Recent debates over whether Washington Trout is a friend or foe to fishermen prompted me to post this quote:


Environmental Groups: Friend or Foe - Sometimes it's hard to tell.
From the Fall 2001 MAKIN' WAVES Newsletter


In recent months environmental groups that once courted recreational fishermen calling us allies in conservation have struck out on courses of action that have left most anglers a bit bewildered and feeling disenfranchised. It seems that some eco-groups want our support and the benefit of our growing political influence for their pet issues, but when it comes to exercising a reasonable approach on issues affecting recreational fishing, they aren’t interested in our input or our concerns. Three current issues come to mind, one on a state level, another on a more regional scale and the last national in scope. What all three have in common is a lack of consideration for recreational fishing members and associated organizations that were considered an important part of the coalitions these groups forged. It appears that once some eco-groups get the bit in their teeth they have no problem leaving recreational fishermen standing in the wings, or even worse, out in the cold.

Grandpa,

I agree with the thrust of this article. What we are seeing is the classic case of divide and conquer. The Political Action groups, whether they be political parties or PAC's tend to give with one hand and take away with the other. A couple of examples:

The GOP fervently protects 2nd Amendment rights (good for hunters) while sysematically dismantling environmental safeguards (bad for the animals we hunt).

Washington Trout advocates on behalf of the wild fish (good for fishermen) while seemingly seeking to restrict fishing opportunity through the closure of hatcheries (clearly bad for the fishermen).

That is why all of these issues become so contentious. The line between support and opposition to a particular group is so very fine. When I say that at this point I support WT's efforts, it really means that the scale is balanced about 55% to 45%. I wish it were easy enough to analyze a group and their activities, maybe throw a judgement of liberal/conservative on them and go happily down the road feeling that "I've got it right". Unfortunately, all of these groups, whether they be Political parties or Action groups seem to do this on purpose. They all have an agenda, sometimes the agenda can be perceived as radical, and they seek to give their individual supporters just enough so their core is kept solid. And as far as they are concerned, that 55% to 45% that I mentioned above is enough.

I have seen that the polarization of our society is becoming more pronounced. There is so much noise out there (talk radio, internet, e-mail, advertising, etc.). So many of the noisemakers try to make things black and white. However, when you peel away the top layer of the onion, it just gets grayer and grayer.

Long-winded to be sure, I will probably continue to generally support the environmental groups (Sierra Club, Washington Trout, Mountaineers) but I do not do it as a robot. I will always try to look at the complete agenda and then make my decision. But, I realize that my decision of support or non will very often be a fine line. Gone are the days when the enemies were clear and the good guys always wore a white hat.

my my eddie you are up early...good points. There is most likely a way to preserve hunting and fishing and the environment at the same time. Lots of hunting and fishing groups do great things for the environment by reestablishing critical habitat. Sure they do it so they can hunt and fish but to me that is a balanced approach. To mount an "anti" campaign with no end game is questionable. That is why I ask about WT's end game. Is it to preserve wild salmon only? To help reestablish the wild runs of my grandpa's era? Or is it to oppose anything not in lock step with them? I don't know. Well I must go outside and freeze my butt off washing the boat...gotta get it ready for LaPush... Hey that reminds me of a success story: Halibut..As Terry Rudnick said at our last meeting: The good old days of halibut fishing are NOW....Well somewhere in the world it is 4:20...peace

Gramps get it right!

It's "Peace Out"

Here is a pretty good article about common ground, so to speak..

=============================
Environmentalist tries a new view -- from duck blind
Tom Stienstra
Sunday, December 15, 2002
San Francisco Chronicle


It was dawn at the marsh, where the hunter and the non-hunter were sitting side by side in a duck blind, each wondering what the day would bring.

The air was moist from a low fog, with scarcely a ripple of wind on the surrounding rice pond. A lone curlew sailed overhead. The hunter identified the bird against the dark sky, and admired its flying gifts as it passed. The non-hunter nodded, then cupped her ears to enhance a distant roar from thousands of squawking geese, maybe a mile away, blocked from sight by the dark mist.

"That's a magic sound," said the non-hunter.

"Geese, mostly snows," identified the hunter, "thousands of them, lifting off from the refuge. I love how they do that. When I hear that sound, I know that the day is waking up."

The non-hunter was Carrie Wilson, a marine biologist from Monterey. She is independent, intelligent and successful in her career, a proactive environmentalist. By observation, some might call her a feminist, though like many genuine articles, she doesn't need to shout it from the rooftops.

The hunter was Bob Simms, a master duck hunter and woodsman, who is occasionally hired by duck clubs to set up decoys and blinds and review their operations. On his popular radio show in Sacramento, he is an avid proponent of hunting as the most effective path to conserve wildlife habitat.

"I've never understood the appeal of duck hunting," Wilson said. "I want to see what it's all about. Why do people do this?"

BOTH IN SAME BLIND

To get Wilson and Simms in the same duck blind, Wilderness Unlimited provided access to one of its hunting properties in the Sacramento Valley. Wilderness Unlimited has leased 80 properties covering 300,000 acres in California, then offers limited public access to these lands for hunting, fishing and camping for a fee.

