FWS: No Hatchery Closing, For Now
from The Outdoor Wire
Etta Pettijohn

Since media reports revealed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) plans to quietly shutter several federal fish hatcheries in 2014, the agency has backed off from those plans – but not from closing them in the future.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander expressed disappointment and concern after reviewing the agency’s “Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report,” and conversations with FWS Director Dan Ashe.

“It is fortunate that we have an ongoing three-year agreement between the Tennessee Valley Authority and state and federal wildlife agencies to keep Tennessee’s hatcheries open and producing fish, but the threat of closure still exists,” said Alexander, who has two federal hatcheries in his district.

Plans to eliminate mitigation hatcheries from the FWS mission began in the mid- 1990s, but media attention and political pressure blocked those moves. Beginning in 2011, the agency intensified its efforts, despite Congressional mandates, presidential decrees encouraging outdoor activity, and public support for the facilities.

In 2012 the FWS slashed funding for mitigation hatcheries from its FY 2013 budget, hoping to hand management and funding to other agencies. The FWS attempted it again in 2012, but Congress forced it to finance them that year, directing the agency to secure other federal funding before defunding of the nine then targeted for closure.

Despite all this, by all appearances, agency officials remain determined to close hatcheries and direct its funding and priorities in recovery of endangered and threatened species, restoration of tribal trust responsibilities, and other propagation programs for native species.

FWS officials cited budget cuts in 2012, although Rick Nehrling, a retired 38-year veteran of the FWS (19 spent overseeing southeastern hatcheries) asserts that budget documents clearly indicate Fisheries is the only resource program in the agency the Directorate proposed for reductions then, and planned closures in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

“The other five resource programs (National Wildlife Refuge System, Endangered Species, etc.) have all had substantial budget increases during the same time period,” Nehrling contended.

Now FWS is saying if sequestration continues into the 2014 fiscal year, the agency will have lost close to $6 million for hatchery operations since 2012.

“This report sounds the alarm on a hatchery system unable to meet its mission responsibilities in the current budget climate,” Director Ashe has stated.

It appears the new agency mantra is “sequestration will require the hatchery closures.”

Ashe said the 2012 “Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report,” found ongoing budget reductions due to sequestration and increasing costs for operations spurred the review of the 70 national hatcheries.

“This report sounds the alarm on a hatchery system unable to meet its mission and responsibilities in the current budget climate,” Ashe asserted. “In the coming months through the 2015 budget process, I have directed the Service to work with all of our partners to determine whether the options identified in the report, or others, are necessary and appropriate to put the system on a more sustainable financial footing.”

A working group trying to come up with answers includes the FWS, the TVA, and the Tennessee and Georgia state wildlife agencies. TVA signed an agreement with federal and state wildlife agencies in May to pay more than $900,000 per year for the next three years to replace fish killed by TVA dams, and keep Tennessee’s hatcheries producing fish while the working group develops a permanent solution, said Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander.

“I will help to find a long-term solution, because the nearly 900,000 Tennesseans and visitors who buy fishing licenses in our state depend upon these hatcheries, as they are the principal reason Tennessee has some of the best trout fishing in the country,” said Alexander, who in 2012 brokered a deal with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to provide some of the funding for the hatcheries there.

Meanwhile, insiders report the battle is merely delayed, and far from over, and that the agency has full intentions to end its century-old mission of mitigation stocking, an effort that many communities where these are located are dependent on for fishing license sales and sales tax revenue.

Interior Department Proposes Expansion of Hunting, Fishing Opportunities in National Wildlife Refuge System
from The Fishing Wire

Six More Refuges Open to Hunting; 20 Refuges Expand Hunting and Fishing Opportunities

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In advance of National Hunting and Fishing Day on September 28th, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to expand fishing and hunting opportunities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System, opening up new hunting programs on six refuges and expanding existing hunting and fishing programs on another 20 refuges. The proposed rule also modifies existing refuge-specific regulations for more than 75 additional refuges and wetland management districts.

“Sportsmen and women were a major driving force behind the creation and expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge System more than a century ago and continue to be some of its strongest supporters, especially through their volunteer work and financial contributions,” Jewell said. “Keeping our hunting and angling heritage strong by providing more opportunities on our refuges will not only help raise up a new generation of conservationists, but also support local businesses and create jobs in local communities.”

