A New Environmentalist

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
1

At the bottom of Mr. Boese’s article were instructions for posting comments on the article, hence this post.

With all due respect to Mr. Boese’s qualifications, I have found his articles in the past to be largely uniformative, but that’s just my opinion. Others may have a different viewpoint, so I usually just pass over them. But his latest article was so full of mis-information, inuendo, conjecture and just plain mean-spiritedness, that I feel I must comment, lest some unsuspecting person accept it as a ‘fact’.

First off, I would’ve thought that cheap name-calling would be beneath an attorney. Referirng to persons with differing viewpoints as ‘pinkos’, ‘Bunny-Kissers’, ‘Tree huggers’, and charactarizing them as Communist Sympathyzers is not conducive to a professionally written article. I found the name calling to be mildly offensive. I am not fond of PETA, and similar organizations either, but I can do better than just calling them names. Secondly, maybe they have never used Deer Tags in his part of the world, but for the rest of us, Deer-Tags have always been the rule of Law, at least in my (considerable) lifetime. I’ve never hunted anywhere in the US where a Deer-Tag was not required, ever. And dog, and cock fights have never been condoned by the majority of the US population, and has always been illegal, at least since the 20th Century. It has also never been legal, since 1934 at least, to shoot “30 ducks a man”, even in La. That is a violation of both State, and Federal Game Laws. “Two or three hundred Spanish mackerel per fisherman in Lake Pontchartrain”, I am sure is an exageration, since I believe that would be physically impossible, without the use of a net. And, unless they were all released, it would’ve been illegal without a commerical fishing license. I found these excerpts to be very disturbing, since he seems to be advocating violation of established laws.

Now, to the issue at hand. Let me start by stating that I am a practicing doctor (ND), and my B.S. was in Biology, so I have years, years, and more years of anatomy study under my belt, both human and animal. His source for his position that fish are incapable of feeling pain, is a web article by Dr. James D. Rose, at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Rose is not a physician, but an instructuor at the University. And this article was not done from any study, or peer-reviewed publication. It is merely his conjecture, and he even contradicts himself several times in the article. He has no direct sources listed to back up his strange claims. Apparently, both he, and Mr. Boese are unaware of the 2003 study conducted by a team from the Roslin Institute, and the University of Edinburgh, led by Dr.Lynn Sneddon, and published in the Royal Society Proceedings B journal (Do fish have nociceptors: evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system by Dr. Lynne U. Sneddon, Dr. Victoria A. Braithwaite and Dr. Michael J. Gentle: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY: Biological Sciences - Vol. 270, No. 1520, 30 April 2003).

This peer-reviewed study shows beyond any doubt that fish, at least the species studied, which were trout, do in fact experience pain, and modify their behavior as a result. This is much different than the involuntary reaction to external stimulus suggested by both Dr. Rose and Mr. Boese.

The fact that fish experience pain is irrelevant to the issue. Fish experience horrific pain and fear on a daily basis, by being swallowed and digested alive by other fish, eaten while still alive by birds and mammals, torn apart by predators and rivals, and the rigors of spawing. Nature is beautiful at times, but also cruel and unforgiving. A trout’s place in nature is as food for other things. The fact that fisherman may poke a small hole in a fishes jaw, and likely as not release it is nothing compared to what trout experience every minute of every day. That is probably the least bad thing to happen to them. And even if you keep them to eat, I know of no one who does not quickly kill the fish before filleting it. That is much more humane than what other animals do to them.

With all due respect to Mr. Boese, his article irked me a bit. A little more time and research would go a long way…

And ease up on the name-calling, Bob…You’re better than that.

Semper Fi!

2

If PETA is an extreme group, just what the heck is this guy. I love to fish, and I have been known to eat a few, but mostly I am a C&R guy. I guess that makes me a leftie in Mr. Boese’s mind. Did you ever meet a guy named Hannity? With all of the name calling and just plain venom that he is spewing, it reminds me of a recent administration. “If you an’t with us (100%), then you must be agin us.”

I fish to get away from this kind of BS and to see it here in print makes me throw up a little. But, this is America and Mr. B has his right to speak. Just in case we ever meet Mr. B, I’m the short, balding guy with glasses and you can just refer to me as the bunny-kissing, tree hugging, fish releasing fellow traveler (commie sympathizer to those of you not old enough to remember McCarthy). In other words a moderate. Jeesh!

3

A couple quick points, just for correctness. In Alaska we had limits on seaducks of over 30 per day as recently as 15 years ago. Combined with regular ducks we had limits well beyond 30… 45 IIRC.

