Pew- USA Longline Ban Follow Up

[Gad]

a follow on, of the news that Pew wants to ban longline fishing in the Gulf of Mexico,and that some USA fishing magazine Editors are in favour of jumping into bed with PEw on this issue,some in this country thought "luv ins" with PEW,in Australia, could be a good idea too.

Fishing Worlds Newsletter Email

COMMENT: Opportunities lost

11 Nov .2010

By Jim Harnwell

The news that Pew activists in America are working with US anglers to save billfish and tuna from exploitation by long-lining fleets raises some interesting questions, especially when you take into account some of the details of my email conversation this week with Pew's Australian boss, Imogen Zethoven.

It seems that at least some of Pew's US staffers are pretty keen anglers. In fact, Doug Olander, the editor-in-chief of the popular magazine Sport Fishing, says these individuals are "good guys".

Is it a coincidence that if keen anglers work for a major environmental organisation then good stuff, like working with other sportfishermen to ban destructive and wasteful long-lining, happens?

And is it also a coincidence that things are radically less proactive if there's no-one with any interest in or knowledge about fishing works for said organisation?

Pew Charitable Trusts is a massive organisation. It has shedloads of money and power and there's no doubting it does great things in relation to health, education, public policy, the environment and so on, especially in America.

The fact that Pew staffers are working with US anglers to try and stop long-lining is evidence of the sort of really positive stuff that an organisation like this can do.

It's a real pity that Pew in Australia doesn't have staffers who understand and appreciate recreational fishing issues. If it did, then it's likely that the work that Pew is trying to do in relation to protecting marine habitats would be far more successful, both in the short-term and the long-term.

In fact it's a real pity that environmental groups generally don't encourage people with an interest in sport fishing to be more involved in the work they do. If they did, then it is highly likely that the real problems affecting our marine environments - commercial exploitation, pollution, habitat loss and so on - would be given far more attention than is currently being expended.

Time and effort wouldn't be wasted on trying to ban or restrict relatively benign activities like well managed, responsible sport fishing.

The fact that Imogen Zethoven completely ignored my (repeated) questions about this issue indicates that the green groups more than likely realise that they have made a tactical error by alienating the recreational fishing sector.

It could be said that the pigheadedness shown by people like Ms Zethoven in pushing for politically unpalatable mega no-fishing zones has resulted in groups like Pew being regarded by Australian anglers as dangerous, untrustworthy and extremist.

That's a pity.

It's a pity for Pew as the hard-core policies advocated by Ms Zethoven have made its self-appointed job of protecting Australia's marine environment all the more harder, most likely impossible. The fact is the politics of Ms Zethoven's stated policies just don't work. No government will ever support banning anglers from vast areas of Australia's coastline.

And, much more importantly from my perspective, it's a real pity for Australian anglers. Why? Well, if we had a few "good guys" working for Pew over here, guys (or girls) who liked to wet a line and who understood how things worked and who weren't solely influenced by anti-fishing agendas, we could actually have got really proactive and positive benefits to our environment and our sport via Pew's money and influence.

What do you reckon?

Jim Harnwell is the editor and publisher of Fishing World

[Gad]

Personally,I believe aligning oneself with Pew,for any "luv ins", if you are into rec or pro fishing makes as much sense as catering "pig on a spit" for a Jewish bar mitzvah feast,and expect to cover costs.

Below is some FW newsletter readers reply to the topic...I have deleted names

reader comments

"A Time of crisis for our oceans", is typical of the scaremongering BS that B Brown was peddling during the recent election campaign- and he did quite well from it with the poor sods in the capital cities that don't know any better! The fact is that the Coral Sea is under no threat whatsoever & ALL forms of fishing (& don't you dare lump fishing in with gas & oil mining, are done sustainably ! I HAVE fished the Coral Sea & can say that it is pristine because we adhere to stringent size & bag limits and don't over fish any one area. Any pollution or foreign fishing vessels would be promptly reported by the responsible operators that have a presence out there. Who would police it after the lockout, and at what cost? I'll bet PEW & CAFNEC wouldn't be dipping into their pockets to help fund that!!

