Northwest Fishing Reports

I just stumbled across this on another forum. If it is on Shimano's website then it looks like it is pretty legit. I already sent my letter I hope the rest of you will do the same. Check it out!!

http://fish.shimano.com/publish/content ... llion.html

This is a VERY serious topic.

If you don't do something to help, don't be surprised if your RIGHT to fish, is no longer a right.


Use the link provided.
Write your congressman.

X2........ Sent the letter via the web site and shot off a letter to our senator.

I also reposted on another forum.

After reviewing the relevant documents, I think it's very premature to conclude President Obama has done anything that will adversely affect sport anglers, and I believe the Shimano memo (see link in Lucius' post) is unduly alarmist.

This memo was written by Phil Morlock, Shimano's governmental affairs director. He stated:

"A recently published administration document outlines a structure that could result in closures of sport fishing in salt and freshwater areas across America. The White House created an Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force in June and gave them only 90 days to develop a comprehensive federal policy for all U.S. coastal, ocean and Great Lakes waters. Under the guise of ‘protecting’ these areas, the current second phase of the Task Force direction is to develop zoning which may permanently close vast areas of fishing waters nationwide. This is to be completed by December 9, 2009."

Basically, Mr. Morlock has concluded 3 things:

1. A "recently published document" could result in extensive sportfishing closures.
2. The White House created a task force to develop a comprehensive federal policy within 90 days.
3. He assumes that "zoning" marine and freshwater areas will lead to vast closures of fishing waters.

These conclusions, in my view, are speculative and inaccurate.

The documents I will refer to are too lengthy to quote in full here, so I'll provide the links and leave it up to interested readers to go to those documents and read them for themselves.

In June 2009, President Obama sent a memo to heads of executive departments and federal agencies establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (IOPTF) with the responsibility of recommending a national policy aimed at protecting and restoring ocean waters, U.S. coastlines, and the Great Lakes, and recommending a framework for "improved stewardship and ... planning." The memo is worded in very general terms and contains no specific policy directives. You can read it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... he-oceans/

The "recently published administration document" described by Mr. Morlock no doubt refers to the IOPTF's Interim Report issued on September 21, 2009. It's not very long, as such reports go, and is available online here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/docume ... FINAL2.pdf

Issues involving management of the oceans and coastal areas are complex, variegated, and technical. Over the years, I've attended some legal seminars and read articles and books about the laws touching on these issues, so I have a sense of what the issues are and what policymakers are talking about, although I don't consider myself a legal expert on the topic and I'm certainly not a policy expert. In general, management of the ocean and coastal zones falls under federal jurisdiction and often involves interactions, negotiations, and sometimes conflicts with foreign governments. We have had coastal management zones (CMZs) for many years. There's nothing new or dramatic about what's going on here. What the president has done is ordered the involved federal agencies to get together and try to better coordinate their policymaking activities.

The IOPTF is not itself a policymaking body, and has been given no authority to change existing laws. All they're doing is brainstorming, floating ideas, and soliciting public input. These activities may, in the long run, lead to some policy changes, but if so, there will be plenty of time to debate and address any proposals through the ordinary policymaking and legislative processes; for now, this initiative is only a discussion and study process. Thus, Mr. Morlock is flat-out wrong in implying that IOPTF has any power to enact fishing closures; and his suggestion that IOPTF is, within a very short timeframe and with minimal public input, creating "comprehensive" federal policies to regulate marine, coastal, and Great Lakes areas creates a misleading impression. Either he doesn't understand, or has chosen to misrepresent, that IOPTF is working within the framework of existing policies already in place and at most may recommend further study of possible changes to some of those policies. The "national policy" referred to in the working documents and report in fact is only intended to be a very outline of the Administration's goals and how it intends to reach those goals.