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service can permit hunting and fishing along with four other types of wildlife-dependent recreation where they are compatible with the refuge’s purpose and mission. Hunting, within specified limits, is permitted on more than 329 wildlife refuges. Fishing is permitted on more than 271 wildlife refuges.

Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, called the proposals “one of the largest expansions of hunting and fishing opportunities on wildlife refuges in recent years.”

“Hunting and fishing are healthy, traditional outdoor pastimes deeply rooted in America’s heritage and have long been enjoyed on hundreds of national wildlife refuges under the supervision of our biologists and wildlife managers,” said Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Ashe. “After careful consideration and review from the Service, this proposal represents one of the largest expansions of hunting and fishing opportunities on wildlife refuges in recent years.”

National wildlife refuges generate important benefits from the conservation of wildlife and habitat through spending and employment for local economies. According to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, published every five years by the Service, more than 90 million Americans, or 41 percent of the United States’ population age 16 and older, pursued wildlife-related recreation in 2011. They spent more than $144 billion that year on those activities. Nearly 72 million people observed wildlife, while more than 33 million fished and more than 13 million hunted.

The Service manages its hunting and fishing programs on refuges to ensure sustainable wildlife populations, while offering historical wildlife-dependent recreation on public lands.

Other wildlife-dependent recreation on national wildlife refuges includes wildlife photography, environmental education, wildlife observation and interpretation.

The Service proposes opening the following refuges to hunting for the first time:

New York

• Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/shawangunk_grasslands/): Open to big game hunting.

Oregon

• Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/WillametteValley/baskett/): Open to migratory bird hunting.

• Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/oregoncoast/nestuccabay/index.htm): Open to migratory bird hunting.

• Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/oregoncoast/siletzbay/): Open to migratory bird hunting.

Pennsylvania

• Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/cherry_valley/): Open to migratory bird, upland game and big game hunting.

Wyoming

• Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/seedskadee/cokevillemeadows.htm): Open to migratory bird, upland game and big game hunting.

Meanwhile, under the proposal, the Service would expand hunting and sport fishing on the following refuges:

California

• Colusa National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/colusa/): Expand migratory bird and upland game hunting.

Florida

• Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/loxahatchee/): Add big game hunting. The refuge is already open to migratory bird hunting.

• St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/saintmarks/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

Idaho

• Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/kootenai/): Expand upland game hunting. The refuge is already open to migratory bird hunting and big game hunting.

Illinois

• Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/cypress_creek/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

• Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/middle_mississippi_river/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

Indiana

• Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/patoka_river/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

Iowa

• Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Neal_Smith/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

• Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/northern_tallgrass_prairie/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

• Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/port_louisa/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting and sport fishing.

Maine

• Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/rachel_carson/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

Missouri

• Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/mingo/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

New Mexico

• San Andres National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/newmex/sanandres/): Expand big game hunting.

Oregon

• Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, OR and WA(http://www.fws.gov/oregoncoast/bandonmarsh/index.htm): Expand migratory bird hunting. The refuge is also already open to sport fishing.

• Julia Butler Hanson Refuge for the Columbian White-Tailed Deer, OR and WA (http://www.fws.gov/jbh/): Expand migratory bird hunting. The refuge is already open to big game hunting.

• Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/malheur/): Expand migratory bird hunting and sport fishing. The refuge is already open to upland game hunting and big game hunting.

Texas

• Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/aransas/): Add migratory bird hunting. The refuge is already open to big game hunting.

• Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/balcones_canyonlands/): Expand hunting for migratory birds, upland game and big game.

Vermont

• Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge(http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/): Expand migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting and big game hunting.

Washington

• Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/refuge/willapa/): Expand migratory bird hunting and big game hunting. The refuge is already open to upland game hunting.

Notice of the 2013-2014 proposed Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations will publish in the Federal Register September 24, 2013. Written comments and information can be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov/) Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. [FWS-HQ-NWRS-2013-0074];
or

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [ FWS-HQ-NWRS-2013-0074]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

Comments must be received within 30 days, on or before October 24, 2013. The Service will post all comments on regulations.gov. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes.

Comments and materials, as well as supporting documentation, will also be available for public inspection at regulations.gov under the above docket number. In addition, more details on the kinds of information the Service is seeking is available in the notice.

To view a complete list of all hunting/sport fishing opportunities on refuges, click here (http://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/huntFishRegs.html).

