Tag: Fishing

Withdrawal of Bill to Reorganize NJ Fish and Game Council Angers Activist

The very brief life of New Jersey Senate Bill 2603 — which would have reorganized the New Jersey Fish and Game Council — had animal rights activist Stuart Chaifetz up in arms after animal rights activists apparently joined hunters groups in opposing the bill.

NJ Sen. Joseph Vitale (D) introduced the bill on May 29, and then withdrew it a couple weeks later on June 12. The bill would have expanded the size of the New Jersey Fish and Game Council from its current 11 members to 19 members.

Of the additional 8 members, one would have been filled by the state Commissioner of Environmental Protection, who the bill also would have granted authority that currently resides with the director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. The other seven seats were to be reserved for “individuals with experience in environmental protection or other fields relevant to animal welfare and with a background in the conservation of fish and game.” I.e., this was a pretty blatant effort to pack the council with activists and take other measures to shift the balance away from hunters and towards activists.

As the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance summed it up,

The bill essentially guts the authority of the Fish and Game Council, and gives it to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. It specifically grants the Commissioner the authority to suspend hunting seasons without a public hearing or the consent of the Fish and Game Council. All changes and decisions made by the council will have to be approved by the Commissioner as well.

That hunters opposed this is not surprising, but according to animal rights activist Stuart Chaifetz, animal rights activists also expressed their opposition to the bill to Sen. Vitale. In a letter posted to an animal rights e-mail list, Chaifetz complained (emphasis added),

Earlier today I found out that Senator Vitale, Co-Prime sponsor of the legislation to radically change the Council, is pulling his name from the bill. Why? Because he has been getting opposition to the bill from hunters and animal rights people.

Yes, that is no mistake. Animal rights people (I will not grant them such a caring title anymore) joined with hunters to kill S2603.

Now why would these people do such a thing? Why would people who claim to care about wildlife try to destroy the greatest chance wild animals have?

In my opinion, seeing much of the opposition, I can relate the following theories: Some didn’t like the fact that there would only be seven additional seats on the Council (Only seven after six decades of none). Some said that they were afraid that the seats might not go to hardcore anti-hunters. Some claimed in sheer idiocy that this bill would hurt the bears when the truth is it would have saved them. How? By the nature of the bill it drew all of the focus of the hunters to it, leaving a clear path for the bear campaign. With it gone, hunters can now re-focus 100% on getting their bear hunt. The irony is sickening.

I know of one specific person who spread absolute lies about what this bill would do, and can imagine that they and a few choice others were upon the shoulders of many more, whispering these things into there ears. And there were other reasons as well, I am sure, for many are often locked into a box and refuse to see it. None of these people could see what we could do with this bill. And it is the animals that shall pay the price for this.

These people, and I believe they are not large in number, did not try to work to amend the bill or offer any ideas on how to make it better, but instead entered into a campaign of fierce harassment, not only against the sponsor of the bill but against any one from our side ho supported the bill.

A small handful of animal rights activists spreading lies and engaging in a campaign of harassment based on those lies? Imagine that!

The full text of NJ Senate Bill 2603 is available here.

Sources:

New Jersey Bill Threatens Future of Outdoor Sports. Press Release, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, June 6, 2003.

The disgrace of a few ‘activists’ — sponsor pulls name from Council reform bill. E-mail communication, Stuart Chaifetz, June 13, 2003.

New York State Assembly Approves Fishing Protection Bill

The New York State Assembly recently approved a bill that would protect the right to fish on all navigable waterways in the state. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Pete Grannis, outlined the need for the bill in a memorandum attached to the bill,

In February, 1997, the NYS Court of Appeals ruled in DOUGLASTON MANOR, INC. V. GEORGE BAHRAKIS that landowners who specifically “own the river bed” can regulate fishing on their property. Historically, NYS law has been interpreted to mean that any navigable waterway could be accessed by the public. The state retains easements that entitle the public to certain recreational uses. Until the DOUGLASTON MANOR decision, fishing was considered to be part of the public trust that was part and parcel of the “navigability” of a waterway.

With its action, the state`s highest court has potentially granted exclusive fishing rights to anyone owning land traversed by a recognized navigable waterway. Under this ruling, while navigable waterways would remain accessible for boating, tubing, etc., all fishing from a boat whether anchored, motoring or simply drifting through, might now be considered trespassing unless prior permission is obtained from the landowner. This restriction will apply to all navigable rivers, including those stocked with fish raised in publicly funded state hatcheries.

. . .

Left unchallenged, this unfortunate ruling may result in the closure of large sections of major rivers to public fishing. This holds particular peril for the vast majority of the state`s roughly 1.1 million licensed fishermen who do not own private fishing rights. Not to be overlooked in this equation is the nearly $15 million these residents pay in annual license fees and in surcharges on the purchase of fishing equipment, which over the years has been instrumental in helping to finance the Salmon River`s climb to the status of a world class fishery.

