I have written some here at the Black Bear Blog and Blogging the Maine Outdoors about National Heritage Areas. Just last week, I wrote an article at Blogging the Maine Outdoors about a summit which also took place last week at the Sunday River Ski Resort. That summit was to discuss the economic impact of trails to Maine’s economy.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci has been pushing for more promotion of Maine’s natural resources and appears to be an advocate for the establishment of more “preserved” lands including National Heritage Areas. Part of this summit at Sunday River was to discuss the prospects of mapping and inventorying lands and waterways in order to protect them. Included in that process was to tap into federal money available to protect these lands through National Heritage Areas.

It is my belief that very few people are even aware of what a National Heritage Area is, say nothing about how they might think how it could benefit them or more particularly the landowner and the local economy.

In the January 28th, 2008 issue of National Review Magazine, John J. Miller, National Political Reporter, writes about National Heritage Areas. One of the things that Miller brings to our attention is the fact that sometimes our land is yanked out from underneath us without our knowledge, all for the good of conservation and preservation.

He cites the example in Arizona of a new National Heritage Area, Yuma Crossing, in which landowner Lee Ott, was completely unaware that his land had been designated as part of it until one day he spotted surveyors on his land. In Ott’s effort to fight back against the encroachment and thievery of his land, 600 people attended a meeting to learn more about what was taking place around them.

“About 600 people came to our meeting,” says Harold Maxwell, a farm-equipment distributor. “When I asked for a show of hands from those who knew they were in the NHA, only one hand went up.”

Evidently, this is part of how the designation of lands for National Heritage Areas takes place. What’s to hide anyway?

Miller describes what National Heritage Areas are in terms most of us should be able to understand.

National Heritage Areas are like a poor man’s National Park­ they aren’t actually owned by the federal government, but they’re zoned by it. Instead of employing Park Rangers in stiff-brimmed hats, they’re often administered by liberal groups that want to weaken the property rights of the people who hold a piece of land within or even near NHA boundaries. This is generally done in the name of historic preservation and environmental conservation.

Miller also describes NHA as a very popular thing these days particularly because they are a means of gaining huge sums of money through earmarks and is a wonderful tool for those bent on controlling and limiting our land-use rights.

Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for The National Center for Public Policy Research, says that NHAs become federal zoning laws that are enforced by private preservationist groups.

The rules governing NHAs vary from place to place, but they tend to have a few features in common. One important element is the involvement of a “management entity” that works in conjunction with the Park Service to come up with a plan. In the case of one NHA, this means creating an “inventory” of properties of “national historic significance” that it wants “preserved,” “managed,” or “acquired.”

Miller says that those who support NHAs, even though they claim they are not in the business of buying or regulating real estate, the end result does in fact do that. His claims are that supporters work with local government to enforce and create restrictive land ordinances that fall in line with plans for conserving and preserving “inventoried” and “mapped out” lands.

He gives an example of how that is done.

They do this by dangling the prospect of federal largesse in front of potential recipients. West Virginia’s Wheeling NHA, which is basically a downtown preservation project, makes this explicit, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Chumley and Ron Utt. Its management plan calls for new zoning ordinances and the acquisition of private property. And how will it achieve these goals? As Chumley and Utt write, “Major funding to support the activities . . . and the recommendations of this plan will be coming from the National Park Service.” In the year prior to its most recent available tax filing, the Wheeling NHA received more than $2.5 million in government contributions and not a dime from private sources.

Is this what we want in our own back yards? As we have now seen, these operations sneak about seeking people’s land to devour and control, even without the knowledge of the landowner. We have also been shown that you don’t even have to own land within a NHA, only to be “near” one.

While most of us favor conservation and in some cases we would like to see certain parcels of land protected, I want to believe that very few of us want these “Management Entities” empowered and funded by the federal government taking away our land and or limiting our uses for the sake of creating these National Heritage Areas.

As hunters, fishermen and outdoor sportsmen, our future depends on our ability to access the outdoors. We can’t blindly plunder into programs like this without knowing the facts. We just might end up “giving away the farm” as they say, without a clue as to what is really going to happen.

Severe limits and restrictions on lands and land use, including access to our waterways, will destroy our recreational opportunities and long time heritage of our love for the outdoors. Our property rights and those of our neighbors have to be protected from such programs.