In general though the pretext of insensate fish is hard to accept. They sure look like they feel the hook!
art

4

I read Mr. Boese’s article and found it moderately humorous. I think he was writing it with a bit of tongue in cheek with his name calling and such. But then not too much gets under my skin anymore even if it is meant to, so I tend to laugh most things off.

I do appreciate the inaccuracies of the article brought forth by Mr. Gigmaster in regards to fish feeling pain or not. That seems to be useful information. Although for what I am not sure of.

5

After reading the article, I’m not sure what the ‘point’ was…

I also balked a bit about the fish/pain thing…I don’t really care…but it didn’t match with the little bit of research I’d done.

The name calling was a bit childish…but folks get their backs up about this stuff sometimes.

If he was trying to say that fishermen and hunters have been the leaders in conservation for generations, then that’s certainly true…but I think most of us know that already.

Is the ‘anti fishing’ movement a danger to our activities? Probably. Not likely that fishing will be ‘banned’ in my lifetime, but eventually they’ll start chipping at us bit by bit, like they have in other countries.

Is recreational fishing doomed? Probably. Especially if we hang our hats on ‘catch and release’ (we’ve had this discussion). Limited catch and consume is defensible, but most modern fishermen won’t accept that.

One of the big problems is that this just isn’t a ‘drive the vote’ issue…we elect our government, often focusing on the simple surface issues, and then miss the true agendas and intentions hidden below.

But people get the government they deserve…we were allowed to vote…have been able to for quite a long time…if it happens that fishing gets banned, or severely curtailed, we can’t blame anyone but ourselves.

It may be too late now. The forces arrayed against us are well organized, in power, and convinced they have the moral high ground on this issue.

In any event, hopefully I’ll be long dead before they decide to take my fly rod away…I know my gun isn’t safe NOW.

Buddy

6

I tend to agree with the article more than disagree-as for name calling, since many on the left especially animal rights types want to characterize anglers and hunters as blood thirsty,red-neck savages I couldn’t care less if he calls them names. The animal rights movement has no problem with terrorist bombings, poisoning hunting dogs and other extreme behaviour all in the name of “animal rights”. I personally have no use for PETA-The Fund For Animals and The Humane Society of The United States headed by Wayne Pacelle or other groups that want to place me on a par with rats and give them the same “rights”.

7

Curiously, deer tags were scarcer in the 60s than they are today, but that was because without them there would have been wholesale slaughter. Deer tags used to be one a season and are now six, and include doe tags.

Cock fighting was legal in Louisiana until 2006. Uh-huh. Legal.

In years past, gigantic schools of Spanish would cruise the lake and could be caught on every cast with only a tin foil strip on the hook. Stiff jigging poles were often used to harvest fish. I remember seeing boats return with one or two large filled-to-overflowing ice chests and then only because they didn’t have more ice chests.

Hunting lodges in Pecan Island (before being wiped from the face of the earth by recent hurricanes) had photos on the wall of a couple of hunters with dozens of ducks, and then another just like it, and then another…

And there were plenty of bordellos in St. Landry Parish.

An interesting question would be: “If fishermen believed fish feel pain, would they still fish?”

8

I think it’s hard for a lot of fly fishers to believe they could be a target of animal rights fanatics. In my experience a lot fly fishers are pretty laid back easygoing types that fly fish because of the style and perceived beauty of it and since they practice catch & release don’t think they are doing anything consumptive. Since the early 90’s I’ve met a good deal of people who took up flyfishing after the " A River Runs Though It" boom that never participated in any kind of outdoor recreation like hunting or fishing. To me it seemed they figured it was a cool way to get out on the water,wear some snazzy attire and use snazzy rods and enjoy the experience. Some I’ve met that thought hunting was cruel and killing a trout was equal to murder-a number will only fish in “Fly Only” catch & release waters-never mind the furs and feathers their flies are made of once belonged to living things.
I think it’s naive to think the animal rights crowd won’t harass fishermen. There have been cases where it has occurred. PETA and others want to assign quilt to anyone that they perceive to be abusing animals.They want hunting stopped and fishing too. In the past they’ve given their tacit approval to terrorists that have spiked trees,bombed research labs and committed other crimes. I would never underestimate or trust them

9

To further correct the facts. The past is the past, but we are a state of sportsmen and have learned. In Louisiana, dog fighting was legal until 1982 but is now a felony carrying up to a $25,000 fine and 10 years in jail for each offense. (Among the toughest penalties in the nation.) Dog fighting has turned out to be an urban activity, with offenders not usually (maybe never)in the licensed hunter/fisherman category.

