to a standstill.”

The Coastal Conservation Association

Pat Murray, President

"There is a great deal of frustration among recreational anglers, much of it attributable to an agency that doesn't have the data, the science or the will to properly manage us. Recreational anglers have always been willing to do what is right to maintain healthy marine resources, but it is hard to have faith in many of the management measures we are seeing out of NMFS right now. There is a better path than the one they are on."

International Game Fish Association

Rob Kramer, President

“We must deal with the unintended consequences of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. We hope that our recommendations will help to get this agency, on which 13 million recreational saltwater anglers depend, back on track.”

National Marine Manufacturers Association

Thomas J. Dammrich, President

“NOAA Fisheries’ severe restrictions on recreational fishing are a direct result of the agency’s failure to collect important data on these fisheries, including the impacts of recreational fishing and boating. Unless NOAA takes quick and decisive action to improve its data and management of recreational fisheries, these large-scale closures will drive down boat sales and negatively impact U.S. marine industry jobs.”

--

ASA Communications

American Sportfishing Association

225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 420

Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 519-9691 ex. 222 asacomm@asafishing.org

Here’s an interesting email exchange I just had with Igor Sikorsky III of Maine’s famous Bradford Camps--a thoughtful and committed char advocate working to restore char and brook trout to Big Reed Pond. Posted at his suggestion:

Editor

Fly Rod and Reel Magazine

February 9, 2010

Re: Recent Maine Charr article by Ted W.

Greetings,

I would like to update certain critical information of T. Williams article: ³Wither Maine Char². I am involved in the project as a private businessman, and own the sporting camps adjacent to Reed Pond.

Mr. Williams¹ information is out of date by about a year. Twelve months ago things did look bleak indeed. Since then the 2009 netting and captive breeding effort resulted in more female and male charr to spawn in captivity, and because of that there are almost 1,800 alevins, or sac fry,

that are progressing nicely, well beyond last year¹s age class. Once these fry begin to feed on their own another huge hurdle in the project is past. Also, as expensive as the project is and will be, the budget is largely complete, a lot of the funding is secured, and prospects are looking ³quite favorable², financially speaking. The permit applications are complete; the Notice of Intent to file is finished. The next step is for Maine IF&W to complete the written plan for restoration of Reed Pond; the goal is to have broad-based support for the project.

Restoration of Reed Pond is a huge project, the largest and most difficult reclamation of this type that Maine has ever done. Monday morning quarterbacking will always come up with better timelines and better ideas.

But the correct solution is near completion and the future of native Reed Pond charr and brook trout is optimistic. We should all be supporters at this point! Suggesting that federal intrusion using the Endangered Species Act will be the panacea is not necessary, and would be detrimental.

Thank you,

Igor Sikorsky, III

Bradford Camps

ps. I would appreciate it if this letter, or at least the corrections to

TW's article, could make it's way into next month's issue. Thanks you in

advance. Please call or write with questions.

-----

Thanks Igor. This is great news! Unfortunately, our lead time is such that I had to get the piece in before the 2009 batch of eggs hatched. In that regard at least, you are correct that the piece is out of date--but hardly by a year. Not sure what “corrections” you have in mind, unless you mean an update about the successful hatch. I certainly agree with you that Endangered Species Act protection is not a “panacea,” but I’d be interested to hear why you imagine it would be “detrimental.”

Best,

Ted

-----

Hello Ted,

The issue for me on the article is that it is so negative at a critical time for the project. All of the "ducks" are in a row and what is most important now for REED POND CHARR is for the fishing community to be in agreement.

My letter was an attempt to get the article's tone swung more in favor of the project. To me the article was more of an editorial. This is fine, except there IS much more to be enthusiastic about than the article suggests. My word "correction" was born of a bit of frustration, and I should have used "late breaking news" to update your readership.

The successful charr fry is obviously worthy of note. The funding issue is also worthy of note, in particular because your article concluded that federal money was what is needed. While the project is certainly not fully funded yet, big pieces are coming into place, and strong momentum is apparent. Finally, the article lambastes TNC for requiring redundant studies and "not understanding" rotenone. I look at TNC this way: they are big, highly green/conservationist, and they rely exclusively on donations. We all know chemical reclamation is the right thing to do, but when a donor comes to TNC and says, "Where's the baseline study for amphibs on this? What other studies show that this was the only way to go?" they'd better be ready. TNC was just doing its homework. I cannot speak for them, but with a quick call you could get TNC to weight in now, if you are considering putting some of my thoughts to ink. Their support, albeit cautious, of the Reed Pond Project has come at a good time.