We have to consider this effort as one that can easily be used by the incrementalists to stop hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. With local governments strong armed into creating restrictive land use, you know only the elite special interest groups will ensure their access while restricting or eliminating many others.

Get involved in what’s going on in your community and keep your eyes on your own land to make sure it isn’t being snatched away.

Tom Remington

Yesterday, I attempted my first ever live broadcast of Open Air With Tom Remington. I didn’t think it was going to happen for most of the morning as it seemed I was having one technical failure after another but I finally pulled it off……as it was.

The show is a bit different than other shows in that there are no breaks for commercials or station IDs during the one-hour plus broadcast. I talked with John Stabley, V.P. of Global Operations for Skinny Moose Media, who is attending the Archery Trade Associations trade show in Indianapolis now through Saturday. He gives us an update on the show and how things are going for him.

Other highlights of the show include discussion of some of the continued budget problems at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and an introduction to Bill Moore’s radio broadcast on a local Upper Peninsula sports radio station.

I also spend some time discussing the economic impact hunting, fishing and recreation has on this country with its millions of participants, yet never any mention of these topics with presidential candidates.

Plus a couple of surprises.

Below is the audio player where you can click and stream audio right now as you read more of the Black Bear Blog or just browsing about the Internet. And for those of you who may not have the time now, visit the Open Air download page and find every show that has been done. You can stream audio of each show now or download it to your media player and listen at your leisure.

[AUDIO:http://www.skinnymoose.com/downloads/openairjan10show.mp3]

Tom Remington

A very troubling article appeared Saturday in the Lewiston Sun Journal announcing this Tuesday’s annual meeting of the Androscoggin River Watershed Council to be held at Sunday River Ski Resort. The keynote address is to be delivered by David Vail, a professor of economics at Bowdoin College. He will speak on “Tourism Strategy for Maine’s North Woods: Getting to World Class.” Mr. Vail is also a member of Gov. Baldacci’s steering committee on natural resource-based industries.

His talk will focus on efforts over the past four years to turn Maine’s Northern Forest region into a world class tourist destination. He hopes that will happen in three steps.

Part one involves shaping the 2 million acres of existing protected lands into a Great Maine Woods Recreation Area. The second and third parts involve securing federal designation of a Maine Woods National Heritage Area and helping hundreds of tourism businesses – from outfitters to restaurants – deliver world-class product quality and livable-wage jobs

More on this in a moment but the conference being held at the resort will have a focus on outdoor recreation and the economy surrounding the Androscoggin River from Lake Umbagog to Merrymeeting Bay. There will be various speakers on the subject.

The article does not make it clear as to what 2 million acres of existing “protected” lands is being referred to. With the talk of designating some or all of these areas as a National Heritage Area is something that I question whether most people are aware of. And those promoting National Heritage Areas will never tell the local businesses and in particular any of the landowners just what might be involved in such a designation.

While Maine struggles to find ways to prop up an economy that is nearly non existent is some regions, Maine people cannot give away the farm, so to speak, in order to pull off some miracle cure for economic woes. Before I look more closely at the impacts of National Heritage Areas, Mainers need to ask themselves how much money is there really to be realized by setting aside millions of acres of lands, which as National Heritage Areas would remove them from the tax rolls, in hopes of drawing tourists. What kind of tourists will this draw? And of those, how many of them are willing to spend money?

Many have talked about turning much of northern Maine into a wilderness National Park or forest, essentially closed to anything except some foot traffic in designated areas. What kind of a tourist draw is that? I never met a wilderness seeker eager to drop a few hundred dollars on a vacation retreat. Those attending the conference I’m sure will hear how National Heritage Areas are extremely profitable. Are they and at what cost?

If we examine the watershed area that will discussed at this conference, it includes the Embagog Lake area and follows the Androscoggin River, the valley and watershed all the way to Merrymeeting Bay where it joins with the Kennebec River before finally emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. This entail massive amounts of land and my guess is just about all of it is privately owned.

Efforts have been ongoing for years to clean up the Andy and much has been done. With the clean up of the river and work by some local businesses, it is being discovered as a draw to boaters and fishermen. Efforts have secured water access points, once again achieved through local effort, small business and free enterprise.