The bill is now under consideration in the State Senate. You can read the full text of the proposed law here.

Anti-Fishing Activist Attacks Breast Cancer Survivor in Op-Ed

The thing about the animal rights movement is that routinely they make bizarre, absurd pronouncements that lead one to think, “Okay, they’ve finally hit bottom — surely they could never get more offensive.” And then, of course, they do.

A reader sent me an e-mail pointing to an unbelievable column written by Don Hendershot in the Smoky Mountain News (North Carolina). The column concerned a group called Casting for Recovery — a group for breast cancer survivors that,

Provide[s] an opportunity for women whose lives have been profoundly affected by the disease to gather in a beautiful, natural setting and learn fly-fishing. Our weekend retreats focus on wellness and incorporate counseling, educational services and the sport of fly-fishing to promote mental and physical healing.

For Hendershot, this is, as he puts it, “macabre.” Hendershot writes,

Now, I can see the healing connection of a flowing river and the peace and serenity gained from spending time out of doors. I highly recommend it.

But when the connection to that environment is the painful, life-or-death struggle at the other end of a fly rod, of a creature that, an instant before, was simply going about its everyday concerns, the connection gets tenuous.

And when I look at this particular case ? the idea that it?s great therapy to have people who have recently or who are presently experiencing pain, fear and suffering, inflicting pain, fear and suffering on unsuspecting creatures ? there is, in fact, a glaring disconnect.

In fact, for Hendershot the pain a woman experiences learning she has breast cancer is equivalent to the pain that fish feel when they are caught,

You feel OK; you’ve just gotten that promotion; you’re packing your bags for a well-deserved vacation and the diagnosis comes ? cancer. It?s a jolt; maybe like a hook setting in your jaw. There?s pain, there?s fear and then there?s struggle.

I am not trying to trivialize cancer. And I’m not trying to elevate fish to the status of human beings. I’m trying to point out that fear, pain and suffering are universal and that often we have a choice about the degree of our involvement. Of course, when we are the victim, we don’t necessarily have that choice. But when we are the ones inflicting or inducing fear, pain and/or suffering, we do have that choice.

Well at least he’s right about one thing — he’s not trying to elevate fish to the status of human beings, he’s simply doing it.

And, of course, what is any good essay like this without hints of an insidious plot by the fly fishing “industry” to hook poor, frightened breast cancer survivors on fishing,

. . . I wouldn’t think twice about a fisherman or woman diagnosed with cancer wanting to get back to his or her hobby. But I doubt that someone who had never fished and was suddenly faced with cancer would, out of the blue, think, ?Wow, I sure would like to learn how to fly-fish.?

And for an organization funded, in part, and supported, in part, by groups who have a vested interest in promoting the fishing industry to seek out cancer patients with the idea that catching and/or killing fish will certainly make them feel better is, to me, macabre.

The odd thing is that occasionally Hendershot himself has dismissed efforts to alleviate suffering experienced by animals. For example, in 2001 he wrote a column critical of the trap, neuter and release approach to controlling feral cat populations. Hendershot wrote,

Alley Cat Allies, an organization that supports TNR projects across the country, states in its literature that the impact free roaming cats have on bird populations is insignificant. But research findings they publish note that birds make up 20 percent of the diet of free-roaming cats. Twenty percent of the kill of upwards of 80 million (feral and free roaming pets) cats is a substantial number.

. . .

TNR needs to be studied in controlled situations to determine its effectiveness. If it is found to be the solution its advocates believe, I am sure it would be embraced by biologists as well as animal advocates.

But to implement it nationwide simply because it alleviates some of the suffering (don’t forget that these animals are left out there to dodge cars, larger predators, diseases, etc.) of one particular species may solicit support and donations from “cat people,” but it is poor science.

Henderson should apply that same standard to understanding the difference between nociception and experiencing pain (fish almost certainly do the former, not the latter), and leave the breast cancer survivors alone.

Source:

The Naturalist’s Corner. Don Hendershot, Smoky Mountain News (North Carolina), May 21, 2003.

The Naturalist’s Corner. Don Hendershot, Smoky Mountain News (North Carolina), February 21, 2001.

Researchers: Fish Feel Pain

Earlier this year researcher James Rose published an analysis of the brains of fish that concluded fish do not feel pain. In April, however, a team of researchers from the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh published a study concluding that fish do feel pain. So who is right? Well, both are correct actually.

Not to be too Clintonian, but the debate over whether fish feel pain turns largely on the definition of “pain.”

The British researchers first anaesthetized fish and then subjected them to stimulation that would likely be perceived as painful in human beings. The researchers then watched how the fish responded to the stimulation.

Dr. Lynne Sneddon told the BBC,

We found 58 receptors located on the face and head of the trout that responded to at least one of the stimuli. Of these, 22 could be classified as nociceptors in that they responded to mechanical pressure and were stimulated when heated above 40 Celsius. Eighteen receptors also responded to chemical stimulation and can be defined as polymodal nociceptors.