Most of their members are newcomers to the outdoors, and families who want to learn the outdoor skills in high-quality settings where instruction is available. Wilson, the non-hunter who relishes the wildlife experience, and Simms, the avid hunter with a zest for the life he has chosen, were joined by their love of wildlife and shared desires to protect wildlife for future generations.

The day started at 4:15 a.m., with Simms up and alert.

"Did the fog sit down?" he asked, curious and excited. "There were pockets last night so thick you couldn't see 10 feet."

A close look revealed that the fog was hovering about 70 feet above ground, high enough to allow the birds to fly under it, a good sign.

DAWN AT THE MARSH

We met Wilson at 5, and after a short orientation, drove out to the marsh, headlights boring holes in the light mist. We parked, dressed in waders and camouflage, uncased our shotguns and hiked out on a levee trail amid rice ponds to the duck blind, about a 20-minute clomp in darkness.

Wilson explained she spent the night in a small, spartan hunter's cabin, and then awoke with a jolt when the alarm went off.

"It was 4:15 a.m.," Wilson said. "The alarm went off, I got up and said to myself, 'Now what am I supposed to do? What I am doing awake in the middle of the night?' "

Simms laughed. "I've had that feeling a few times myself." As we reached the duck blind, he explained why it was critical to be in position well before dawn.

"What happens," Simms said, "is that the birds will spend all night feeding at the rice fields. At sunrise, they'll leave the rice, get up and fly over to the refuges, then spend the day resting there. So at dawn there is a period when thousands of birds will be in the air, on the move. That is your chance."

The duck blind consisted of a small tub shaped like a rectangle that had been sunken near water level on the edge of a marsh. Decoys had been set on each side of us in the rice ponds. As darkness turned to dawn, the fog layer dropped a bit, reducing visibility to about 100 yards, and Simms started quacking away on his duck calls.

"How many of those things do you have?" Wilson asked.

"Today? I only brought about 15 (including whistles)," Simms answered, then proceeded to explain how each is designed to deliver a slightly varied call for different species of ducks, and how he varies the pitch according to distance and purpose.

THE BIRDS ARRIVE

Right then, a northern harrier sailed overhead, a silhouette in the dawn sky. Simms was excited now, watching the birds. In the next half hour, there were curlew, blue heron, gulls and terns. Then, as Simms described the form of a giant egret in flight, behind him, a golden eagle cruised past, quiet and powerful.

A moment later, a ball of thousands of black birds arrived to the southwest, flying as if connected by telepathy.

"Listen to their wing beats," Wilson said, enjoying Simms' enthusiasm for the scene being played out before us.

"All those wings working at once sound like the whirring of an electric fan, " Simms answered, smiling, realizing that his non-hunting companion shared his love of wildlife.

A moment later, three green-winged teal emerged from the fog and burst over the top of us at about 50 mph. We ducked down, and Simms started calling them. At 100 yards, they banked, turned and returned, heading for the decoys. At 30 yards, we rose and fired with our 12-gauge shotguns. One of the teal fell and was quickly retrieved.

For someone who loves ducks so much, how do you deal with shooting them, Wilson asked Simms.

"I love hunting, start to finish," Simms said. "Taking a bird is part of it.

But it's not as important as some people make it out to be. The whole experience, the walk out to the blind, watching the sunrise, seeing the birds work . . . an occasional shot is no more important than any other element."

TOURING THE REFUGE

Later in the day, we toured the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, where there are literally thousands of waterfowl and raptors at every turn. This waterfowl habitat is paid for by hunters, Simms explained, which benefits hundreds of species of birds and other wildlife. "That is why without duck hunters paying for habitat, there would be far fewer wetlands and wildlife of all types."

Wilson agreed with that statement and theorized different ways how non- hunters who love birds and wildlife could also help pay for wildlife habitat.

After having taken part in the full experience, she was surprised it didn't bother her to see a duck shot from the millions that live here. "It isn't warm- and-fuzzy stuff," she said, then added with a laugh. "Actually, it's kind of cold."

Later she said. "It's stunning, really, how many birds are out here and how few are taken by hunters."

With one sweep of the eye, she took in a massive flock of 5,000 snow geese, then gazed with clear appreciation at Simms and his devotion.

"You know, I've known a lot of duck hunters and never really understood what they were about," she said, "But I get it now. After spending the day in this spectacular place, I understand the passions that drive these wacky people who love waterfowl." .

I think it depends on what the goals of the environmentalist groups are. I must make the note that 'environmentalist' does not equal 'animal rights activist' though there are some people who are both. On one hand, our goals lay alongside most environmental groups, on the other hand, some groups tend to want to get people out of the wilderness perminantly, and that's not good. But it's not going to do us any good to be suspicious of the movement as a whole, otherwise we may end up with no forests left to hunt and fish in, and the only running water going through culverts. I think we should take a guarded look at the groups individually, and not lump 'environmentalists' into one amorphous whole.

I see these groups as friends, until they take away my fishng, then they better watch their backs!

Jay