The term used was “left-wing bleeding-heart knee-jerk ultra-liberal tree-hugging bunny-kissing pinkos.” This is, of course, a term of art, but I’m still not sure what in that description is not true. I have been told by friends (who are still my friends and who fit the description perfectly) that they are opposed to hunting, fishing, private medicine, non-unionized labor or private ownership of land. Sounds pretty pink-ish.

10

Dog fighting has been illegal in La., way before the 1982 passage of LSA-R.S. 14:102 - .18. This law merely defined dogfighting, cockfighting and bear fighting, and made them seperate criminal offenses. Before 1982, violators could be prosecuted under the Animal Cruelty Act, under Title 14 of the Louisianna Statutes. The law may not have been enforced rigorously, and it may have gone on freqeuently, but it was still illegal. When I lived in Oklahoma, cockfighting was illegal, but there were fighting pits everywhere, and they held derbys right out in the open, sometimes even attended by Law Enforcement Officers. A few local Judges even bred Gamecocks. You can pass a law, but enforcing it can be a different proposition.

And, I stand corrected on the ducks. I don’t know what the limit is in Ak., but it doesn’t really surprise me, since Alaska also apparantly allows shooting wolves from a helicopter, or a vehicle. There are probably a few states that are more the exception, than the rule on just about anything. I should’ve said 'in most of the US’.

"A bad day of fishing is still better than a good day at work…"

11

Sorry, but again you are pointing fingers at another and making very incorrect noise…

It is not legal to shoot wolves from helicopters in Alaska and has only lately been reopened for shooting from small airplanes. And that due to the incredible damage wolves have done here.

A past Governor, Tony Knowles (a name I have trouble even typing without bile rising in the back of my throat… Cannot begin to express the antipathy I feel against the man) unilaterally banned shooting wolves from the air and eliminated all wolf and bear control programs. The biologists were ignored. Wolves are very cyclic creatures. In the good times they breed rapidly and kill indiscriminately. They literally wipe out all big game in their area rapidly and move on.

Their numbers soared following the ban. Caribou and moose are not high density animals, especially in Alaska. Sitting on a high ridge glassing for a day will expose all bulls in the area for many, many miles. The small number always surprises folks, even when we think there are lots. Caribou are thicker than flies in the herd, but herds are spread out over vast country.

A few of the real problems for keeping ungulate numbers up is calving ground, which both concentrates birthing cows and lures big predators. Typically, a large boar bear will do most of the calf killing in a given calving ground… Yes, I meant just one. Predator control plans that do not kill that one bear do little good.

When I grew up here in AK in the '60s, there were lots of moose and caribou and precious few wolves. As a teenager I got my picture in the paper with a large black wolf I shot while caribou hunting. It was unusual to see wolves outside the park. Now it is unusual to see moose or caribou outside the park.

The black bear limit was 6 per year and the hides could legally be sold. Today the limit is one or two in areas which have not been designated for control. The designated areas which are being expanded rapidly every year have varying limits and rules, but most allow unlimited black bear and wolf shooting and liberal brown bear seasons and the gall bladders and hides may be sold.

Aerial wolf hunting is open to limited numbers of 2-man teams, a pilot and a gunner. It is extremely tough flying. Many planes and bodies have been mangled in the process. And they love it.

There have been repeated votes with tremendous sums of outside money being spent on media campaigns to stop wolf hunting from small planes and frankly all they have done is waste many millions of dollars which would have been far better spent on wildlife… When the obvious shows up the people have decided they had to go back to predator control.
art

12

I was not pointing any fingers. I was merely observing that Alaska’s Fish and Game Laws are very different from the rest of the US. Helicopter, small plane…whatever. I know of no other place in the US that allows hunting anything from any kind of vehicle (maybe ATVs, although not in TN., or Ga.), except maybe ducks from a boat, or carp and gar while bowfishing. In most states I’ve been in, you can’t even shoot within a certain distance of a road, across a road, or within a certain distance of any building. In Ga. your not even allowed to shoot from horseback, or a bicycle. You have to dismount, and be at least 50’ away.

At any rate, again, I was not, and am not "pointing fingers’ at anyone. I was commenting on an article posted on the site that sort of rubbed me the wrong way. Any comments I made, or will make on this thread are stricly in reference to that particular article, and nothing else. I’ve made my points, listed my references, and anyone is free to disagree or attempt to refute them as they wish. If that is “incorrect noise”, then so be it.

My best cast is the Wind Knot…

13

An interesting read on the history of wolf control in Alaska.

http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.wolf_mgt

14

Bob is against PETA, which is good enough for this sportsman. Don’t expect folks to match your agenda exactly, or do it exactly the way you’d like. Is the overall sentiment favorable with respect to your position? Good enough(or not) for me…