Now Mainer’s are going to have a juicy carrot dangled in front of their faces in an effort to convince them that bigger is better. Let big government take over those efforts and then see what happens.

Land is a valuable commodity, once thought of as the ultimate dream, the pinnacle of success to own such. It was a mark of prosperity. As big government gets bigger, each year demanding more of our tax dollars, combined with stricter and stricter restrictions put on what we can do with our land, the incentives to own property are diminishing.

One third of all the land in the United States in owned by the federal government. How much more do we need or want to add to that? And at what expense?

In National Heritage Areas, land is determined to be in the best interest of those given the authority to oversee the use of such lands. They are called Management Entities. What if your land becomes a parcel that the “Management Entity” deem as essential to the formation and implementation of a National Heritage Area? Are you aware that your land could be taken from you via eminent domain? Are you aware that severe restrictions could be put on you and how you can use your land that you pay taxes on?

If the water and the land that make up the Androscoggin River watershed is such a valuable commodity, then why do we think that government oversight will keep it that way? What will become of the many farm lands that make up a great deal of the watershed area? Will some entity whose special interests and personal agendas begin a systematic closing of farm lands that interfere with the “World Class Tourist Destination”? What if your land would make a great spot for a boat launch, a park or a picnic area? What are your rights? Will you have any? Is this how Americans should create “World Class Tourist Destinations”?

Free enterprise can do a pretty good job of promoting money making commodities without stealing people’s lands and telling them what they can and can’t do with it. More and more people everyday are selling their land and properties and moving into rents. Why? They can’t afford the taxes, the insurance and they are sick and tired of having land and property only for the privilege of paying more and more taxes.

Designating a few million acres of land in Maine and removing it from the tax rolls is something Maine doesn’t need. It means the few people scattered through many of these tiny communities will need to dig even deeper into their pocket books in order to pay the tax from which the base has been reduced. Designating these lands as National Heritage Areas will also strip many Mainers of their right to utilize their land as they see fit. Instead they will be forced through the land designation to use that land only in a way that is conducive to providing tourists with a National Heritage Area. Whatever happened to working with the landowners, citizens and businesses instead of strong arming them into submission?

But there is far more to these National Heritage Areas than most Americans know about. I challenge you to visit the National Center for Public Policy Research website and get more information about what’s behind this seemingly innocent effort. Follow this link to an article written by Peyton Knight of NCPPR that gives a clear example of what can happen.

There is pending legislation that would create a management entity to oversee your land. Here’s an example of one such effort being discussed as I write.

This consortium of preservation elitists and federal bureaucrats would form a “management entity,” and be given a federal mandate to create an “inventory” of all property in the area that it wants “preserved,” “managed” or “acquired” because of its “national historic significance.”

Doesn’t this already sound quite familiar? Baldacci has already ordered another one of his steering committees to inventory all the public lands and recreational easements the state has and prioritize them. And for what purpose is he doing this? Is he already making plans to dump Maine’s public lands into the hands of the federal government to be taken care of by a federally designated “management entity”? And who would become that entity?

Once groups such as the Androscoggin River Watershed Council are able to be recognized by the federal government as a “management entity”, it means access to huge earmarks and pork-barrel spending. Whether people are aware of this or not, they need to know. Perhaps some or all of the members of these groups, even those who sit on the ARWC steering committee, aren’t aware of this. Then again, maybe they are. Maybe this is what’s really behind this. Do you know? Will you ask or just take the attractive bait hook, line and sinker and then wait to see what happens. Who do you think will really reap the benefits of a National Heritage Area?

A recent report done by the Brooking’s Institute said that Maine’s biggest asset was it’s natural resources and beauty. Does that mean we should take this asset and turn it over to government? Think about it. Free enterprise has always been the best method to spur on a sluggish economy. The last thing it needs is more government, which is part of the problem facing Maine taxpayers now.

While the state looks to climb out of a deep recession hole, it can’t bury itself deeper by giving away the means to fill in the hole. Those attending this conference need to keep their focus on free enterprise and their rights as property owners before they become committed to turning Maine into a preservationists National Heritage Area.

Tom Remington

Before some of you think I’ve flipped my lid and jumped on the global warming bandwagon, read on. There are other dangers that are beginning to surface because our society has too eagerly accepted one man’s theory about global warming and in particular the effects of carbon dioxide.