I am not knee-jerk-against the ESA. The issue here is that we are so close. If FRR, or TU or whomever want to shoot for ESA for the Maineblueback, fine. I am just saying it would be really bad timing to head that way now. For the sake of the Reed Pond Charr, let's all be on the same side. It is the best thing for those fish at this point.

Respectfully,

Igor Sikorsky

-----

Hi Igor, and thanks for getting a back to me.

I’m sorry you found the tone “negative” because no one in New England is more enthusiastic than I about reclaiming Big Reed with rotenone. What I’m negative about is the public’s general lack of concern for char and anglers’ enthusiasm (and IF&W’s craven albeit grudging acceptance) of expensive, counterproductive non-solutions like splake stocking and smelt control. The lead time for bimonthlies can be frustrating. Many times a story that I broke is old news by the time it appears in FR&R or Audubon. For example, when I interviewed Frank Frost on October 16, 2009 IF&W did not have funds for reclamation nor live blueback fry. I thought I was gentle and fair with TNC; and I certainly didn’t “lambaste” it. I noted that, unlike so many enviro organizations, “TNC is open-minded [about chemical piscicides] and passionately committed to restoring the pond’s native ecosystem.” However, I thought it was important to nudge TNC by accurately reporting that its “homework” has been done dozens of times. The studies are out there. Char don’t have time for TNC to re-study studies that were redundant a decade ago. By the way, frogs and toads aren’t affected by rotenone as adults and only marginally affected as larvae. Species in Big Reed are very secure statewide; and rotenone would be applied after tadpoles metamorphose. ESA protection isn’t just for Big Reed; it’s for all Maine char. Other ponds need it more.

Best,

Ted

----

Hi Ted,

Thanks for spending time with me on this. I would like to say that the article came across as negative to the people I have talked about it with.

There was a time, three years ago, when the DIFW held a public hearing about the project. That was when the four options came up: 1-do nothing, 2-stock with trout and let the BB fend for themselves, 3-stock with splake in the HOPES this would help, and 4-chemical reclamation. I was livid with them and made it clear that saving the native fish is the only way to go. (You are right, the DIFW was reluctant, and not courageous at that time. The splake stocking option was abhorrent.)

At that meeting, the rotenone option was adopted by DIFW, 3 years ago. They have not dragged their feet on it, they have worked hard, and spent big money so far. I have provided all of the flying services for the project, because it is inaccessible by vehicle. In fact, all of the chemicals, over $10,000 worth, will have to be flown in.

You are also right, the DIFW did not have funds for the project last October. If you asked Frank Frost today if he has the funding for the project, he will still say no, not completely. But if you asked him if he was confident that funding will come through, he would say yes, he is. Two different ways of spinning the news.

I read your TNC paragraph completely differently. You write "TNC doesn't understand...organic pesticides" giving me the impression that they are against them altogether. They were very cautious at one point perhaps, but now I would say supportive. Again, I ask you to consider calling them for an update.

(I only used the amphib scenario as a typical question that an uninformed TNC donor might ask. I am clear on the impacts, but most TNC members are not. TNC needs to make sure it has all its tools for handling the education of their followers, is all I meant. It is cautious thinking, but necessary for them.)

I know ESA has incredible power to make things happen. The overall point of my writing to you initially was to convince you that for Reed Pond, the ball cannot roll any quicker right now, and a new player with that kind of influence will upset the momentum of some very hardworking and pivotal people. The fry in their holding tank could not be in better hands. In general, Maine charr may deserve ESA oversight; other ponds may need it more. That is a different issue than the end game playing out at Reed Pond right now.

Will you consider updating your readership with the progress of the Reed Pond Project (fry, funding, and TNC)? A short note in the next issue? Again, I really appreciate your time with me on this.

----

Hi Igor.

Thanks; and by the way, I’ve long wanted to stay at Bradford Camps and very nearly did this year with my pal Charles Gauvin.

Thanks for your concern. We’re pretty much on the same page here.

Yeah, IF&W chose rotenone as its “preferred alternative.” But as of last October smelt control and splake stocking were still on the table as options. IF&W knows very well that taking out a few smelt with nets or splake can’t possibly work and hasn’t ever worked. It has failed everywhere it’s been tried (Thissle Pond, for example). It’s pure quackery; and the agency threw it out there in a craven and wrong-headed attempt to appease Maine’s ubiquitous barroom biologists. By doing so IF&W deluded TNC into believing that there is such a thing as a non-chemical option.