Another important point is this task force only encompasses ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters. By definition, this excludes all freshwater lakes, streams, and fisheries in the United States except for the Great Lakes, which are connected to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence Seaway and are a major shipping route for domestic commerce and foreign trade. One of the reasons why the Great Lakes are managed like a coastal area is because marine invasive organisms (such as sea lampreys) make their way into the Great Lakes via the Seaway, and on vessel hulls and in vessel ballast waters.

Having reviewed these documents, I see nothing in them that indicates the Obama Administration is contemplating a policy of shutting down sportfishing in marine and/or fresh waters. I don't know why Mr. Morlock thinks so, but he didn't read that in any of the official documents. I'll avoid speculating about what the source of his conclusions was, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm taking his views with a grain of salt. I found no rational basis for the alarm he is fomenting.

Naturally, most sportsmen won't be inclined to immerse themselves in the technicalities or minutiae of federal policymaking in the field of marine management. We all rely on what we consider authoritative sources to stay on top of these things, summarize them for us, and alert us to any need for action on our part. The last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from communicating to their congressmen about this. I want to encourage, not discourage, that. But I'd like to encourage you to spend a little time -- say, an hour -- reading the documents before you do so. I believe this will give you a better picture. By all means, bring up Mr. Morlock's memo, and say you share the concerns he expresses. We do want Congress to know we value our sportfishing opportunities very highly and want our interests considered when policies and/or legislation affecting us are being made. But the more we educate ourselves about what's being studied, recommended, and proposed -- in other words, the better informed we are -- the more effective we'll be in getting decision makers to listen to us and take our views seriously.

Alarmist indeed. This is a knee jerk reaction to policies passed by the California legislators and the past presidential administration.

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/pacific_ocean.html

In reading the White House memo, it appears to me that it is a review of the current policies. I see nothing about restricting sport fishing in the memo.

On another note, why is this posted in the Muskie Fishing Forum? Muskies are a freshwater fish.

Aha, so that's what Mr. Morlock was talking about. I figured there had to be a backstory. Thanks for digging it up, Marc. This memo is going viral on the internet now, becoming larger than life, and feeding baseless fears. I'm sure he didn't intend for that to happen.

It is the same old story that is repeated each time there is a different political party in control of congress and the White House. The far left environmentalists are now lobbying hard to place tight restrictions on the coastal waters of the nation. The anti gun lobbyists are also doing the same thing. That doesn't mean that the current administration will choose those extreme positions.

To gather followers, lobbyist use fear as a motive. Fearful people do not think rationally and follow willingly without question. The American Sport Fishing Association is a very large lobbying group, just like the NRA. All lobbyist skew the facts to meet their political agenda.

The current administration and future administrations are not going to take away your right to sport fishing.

when you consider the vast majority of fish in our lakes here in the Pacific Northwest are non native species, there isn't much basis to "protect" them, anymore than they are already protected, with minimum sizes and limits and whatnot. Not to mention that the government is among the prime beneficiaries of the sportfishing market, since last time I checked they are who I have to buy my fishing licenses from. It's alarming what people think the government is capable of these days. This is a democracy here folks, not a dictatorship. In reality, I'm hoping we can get our budgets back on track with this administration and open back up some of the campgrounds and parks and make some much needed improvements to facilities.

Lastly I hope anyone reading this reads Don's post above, because by doing that you are going to be 100% more educated on this subject that you probably were before.

I don't much care for terminology like "far left environmentalists." I think of "environmentalists" as the scientists, resource managers, and other professionals who make their living in occupations related to environmental science, education, and management, etc. I think of "far left" as the ideologies, parties, and movements on the communist-socialist end of the political spectrum. By that definition, there's no such thing as a far left environmentalist because the Comrades are horrible for the environment. They treat the environment almost as badly as they treat their own people. Russia is the most polluted country on earth. The Soviets literally threw their chemical and nuclear waste out the back door. Compared to pollution and toxic waste problems in the U.S. -- Love Canal, etc. -- it's far, far worse in Russia and China. Several years ago, I heard a speaker at a Hazardous Waste Law seminar sponsored by the EPA and University of Washington Law School say there's a lake in Russia that's so contaminated with radioactive waste that standing on the beach for 90 minutes will kill you.