Just yesterday I shared with readers about the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, a bill proposed by some members of the U.S. Senate that would have far reaching affects on all citizens but more importantly for us hunters, trappers and fishermen. This act would give the federal government far too much authority over state’s fish and game management programs, strip you and I of our property rights and further put a cramping on business, development and industry dependent on natural resources.

We can add one more thing this morning to this growing list of threats to citizens as the result of something we’ve decided to call global warming. Whether we believe in global warming as is being pushed by the doom and gloom bunch, we have to at least consider the side effects of such.

In Kansas, the Department of Health and Environment has rejected a permit application by a cooperative that is seeking to build two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants (New York Times article). The DHE rejected that permit based solely on a Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. the Environmental Protection Agency in which the court ruled that carbon dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated. This is the first time any regulatory agency has denied a permit of this kind based solely on the premise of global warming.

Granted there are many people who applaud such a rejection because of their concerns over pollution but at least consider the precedent that is being set here. A permit is being denied strictly on the premise that a theory – I’m sorry but there is just as much scientific evidence to disprove global warming as defined as there is to support it – about the effects of carbon dioxide is causing the end of the world.

Is this the beginning of a domino effect? Are we going to destroy our own society, our economies and livelihoods over global warming? If you are a promoter of global warming at least use some sense and sensibility about what steps we are taking to combat it. Yanking the rug out from under everything in the name of global warming is as irresponsible as doing nothing at all about cleaning up our atmosphere and environment.

We should all keep a close eye on every action that is being taken in the name of global warming. This could have devastating affects on us all.

Tom Remington

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) along with co-sponsor Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have introduced their own version of the House’s bill called, Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act. According to a press release by Sen. Whitehouse, the Act will accomplish three things.

The bill would direct the federal government to develop coordinated national strategies to identify, monitor, and protect or restore wildlife populations and habitats that are likely to be harmed by global warming;

It would also create a panel to advise us on what we should do.

The bill would create Advisory Boards, with members appointed by the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and a new National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center within the U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct research and provide scientific and technical advice on strategies to help wildlife, oceans, and coastal ecosystems adapt to global warming. A special panel would also be convened to look specifically at the impacts of climate change on endangered species (emboldening is added).

The bill would also provide funding in order to further study wildlife, oceans and habitat that are being affected by global warming. This money would also be used to implement programs to protect wildlife and habitat that are being affected by global warming.

We have certainly pressed the panic button in this society over global warming which is being proven time and again, day after day that it is just not scientifically supported. This is a hoax that is sure to bring billions of dollars into the pockets of scientific research and with this new proposed act would also distribute money to organizations to “implement programs” to counter global warming. And just where do you think that money will go?

I’ll give you one hint. The Defenders of Wildlife think this Act is a terrific idea and I’m sure other extreme environmental groups and animal rights groups will be jumping on this bandwagon.

This act is troubling in other ways as well. First of all, this appears to be another back door attempt to get federal government in control over state’s wildlife management programs. For decades the feds have, for the most part, recognized the 10th Amendment when it comes to managing wildlife programs and has butted out of allowing state sovereignty to prevail, with one exception being the Endangered Species Act.

Now all of a sudden because we have a group of emotionally charged people jumping on the global warming train ride, the state’s wildlife management programs are not good enough to deal with changes? State’s wildlife officials should be insulted as well as concerned. The feds want to take control over their wildlife and lands that provide the habitat.

The Endangered Species Act, as much as I think it is now outdated and in dire need of being revamped or axed, has sufficed lawmakers to this point in protecting threatened species. This act sounds like another way to put more power into the hands of the feds to further reduce hunting and fishing opportunities as well as outdoor pursuits all in the name of establishing habitat they claim is disappearing because of global warming.

Along with this grabbing up of more land for habitat protection comes the loss of individual property rights, say nothing of the millions of dollars that will be lost because of restrictions put on logging, mining and other businesses that rely on these lands.

Climateatrisk.com writes of the introduction of Whitehouse’s bill and describes the powers that would be granted to the appointed, not elected but appointed panel that would be in control.

The national strategy identifies specific goals and methods to protect, acquire and restore wildlife habitat in order to build resilience to global warming, and provide habitat linkages to facilitate wildlife movements in response to global warming. The National Strategy would also protect natural communities most vulnerable to global warming, and restore and protect ecological processes that sustain wildlife populations.