Robert Montgomery

Robert Montgomery, widely-recognized as one of the nation’s top fishing writers, voices the growing concern with anti-fishing attitudes that seem to be spreading in some parts of the country.

Written by Robert Montgomery
from The Fishing Wire

At the bank the other day, the teller told me that I had shortchanged myself a thousand dollars on my deposit slip.

I know why it happened. Each of the checks that I was depositing included a fraction of a dollar. I was so concerned about getting the pennies correct that I neglected to devote sufficient attention to the dollars.

In other words, I focused too much on minor details and completely missed the big picture.

That’s an easy thing to do. Most of us have done it at one time or another, and, fortunately, consequences usually aren’t catastrophic. We have spouses, friends, and friendly tellers to set us straight.

But too many of us are missing the big picture right now regarding the future of recreational fishing, and consequences could be catastrophic.

As the administration leads the country in a direction that the majority of Americans oppose, those who dislike recreational fishing or, at best, are indifferent to it, are using their White House alliances to push for massive federal control of public waters. And here’s the dangerous part:

As conservationists, anglers believe in sustainable use of fisheries, while protecting habitat, opposing pollution, and preserving the resource for future generations to enjoy.

By contrast those pushing an anti-fishing agenda are preservationists who believe in “look but don’t touch.” They assert that humans exist apart from nature, rather than as a part of it. They think that we act immorally when we manage or alter it in any way.

Montgomery says angling opportunities are under fire in many parts of the nation due to mistaken or misdirected efforts at environmental sustainability.

Consequently, the big picture is that a concerted effort is underway to deny us access to a public resource, and, in so doing, to deny and destroy a significant portion of our history, culture, and economy — not to mention our right to enjoy a day on the water with friends and family.

Granted, the movement is only now gaining momentum. Chances are, if you live inland, you might not see any closures in your life time. But the snowball has begun to roll downhill.

Arguably, it began when environmentalists convinced President George W. Bush to designate two remote areas in the Pacific as marine reserves. It has strengthened with the recently created National Ocean Council, which has been given authority to zone uses of our oceans, coastal waters, and Great Lakes, as well as the option to move inland to rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Also, it’s taking shape via the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation Act and a “catch shares” management strategy in which recreational participation would be capped.

And as preservationists seek to “protect” oceans from anglers, lake associations want to do the same on inland waters. Knowing a good excuse when they see one, they insist that closures of public access areas are needed to prevent spread of invasive species.

Inland access might seem unrelated to the ocean management. But they are two fronts of the same battle.

You need only look to California to see what is coming our way. Fisheries are falling one after the other, like dominoes, as emotion trumps science-based fisheries management.

Mostly the closures are coming under the auspices of the state Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). But they’re also occurring through local regulations. Four out of five members of the Laguna Beach City Council supported a five-year moratorium on recreational fishing along its 7 miles of coast.

“There’s no such thing as a five-year moratorium,” said dissenter Kelly Boyd. “You turn something over to the state and you’ll never get it back.”

Dave Connell, an angry angler, added, “We’re fighting a fad, an environmental extremist wacko fad about closing the ocean. I do not know what their agenda is, but it is not to save the fish. It is not to keep the ocean clean.”

For our side, the fishing industry is spearheading a Keep America Fishing campaign (http://keepamericafishing.org). In particular, member Shimano deserves recognition. Along with donating $100,000 a year and considerable staff time annually to the cause, it has been one of the most outspoken critics of the way in which the MLPA has been implemented.

As a consequence, it has been the target of the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups, who have deep pockets with which to voice their zealotry. Filled with invective and inaccuracy, the Shame on Shimano website (www.shameonshimano.com) is but one example.

“The ‘Shame on Shimano’ campaign by NRDC is an outrageous misrepresentation of the facts about a company who has led the outdoor industry in supporting scientific research, habitat improvement, youth programs and fishery conservation efforts across North America for twenty years,” said Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF).

Starting to see the big picture yet?

Robert Montgomery is the author of Why We Fish, a collection of essays exploring the many reasons that we go fishing. Bill Dance also contributed to the book, as did nine others. It is available from Amazon ($12.03) and other booksellers, as well as from the publisher, NorLights Press ($15.95).

www.whywefish.info

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fish-Wisdom-Fishermen/dp/1935254782/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372125081&sr=8-1&keywords=why+we+fish