The future of angling

[WTL]

Gonna start a new thread for this, and PigNJig, I'm quoting you here...

WTL, I'm not trying to hijack this thread so I'll understand if folks don't respond...

1. I wonder if the key to an active and growing angler population and increased energy resources might not be related to the availability and accessibility of quality fisheries? I'm not advocating this, just throwing it out. For instance, in the mountainous areas, we have quite a bit of land that is nothing more than hardscrabble farm, pasture or scrub forest. Why not build more hydro-electric dams that double as fisheries? What are the real pros and cons?

2. Regarding winnowing the takers from the givers in fishing- It seems a little spooky that, at least in VA, we need to take hunter safety classes in order to get a hunting license but no classes for a fishing license. I'm not in any way for big government at all, but why not require anglers to take classes? Not boating classes, but something along the lines of angling ethics?

I understand that some of the above raises the spectre of government involvement and regulation(again, I'm not advocating, just speculating). But, I believe that the anglers of this nation need to take a serious and honest look at the direction we're going. You mentioned that maybe there too many fishermen. Assume, subjectively, that you're correct. How does our sport get rid of the "excess"? How do we define excess?

Thanks again for an interesting thread!

[WTL]

Quality and location of fisheries obviously has an impact on the recruitment of new anglers. You don't have trout anglers where there are no trout.

Building hydroelectric reservoirs for the sake of fishing is doing something that might not be bad but for the wrong reasons. It costs a lot of money to make a lake, not to mention what you lose in dry land. I think more lakes would be a good thing, but because of fishermen? Naw... I like cheap electricity and flood control though.

What on earth would a fishing ethics class teach? Be careful, those hooks are sharp? Don't dynamite the bass? No thanks, Sir. Don't need the government wasting more money. Again, that costs money. Take what you would spend on those classes and employ 5 more game wardens in the field if you have to.

Finally, how do we get rid of the excess anglers?

I actually don't think we even need to worry about that. Why do people insist on trying to engineer the future of angling? It is naturally enjoyable and will naturally recruit, most of the time, the right type of people. I think the concern over angler numbers is missplaced. I'm not positive there are too many, but I don't see how we can say there arent enough either. And the future survival of our sport does not hinge on recruiting anglers, but making sure our government is just and not foolish enough to be taken over by PETA nuts. If we work for a better country and society, fishing, which is small potatoes, will be fine.

[pignjig]

I think a rational person would have to agree that creating hydroelectric lakes for the sake of fishing alone is not a good idea. If, however, these new lakes also supply clean energy for industry and housing then it is a win-win. Such lakes may be expensive on paper now, but they are better investments in the future than foreign oil speculation.

A fishing ethics class wouldn't necessarily be that costly. Although nothing is free, The manufacturers and retailers could provide the base of operations. Yes, they would pass the cost on to the consumer, but private industry has always been better at doing things than the government. Such classes could conceivably cover the concept of fish and fisheries as a renewable resource that we must take good stewardship of for future generations. Perhaps topics such as local species, proper fish handling, catch and release, non-native species threats, etc. could be covered as well. Would they make a huge difference? I don't know. Still, I am inclined to believe that any involvement by government just leads to more government involvement... Perhaps this would be better left on a voluntary basis?

And, as far as excess anglers, I was refering to your previous post where you wrote that we probably need to cull some of the anglers we have now anyway. Just trying to get a read on your thoughts.

Every indicator shows the number of young anglers is decreasing. Some studies show that, whereas the number of tournament anglers is increasing, the total number of anglers, young and old, is also decreasing. The threat our wonderful sport faces is not one of action, but of inaction. Far be it for me to try and engineer the future-- That is not in my, or any human's, capability. Try as we might with good intentions, engineering is a long-term failure. In my opinion, however, it is this generation's responsibility to leave the anglers of the future the option of fishing clean, healthy and accessible fisheries. As a concerted group, we can acknowledge that if fishing becomes a side-line sport or second-tier activity, then it will almost assurredly pass from our culture. At some point, as you wisely noted, the PETA-types will sieze that moment and pounce.

-Pig

[WTL]

As a concerted group, we can acknowledge that if fishing becomes a side-line sport or second-tier activity, then it will almost assurredly pass from our culture. At some point, as you wisely noted, the PETA-types will sieze that moment and pounce.

I actually disagree with this. Fishing is not like baseball, it isn't new. It is in every culture. It may take different forms, but I cannot think of a place on earth where water exists that doesnt have some sort of cultural fishing that is ingrained into society. PETA wants to put an end to dog ownership as well, even though they have been by man's side for 10,000 years. I don't think we are going to see that disappear anytime either.

More so than directly combating PETA, we just need to regain our common sense. An anti-PETA campaign legitimizes an illogical train of thought. Lets just handle the big stuff as a society and the little stuff will sort itself out, we don't need an advocacy group or a education safety class for every aspect of society - things take care of themselves. Follow the Constitution, elect sane representatives, raise your kids to be good people and fishing, baseball, doggies, apple pie and everything else will be just fine because those are all innate goods.

[pignjig]

I cannot agree more that the simple act of acknowledging groups like PETA is harmful. Their's is a culture based on fear and misinformation. Giving a nod to their concerns is providing them with a reason to assume their existence is meaningful.

But, societally, all it takes is one generation for a cultural more to disappear or weaken. Bad example, but consider the game of marbles. What young kid in 1950 would have thought that kids in the future would not play marbles?

Anyway, bottom line, You're spot on about following the constitution (living document? I think not!), representatives, etc. Same page, same page...

-Pig

[Buzz Wing]

Amen to that! That was truly well-said, Will.

-Buzz

[WTL]

Marbles has never been a cultural force. Its not engrained into any society. It was a little fad, one step above the cracker barrel triangle game.

The symbol of early Christianity was the fish. What does that tell you about the cultural signifigance of fishing? People are almost bred into enjoying it. You ever seen a bird dog exposed to doves for the first time? Its like magic, they know what a dove is. They may not be trained to retrieve but they go ape**** for doves at first sniff.