Does this language sound at all familiar? The Wildlands Project is an organization whose goals are to take land away from private landowners in order to create vast areas of land closed to humans and left for the “natural” use of wildlife at the expense of human productivity and freedom. The want wildlife to have the freedom to move about unimpaired by you and I owning land.

The Wildlands Project’s work to reconnect the continent begins with “MegaLinkages”–vast pathways that tie natural places together.

Within each continental MegaLinkage we propose regional systems of core protected areas connected to one another by “wildlife linkages,” mosaics of public and private lands that provide safe passageways for wildlife to travel freely from place to place.

Private land owners within proposed conservation planning areas are not bound in any way by our recommendations, but are encouraged to participate in voluntary actions to protect landscape linkages and native species.

It is not coincidental that the use of the word “linkages” is used in describing both goals by the Wildlands Project and the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act.

But it doesn’t stop here. Rocker Carole King, a wildlands/wilderness advocate, who I am told is friends with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got her chance to meet with the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, to promote her agenda of creating more wilderness – described as the biggest wilderness creation act since the Alaska Land Act.

King is pushing the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act.

The bill, sponsored by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays would designate as wilderness nearly 7 million acres in Montana, 9.5 million acres in Idaho, 5 million acres in Wyoming, 750,000 acres in eastern Oregon, and 500,000 acres in eastern Washington.

Another three million acres in Yellowstone, Glacier and Grand Teton National Parks also would become wilderness, where no logging, road-building, motorized use, and new oil and gas drilling or new mining could take place.

Now that the Democrats, notorious for being environmentalists with little concern for economic welfare and property rights, are in charge, this is the kind of legislation they are trying to push through and it all goes hand in hand.

This Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act is unnecessary and will needlessly cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It will further inflate an already overinflated government that does not need more power over the states. We have brilliant scientists and biologists working all across this land protecting our wildlife and doing a commendable job. Let’s keep big government out.

This act will further tie up land deemed as critical habitat all in the name of global warming, a theory never proven scientifically to be valid. With those in charge fostering ideas that we need millions of square miles of unaccessible wilderness lands for animals is absurd and scientifically unfounded. This is Disney biology at its best.

We as hunters, fishermen and trappers witness first hand how our opportunities are shrinking on a daily basis when governments, pushed by environmental and animal rights groups, tie up land we use to hunt and fish on because of political hard balling.

To some this act may appear to be one that will work toward guaranteeing that we will continue to have game to hunt and fish. It is far from that. We have seen what an abuse of the Endangered Species Act has done for us and this Act will enhance the powers of those who administer the ESA. Is that what we want? Do we want left-wing environmentalists fear mongers further stripping us of hunting and fishing opportunities and taking land out of the hands of private citizens?

This act is not grounded in good scientific reasoning. It’s a means by which power hungry politicians can control the people using the fear of global warming to take away our land, our freedoms and our opportunities to prosper and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

I would encourage everyone to contact their senators and congressmen and tell them the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act is nothing our country needs. If you believe your state has the ability to handle your wildlife management and that you believe the American dream is to own land and have the rights to use that land, speak up now.

Tom Remington

My good friend and colleague, George Dovel, has put together one of the most eye opening articles I have read in a long time. The article contains information that deals with anti-hunting issues, land loss, property rights, the abuse by some states to illegally use money from hunting and fishing license to fund programs outside of fish and game, the Wildlands Project, Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act and an entire host of other topics.

This article is long but is worth the read. I would highly suggest that anyone who cares at all about hunting, trapping, fishing and the outdoors, read this article. Much of the topics discussed are centered in the state of Idaho but I don’t want you to think for one second that you couldn’t just as easily insert the state you live in. All of these things happening can and are taking place right in your back yard. It’s time to open our eyes.

I am going to provide you with a couple of different ways you can obtain it. You can begin the story here and follow the link to read the rest. On that page you can copy and paste the article into a word processor program and print it out. Also at the bottom of this page is a link to a pdf version of the story for your convenience.