Well, maybe ESA protection will come after we restore Big Reed. The money, manpower and enforcement potential of the USFWS is impressive. And saving char will be a lot easier than saving U.S. Atlantic salmon, which maybe impossible anyway.

I hope I got through to TNC. I lectured them on the phone as well as in print. And if they got the message from me, you or someone else, I’ll give them the credit they deserve. And I’ll update the piece as the story unfolds. I doubt we can get anything in the next issue, but maybe the one after, if my editor is willing. And I can get anything up on our website in minutes. Let me know if you’d like me to post our correspondence.

Best,

Ted

-----

Hi Ted,

Boy, I am getting quick feedback here! Thanks, I can see this project is important to you as well.

I am certain that splake have not been an option for years. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between you and Frank on that one.

Ah, the barroom biologists! For instance, I have spent countless hours trying to convince people, mainly a few of my guests, that smelt in small trout waters are the worst. No amount of effort will sway some from the belief that more-is-better, when it comes to bait.

The IFW/TNC relationship on this issue is not as obtuse as you say. Sure, IFW could have lobbied TNC harder in favor of chemical treatment, but in the end TNC has to come to their own conclusions.

If at all possible, while the news is still fresh in reader's minds, I wish a note could appear in Letters to the Editor:

"Dear FRR,

The Reed Pond project has had recent success with the captive breeding program. There are currently 1,797 healthy fry, and they should start feeding on their own soon. Funding and permitting are also further along. Broad support will help to bring success for this project, and I encourage people interested to become involved. Perhaps FR&R's website can keep everyone informed and up-to-date. This project is amazing in its scope, and I am honored to be a part of it.”

Thank you,

Igor Sikorsky

----

Hi again Igor: It depends what you mean by “option.” No miscommunication with IF&W, but some between you and me perhaps. Here, in part, is the existing draft plan that was written only last June and that I received from IF&W in October”:

“A working group of interested parties and fisheries professionals has met regularly (Appendix I) since July 2006 to discuss ongoing fieldwork, the present status of the fish populations, and potential strategies for management. Representatives of IF&W and TNC met in 2006 to discuss several options for future management of BRP. The options available were: 1) no action – continue to monitor fish populations; 2) use of hatchery fish as supplementation or to control smelt population so as to increase brook trout and Arctic charr recruitment; 3) chemical reclamation – with re-establishment from captive gene pools to conserve genetic make-up of populations; and 4) long-term mechanical control of the smelt population….

Option 1. No action

Option 2. Use of hatchery fish for supplementation

Option 3. Use of hatchery fish (hybrid charr [i.e., splake]) as smelt control

Option 4. Chemical reclamation with rotenone

Option 5. Mechanical control of smelt.”

IF&W goes on to explain that rotenone is its preferred alternative. What it failed to explain in the document, to me and to TNC (and has failed still) is that rotenone is the ONLY alternative.

I agree with you that TNC has to “come to their own conclusions,” but after three years of endless talk and restudy it had not done so when I interviewed Royte in October. I think TNC would have come to its own and correct conclusions if, back in 2006, IF&W has been honest and said: “Look the only chance we have to restore Big Reed’s char and brook trout is to rotenone out the smelt. There is no non-chemical option. That’s a pipedream.” Instead, it has given TNC false hope and sent it on a endless hunt for holy grail.

I’ve emailed your note to the editor and feel confident that he’ll get it into the letters section. Would you like me to post it on our website as well?

Thanks for your good work on behalf of these fish. Maybe I’ll fish over a restored blueback population with you one day. I devoutly hope.

Best,

Ted

The MA Joint Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment will soon take action on H796 the striped bass game fish bill. Last month there was a committee hearing that was very lightly attended by legislators, so they are still very much open to public input. Let’s let them know what we think!

It is known that striped bass are worth many times more per pound taken recreationally then commercially – even when released – and that the recreational fishery in MA produces almost 20 times as many full time equivalent jobs. Stripers Forever members and lobbyists have constantly been making these and many other points to legislators during the last year and a half. No comments, though, are as important as those of you the constituents of these legislators, or you the person who comes to MA from away in order to fish for striped bass. There are many more of us associated with the recreational fishery, and we represent many times more the number of legislators than do the commercial striped bass fishermen. There is no reason why we should suffer “the tyranny of the few”.

