From: cloyd_j@apollo.hp.com (John Cloyd)
Subject: those damned environmentalists
Originator: cloyd_j@face_plant
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:48:57 GMT

>Yeah, I have to agree...population growth is the root of all the
>problems. 
>>No, not necessarily. Lack of spawning grounds, wetlands, habitat is probably
>>more important. You have this and a 5-10 fish limit, and everything will be OK.
>>Oh, and of course, stop polluting. 

    Ah, but what is causing lack of spawning grounds, disappearing wetlands,
loss of habitat and pollution ? Could it be...Satan ? Methinks maybe it's
population growth.

>So continue to promote environmentalism, right?  
>>OK, time for my soap-box. I advocate environmentalism (see above), but the
>>problem is these so-called "environmentalists" don't know when to quit.

    I think the example included is a good indication (for most people) of
when "environmentalists" should quit :

>Example-- Texas set a minimum limit on redfish of 12 inches. That was a good 
>law. Then they raised the limit to 14 inches. I said, OK, that's reasonable.
>Then they raised it to 16 inches. I said -- "wait a minute -- most redfish
>caught don't get above 14 inches in the bay." THEN they raised it to 18 
>inches!!!! Result - I went 5 years without catching a legal redfish!!!
>Yes, I know redfish grow this large, but most of the year they are offshore
>when they are this size. The bay fisherman just lost a fishery. There is the
>possibility of catching a "legal" redfish in the fall when they move into
>the marshes -- but wait a minute -- the marshes are gone due to development.
>of course, this also means the young fish have no nurseries to grow up in
>after the spawn. Therefore, what good is the 18 inch limit. It punishes
>the fisherman and does not solve the problem -- lack of habitat.

...what I hear here is "'environmentalists' have gone too far when their actions
inconvenience me". A couple points; perhaps the bay is an important juvenile
fishery, and it was determined that people taking the juveniles was a cause
of problems in the overall population ? "Environmentalists" may lobby, but most
often don't determine bag limits, etc. These restrictions are usually set by
marine biologists, who tend to know a lot more about factors affecting populations
than us fisherfolks. The "environmentalists" you curse are probably more involved
in trying to protect those marshes from development. Have you helped them in this ?
One factor in setting size limits is at what size is a fish usually able to spawn ?
If you're killing off the 14"ers before they get a chance to spawn then over time you'll
wipe out the population.
Another point; in most places size restrictions affect only what you can *kill*,
not what you can catch (and release). So when you claim that bay fishermen have
lost a fishery, haven't they really just lost a supermarket ? Think about it, a
14" fish in saltwater is a damned small fish. Maybe the reason the fish don't get
above 14" in the bay is because it's a nursery and they leave after that. Don't
you think that killing the fish in a nursery will have an effect on populations
in future years ? You seem to refuse to believe that things affect each other;
- population growth affects habitat, pollution, etc.
- killing fish in nurseries affects fish populations
"lack of habitat" is only one of many things that can hurt a fishery, overharvesting
is certainly another. In Maine, and most of New England you can't keep a striper
under 36", and you can't keep any (in Me.) before July 1. Most of the sport fishermen
you meet think it's a good law. The average size of fish caught gets bigger every year,
and the fun is in the catching, not the killing. The only complaints you hear are from
people who find more pleasure in eating free food. If they move inland I doubt any of
us will miss them. Well, off the soapbox...         

                                                jc