13-Nov-10 12:45 PM

Pew and Australian partner groups, including CAFNEC, have been straight up in relation to a very large Coral Sea no-take zone. There has been no deception or being "untrustworthy". A case has been put, with scientific backing, on why the Coral Sea should be a no-extraction zone (for commercial and recreational fishing, mining, oil & gas) and you agree or you don't. It is not an "anti-fishing" position, but is a cautious pro-conservation strategy that seeks to protect the region's fragile, near-pristine wildlife in the long term. There are more anglers today and they are reaching further out to sea. Lets keep one place where future generations can say "this is what a bountiful, pristine ocean environment looks like; what the oceans once looked like." I fish and I work for CAFNEC. I would love to fish the Coral Sea reefs also, but am more than willing to forgo that opportunity in the knowledge that in this time of crisis for our oceans it may remain intact for future generations.

12-Nov-10 11:21 AM

PEW sure have fostered an "If you're not with us, you're against us" image for "conservationists" in this country. Backed up by funding-hungry minion groups like CAFNEC who are still fuming because Garrett didn't close the Coral Sea to all forms of fishing(yet), it's no wonder conservation-friendly & environmentally aware fishos view them as the enemy.

12-Nov-10 01:14 AM

You cannot work in partnership with Pew if you have a different opinion from theirs. You may believe Pew has a soft heart for REC fishers – that’s fine – but we know better in the US. Just because a few staffers like to fish doesn’t mean that the decision makers - the puppet masters– gives a hoot. Those Pew staff members who like to fish are called smoke and mirrors. Capitol Research has a great quote from the Director of the Pew Environment program, Mr. Joshua Reichert: “I don’t want someone who knows the facts or can articulate them persuasively; I want someone who wants to win and knows how.†That’s not the attitude of someone who wants to work with REC fishers….. That’s someone who wants to use REC fishers to get what they want.

11-Nov-10 10:59 PM

It would appear maybe there na light at the end of the tunnell with the on going battle with the rabid green movement.May they will finally see we are not the raping pillagers of the oceans we are made out to be

11-Nov-10 08:30 PM

Jim, You are spot on, there is a long history of those who actively involve themselves in an environment being the strongest supporters, for example cavers and bushwalkers have made massive contributions to their respective environments despite both activites having a negative (though minor compared to logging and mining) impact on the environments they love (and some environmental groups wishing to ban them as well). We fisherman should lead with campaings to improve the ocean environment especially habitat loss etc along with responsible fishing, even voluntary bans where that makes sense. The day there is no one left actively visting and loving an environment will be the day it looses out big time even if the reasons for the 'bans' are environmental. Just ask a farmer.

11-Nov-10 07:32 PM

Adolf Hitler was a misunderstood guy. If a few more jews had agreed with him in 1939 they could have combined and wiped out the Soviet Union and saved the world from the threat of nuclear holocaust. Pew is essentially a misunderstood organisation and if we could just get them to employ a few more fishos we could destroy the evil empire of commercial fishing! Myth number 3 might be about how Marine Parks was created to improve the angling experience around the Australian coast!?

11-Nov-10 06:41 PM

Jim - It all makes good sense for recreational anglers to work in partnership with others and together seek better protection of our beloved marine environment – for the benefit of the majority. Pity that good sense often doesn't have a seat at the table when it gets in the way of pre-ordained political agendas based on ideology and a winner takes all mentality i.e. 100% lock-outs without any scientific basis for arriving at that position. Maybe we should be arranging some 457 working visas to attract a few of Pew's talented and forward thinking US staffers over here to help educate their Oz counter-parts. What’s the number for the skilled migration program…?

11-Nov-10 05:25 PM