We are asking you at this important time to contact or recontact every member of the Committee as well as your own legislator. Remember, a letter sent by postal mail is best, but an e-mail is far better than no comment at all. Phone calls to their offices are also great.

This link http://www.mass.gov/legis/ will bring you to a website that has complete information about how to contact any legislator in MA by mail, e-mail or phone. Representative Matt Patrick Rep.MatthewPatrick@hou.state.ma.us, the prime sponsor of H796 has asked to be copied on your e-mails or letters so that he can further strengthen our case with other MA legislators.

Here is a sample letter that you can send. Writing something in your own words, though, is even better.

Dear Representative or Senator…

I urge you to vote for H796 a bill that would designate striped bass as a game fish in Massachusetts state waters. Here is why:

• Professional studies show that recreational fishing for striped bass provides many times more economic activity and jobs than does the commercial fishery.
• Striped bass, after a population collapse in the 1980s, are again in trouble. The commercial fishery wrongly focuses on the prime breeding age female fish.
• Recreational striped bass fishing has made Cape Cod and the Islands a prime destination for traveling fishermen. Many guides are employed by this fishery.
• Massachusetts would join Maine, NH, and CT as New England states that have protected striped bass from commercial exploitation.
• Striped bass are an important recreation for me personally, and the quality of that fishing is deteriorating.
• Striped bass migrate to Massachusetts from Chesapeake Bay, and are known to be heavily contaminated with mercury, PCBs, and a flesh-eating disease called mycobacteriosis. The Environmental Defense Fund says that no one should consume these fish. People buying these fish assume that the government has tested them and they are safe. This is not true.
  

Fishing for striped bass is an important recreation for me and the quality of it is slipping away rapidly. I urge you to vote for H796 and make striped bass a game fish today.

Sincerely;

For additional information this link will take you to a letter posted on the SF website that Representative Matt Patrick recently sent to members of the Massachusetts legislature commenting on the committee hearing and the importance of passing H796. You may want to read it before finalizing your comments to legislators.

Turn up your volume:

There are currently 88 million pet cats in the U.S. according to a pet trade association, and that number is growing. In addition, it is estimated that there may be 60-100 million free-ranging feral cats in the U.S., and that these cats may collectively kill more than one million birds each day. Reducing this mortality even a small amount could potentially save millions of birds each year.

Studies by veterinarians indicate that only one-third of cat owners currently keep their cats indoors. To increase that percentage, American Bird Conservancy has been conducting a Cats Indoors! Education campaign utilizing our communications networks, downloadable materials on our website, and a printed Cats Indoors! Brochure. This is a popular item at veterinarian’s offices that can be tailored with the logos of BCA members.

The feral cat problem is a growing challenge because a number of organized cat enthusiasts are successfully promoting trap, neuter and release programs that usually perpetuate the existence of feral cat colonies. Under a trap, neuter and release program, feral cats are trapped, neutered and released to parks, neighborhoods, city streets, or even wild lands.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that these programs usually fail to eliminate feral cat colonies because not all of the cats can be captured and neutered, and because the cat colonies become dumping grounds for unwanted cats. In addition, the cats living at these colonies often suffer from disease, exposure, predation, and collisions with cars.

Cat enthusiasts are pushing to make trap, neuter and release programs standard practice in towns, counties and states across the country. When TNR is formally adopted by cities and counties, laws are usually changed to accommodate the practice, leaving public land managers and private property owners without recourse to deal with problems associated with unowned cats.

Although often promoted as a way to reduce the numbers of stray and feral cats, many of the organizations lobbying most heavily for adoption of TNR programs have the clear objective of normalizing cats in the landscape, that is, redefining feral and stray cats as “community cats” or even “wildlife.” This is part of a coordinated effort to achieve “no kill” in animal shelters, without making provisions for appropriate care of these cats. As a society we do not expect to solve dog overpopulation problems by simply turning unwanted dogs loose onto the streets; the same should be true for cats. http://www.youtube.com/abcbirds#p/u/1/-fvN7FNUPas

Scott Church has been kind enough to archive almost all my past articles. This was out of the blue. Thanks so much Scott! I really appreciate this. Remember I owe you a few striper trips to Cape Cod or albie trips to Montauk or, preferably, both.
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/ted-williams-archive.aspx