I want to take a moment and thank George for granting me permission to republish this article in its entirety at the Black Bear Blog and other Skinny Moose Media websites.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News and Comment by George Dovel

About George Dovel: Following several decades of close association with state and federal wildlife mangers as a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot, a qualified volunteer on assorted wildlife research projects and a member of several fish and game advisory committees, George Dovel offers a unique perspective on what has happened to wildlife resource management. With record low big game and upland bird populations existing throughout the U.S. in 1969-1973 he edited and published The Outdoorsman which is credited with helping to restore scientific game management. The new crisis in game management throughout the West resulted in resurrecting The Outdoorsman in March 2004 to provide factual information for outdoorsmen and their elected officials.

On July 3, 2007, a public meeting of an ad hoc committee formed to discuss future funding for IDFG took place at F&G Headquarters in Boise. Chaired by Senate Resource Committee Chairman Gary Schroeder, the members included House Resource Committee Chairman John A. “Bert” Stevenson, Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) Co-Chair Senator Dean Cameron and former F&G Commissioner Representative Fred Wood. < <<<<Continue to the rest of this Article>>>>>

Click here to download a pdf version of this article.

Tom Remington

Fly fishing is a fantastic sport. I don’t do it as much as I used to but I have had some of life’s greatest experiences working at the art form of presenting the right fly at the right moment in order to entice a fish to have a bite. And fishing with a worm and a bobber is also equally as wonderful a form of fishing. My question is why can’t fly fishing be talked about without putting down other forms of fishing?

Here’s an example of what I’m referring to. On CNN.com in the Living section, they ran a story about fly fishing. The title says, ” Fly-fishing lures all sorts of people”. The story begins by telling of the experiences of Fanny Krieger, in her late 70s, and all the fly fishing she has done around the world. Great information!

From there to story travels into fishing’s popularity and makes reference to the numbers the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently put out about the decline in fishing participation in the U.S. over the past decade. Then the story moves into more of a descriptive narrative of what fly fishing is.

Fly-fishing has a particular mystique, being a sport of presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, writers such as Hemingway and artists such as Winslow Homer.

And then this.

President Herbert Hoover said the pursuit of happiness cited in the Declaration of Independence “obviously includes the pursuit of fish,” according to his presidential library. He also mocked his predecessor President Calvin Coolidge for preferring worms to fly fishing.

William C. Bullock III, executive director of the American Museum of Fly Fishing in Manchester, Vermont, says we shouldn’t be discouraged from fly fishing because of its “aristocratic image”. He does go on to say that once we can get beyond that image it’s a great family sport.

But it doesn’t end there. The article begins to tell readers how they can get started in fly fishing but not without putting down other forms of fishing while in the process. Dave Teufel, former spokesman for L.L. Bean, has this to say about getting started.

“If you wanted to get a stick and tie some line and a bobber and a hook and a worm, that can be very effective for sunfish,”

I guess a beginning angler is now lead to believe that a worm and bobber on the end of a stick, also called a fishing pole in many circles, can only catch sunfish. I wonder how old Mr. Teufel is? I caught many a night’s supper of brook trout, native ones too, with just the equipment he describes.

The story ends with a couple paragraphs to promote the practice of catch and release.

Don’t worry if you don’t have a clue about how to scale a fish for eating after you’ve landed your catch. When Fanny Kreiger brought in the 30-pound brown trout in Argentina, she threw it back. That’s common practice these days, known as catch and release.

“I think that’s what attracted women” to fly-fishing, Krieger said. “It’s no longer a bloody sport. It’s not catching them and killing and seeing them bleed.”

If catch and release is your thing, go for it. There certainly is nothing wrong with the practice. My advice, which didn’t get mentioned in this article, as it does seem to be targeting beginners, is to study up on and get solid information on the proper ways to catch and release your catch. Anglers need to be taught that simply because you choose to release the fish you just caught isn’t a guarantee that it will live another day. But let’s not get away for the subject at hand.

Krieger, the woman fly fisher talked about in the beginning of this story, says fly fishing has made the sport no longer bloody and killing and watching them bleed.

To be perfectly honest, I could care less whether a person who picks up a fly rod and casts with it thinks they are somehow above the worm fisherman. I still come back to my original question. Why is it that in too many instances, in order to promote fly fishing you first have to put down other forms of fishing? Doesn’t the sport of fly fishing have enough attractiveness and rewards that its merits allow for it to stand completely on its own? I think it does.