The researchers also injected fish with bee venom or acetic acid and a control group with a saline solution. They found that the fish injected with the bee venom or acetic acid experienced behavioral changes. Again, the BBC quoted Dr. Sneddon as saying,

Fish demonstrated a ‘rocking’ motion, strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals. The trout injected with the acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in their tank and on the tank walls. These do not appear to be reflex responses.

Animal rights organizations were quick to jump on this finding to support their cause. Dawn Carr of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals told the BBC,

It’s shocking that people will still go fishing for fun. For every cruel thing people do, there is a compassionate alternative. There are so many ways to enjoy the outdoors — we hope people would go hiking, camping, boating, any sort of sport that doesn’t involved animal suffering would be preferable.

But what about Rose’s conclusion that the brains of fish are incapable of feeling pain? Well, there is a wide gulf between whether or not fish are capable of responding to painful stimuli and whether they feel pain. Dr. Bruno Broughton, an adviser to the United Kingdom’s Angling Alliance, outlined the difference in the BBC,

I doubt that it will come as much of a shock to anglers to learn that fish have an elaborate system of sensory cells around their mouths . . . However, it is an entirely different matter to draw conclusions about the ability of fish to feel pain, a psychological experience for which they literally do not have the brains.

Animals which do not have some sort of ability to change their behavior in response to external stimuli would be quickly selected out in nature. But it does not follow from this that all animals subjectively feel pain in the way that humans and other complex animals do.

As Rose summed it up in his paper,

Pain is predicated on awareness. The key issue is the distinction between nociception and pain. A person who is anaesthetized in an operating theatre will still respond physically to an external stimulus, but he or she will not feel pain. Anyone who has seen a chicken with its head cut off will know that, while its body can respond to stimuli, it cannot be feeling pain.

So a lot of it comes down to whether “fish feel pain” means that fish are capable of complex behavioral changes after being exposed to stimuli that would be painful to humans, or if it is meant that fish actually experience the same sort of psychological states that human beings and other animals do in the presence of painful stimuli.

Sources:

Fish do feel pain, scientists say. Alex Kirby, The BBC, April 30, 2003.

Fish ‘capable of experiencing pain’. New Scientist, April 30, 2003.

Missouri State Senator Introduces Amendment to Limit Initiatives Aimed at Fishing and Hunting

The Southeast Missourian recently reported that Missouri State Rep. Mike Dethrow has introduced a constitutional amendment into that state’s assembly that would make it more difficult to amend the state constitution with measures that affect fish and wildlife issues.

Under Dethrow’s proposed amendment, any initiative that deals with fish and wildlife issues that ends up on the ballot as a result of Missouri’s petition initiative system would require a supermajority of four-sevenths in order to pass. At the moment, all that is required for the passage of any such ballot initiative is a simple majority. Under Dethrow’s amendment, any initiative placed on the ballot by the state legislature would still require only a simple majority.

A similar amendment was introduced several years ago after a St. Louis-based animal rights group tried to pass an initiative to ban the trapping of river otters. That initiative, however, never garnered enough support to make it on the ballot.

If Missouri’s legislature approves the measure it could appear on the November 2004 ballot.

Source:

Supermajorities proposed for conversation measures. Marc Powers, Southeast Missourian, April 2003.

Wisconsin Passes Constitutional Amendment to Protect Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping

On April 1, voters in Wisconsin overwhelmingly approved an amendment to that state’s constitution designed to protect hunting and fishing in the state.

The new amendment read,

The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.

Final returns had the amendment passing by a margin of 82-18, with some rural counties voting as high as 94-6 in favor of the amendment.

Supporters of the bill argued that it would help forestall efforts by animal rights activists to restrict or even abolish altogether hunting, fishing and trapping in Wisconsin. Dan Gunderson, executive director of the Wisconsin Hunting and Fishing Alliance, told the Associated Press, “This has always been about our kids and grandkids [rights to hunt and fish]. It isn’t about you or me.”

George Meyer, a former Wisconsin secretary of the state Department of Natural Resources, agreed with Gunderson in telling the Associated Press, “The major impact is 30 or 40 years down the road as there is a drift more from the traditions of hunting and fishing.”

But Alliance for Animals director Cynthia Lott said the amendment was “ridiculous” and would lead to longer legal battles, but wouldn’t fundamentally change the picture in Wisconsin as far as animal rights groups are concerned. Lott told the Associated Press,

This will tie up the court system on really ridiculous battles over whether to hunt and kill certain types of animals.

Wisconsin joins Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia in having some sort of constitutional protection of hunting and fishing.

Sources:

Hunting, fishing, trapping amendment passes in landslide. The Associated Press, April 2, 2003.

Voters pass amendment to guarantee hunting, fishing as a right. Channel3000.Com, April 1, 2003.