As for the freaks in our own country who spike trees, vandalize construction and logging equipment, set arson fires, etc., I just can't stand to see them called "environmentalists" because, number one, they have no scientific credentials, and number two, that legitimizes them too much, and number three, reputable environmentalists don't deserve to be tossed into the same semantical basket as these scum. The term I'd prefer to see applied to them is "prison inmates" (but "fugitives" can be temporarily substituted). For those who don't cross the legal line, but whose ideas are just too wacky to swallow, the term "eco-extremists" is fine. I'll leave it up to you, dear readers, to make up your own minds about who (and what) deserves to be put in that category.

As for me, I've always loved the outdoors, have been an outdoorsperson all my life, am hopelessly in love with natural beauty and wild places, and it hurts me to see nature get trashed. Managing the environment, including fish and game resources, for sustainability is such simple common sense that I can't understand why anyone would do anything else. I wish people would stop thinking of the environment as a political issue, because it shouldn't be. Taking care of Mother Earth is something we should all do, and it should come as naturally to us as breathing.

Point taken.

Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

It is just as true today as it was when he made that statement.

Well I guess my initial "knee jerk" reaction based on a reputable fishing reel & rod manufacturer was probably not a correct one and I probably should of done a little more research. I do however still believe that this issue still needs to be monitored by our countries anglers. Unfortunately restrictions have got to start somewhere (and that usually starts with the reviewing of existing policies and test trials at designated locations) especially if governments see them a resource or security milestone. I just don't want to see our already crowded lakes and rivers become more crowded due the fact that some other areas were shutdown. Don as always, you knowledge and clarifications are appreciated!!

Sometimes more restrictive regulations can be a sportsman's (and woman's) friend. Our artificial lures proposal, for example. We don't have enough muskies in Washington now, so it doesn't make sense to let people kill them with dead bait rigs. This is an example of where greater government-imposed restrictions sometimes can help us. Raising the minimum size limit from 36 inches to 50 inches is another.

Our lakes and rivers probably will become more crowded, and there's nothing we can do about it. Washington's population is growing, but the number of lakes and rivers isn't. When I moved to Washington over 40 years ago, the state had 3 million people; now it's over 6 million and is projected to eventually hit 10 million. On the other hand, the percentage of people who hunt and fish is declining here, as in most states. So, we're in a race between population growth and declining participation. WDFW tells us license sales are holding steady despite the recession, so my guess is hunting and fishing activity will grow along with population and the economy in the future. I tell people I'm thinking 20 years ahead. That is, I'm working for regulations and policies that can support a viable tiger muskie fishery under the kind of fishing pressure we'll have in 2030.

I'd like to bring to your attention something that's going on in state government. The Governor has directed Washington's natural resources agencies to come up with suggestions for streamlining and possibly consolidating their activities. WDFW is deeply involved in this process. The ideas being batted around include combining WDFW and DNR, or WDFW and State Parks, and moving WDFW's law enforcement functions to State Patrol. This has lots of implications. For example, WDFW launch sites are free, but State Parks charges for theirs, and if the agencies were combined might not the new agency look at WDFW launch sites as a potential revenue source? I don't see a natural synergy between DNR and WDFW. DNR's primary missions are raising money for the state through timber sales on state lands and fighting forest fires. Because DNR's director is an elected official, he probably would run the new agency. In that scenario, WDFW's programs and budget might become a lower priority than if WDFW remained a stand-alone agency under its own management. I'm not worried yet about what might come out of this study process, because there's been lots of similar talk by past administrations and nothing ever came of it. For example, Olympia has talked about breaking up DSHS for decades, but it hasn't happened. However, it needs to be monitored, so I'm keeping an eye on it for our muskie angling community. You can access (and download if you wish) the relevant documents from a link on the Governor's website: http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/r ... ources.asp