If I were a beginning angler interested in starting out fly fishing and read this article, I would be led to believe that fly fishing is for the elite upper class. Even though the article states you can get started fly fishing for under a $100, once it takes you through everything else you need, it far exceeds that. If this is true, where’s the story of the “common man” fly fisherman? They didn’t go look because they are all over the place and the vast majority of fly fisherman don’t feel a need to elevate their sport to something above the rest of us.

History shows me through this story that even presidents dissed worm fishermen, so there must be something wrong with drowning a worm. Yes, it’s a matter of history but wouldn’t the story have still worked if it only told about the years of pleasure Hoover got from fly fishing without making Calvin Coolidge out to be a fool?

I’ve learned that worms and bobbers only catch sunfish and that if you don’t fish with a fly rod and release your catch, it’s a bloody, killing sport.

Having read all this and Mr. Bullock says, “There’s an elitist edge to fly-fishing that everybody has to get past”. This is an odd way of making an attempt at getting past it.

Tom Remington

Let’s face it! Hunters, fishermen and all outdoor enthusiasts can’t enjoy their sports if they have no place to do it. Most states have at least some level of public lands but most of us still rely on private landowners’ unselfish willingness to allow you and I on their land. We have to respect the wishes of the landowner. It only makes sense. As a landowner myself, I want to be able to have a say in what I do with my land and who enters it and for what purpose. This is all part of being a free American and many of us enjoy it. As outdoor recreationists we need to do a better job in creating good, respectful landowner relationship programs.

America is becoming a conglomeration of special interest groups, each with their bent on controlling and manipulating the system in order to protect and promote their specialty. While the same could be argued for special interests as with property rights, not all is the best interest of free Americans. What I see are at least two specific areas that threaten my interests in hunting and fishing and as an American landowner.

The first are the efforts being put forth by special interests to promote their own thing. I see nothing wrong with that act in itself. I shouldn’t because as someone who works everyday to promote and protect the American heritage of hunting, I am very much a special interest group – at least to some degree. My efforts encompass all hunting and all fishing and is not focused on one aspect of each sporting interest like bow hunting or fly fishing but nonetheless, I am a special interest.

The trouble that erupts happens when these special interest groups attempt to destroy one aspect of their own sport for the sake of self-promotion of their narrowly focused area. Take hunting for example. Bow hunting is a rapidly growing aspect of hunting. I personally admire dedicated bow hunters because of the time and discipline they have to put into their sport and the difficulties they face. Bow hunters have organized into clubs in order to form a more powerful coalition to promote what they do. Is this wrong? Absolutely not. I’m not a bow hunter but I fully support what they do. Bow hunting is very much a part of America’s hunting heritage and I will fight to preserve that. Should bow hunters work to promote their great sport by lobbying against other disciplines? Of course not. Any group that would do that is elitist, self-centered and has not vision for the overall well being of their sport.

I am a rifle hunter. It is what I prefer to do. I never hunted with a scope prior to the 1980s for a number of reasons but with the passage of antler restrictions and other similar laws, I thought it wise to equip myself with something that would help me with target identification. If I wanted to promote rifle scope hunting alone, I could probably find quite a number of hunters who would support that. What I shouldn’t be doing, is promoting my form of hunting by discrediting any or all others.

The second issue affecting me/us is the continued shrinking of available land to hunt and fish on. Obviously programs need to be created to encourage landowners to leave their property open for recreation.

Keeping our focus for now on special interests, these groups are doing more each day to remove land from the hands of landowners and for the sake of this argument, lands used for outdoor recreation. What’s disturbing about these efforts is that some are being funded by the federal government through private sector special interest groups.

One such program, which is part of our Interior Department, is called National Heritage Areas program. If you visit the website, you’ll find information about what they are doing and it all seems like well-intended programs. As a matter of fact, you’ll find this statement.

A “national heritage area” is a place designated by the United States Congress where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography. These areas tell nationally important stories about our nation and are representative of the national experience through both the physical features that remain and the traditions that have evolved within in them.

It all sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t want to preserve our national heritage? The problem is it’s not that simple. As a matter of fact, it gets quite complex. As a property owner, the last thing you should want is government, beginning at the federal level, dictating to you how to use your land. What if you should happen to buy a piece of land that a special interest group in another state lobbied Congress in order for them to designate your land as a “National Heritage Area”? And what if that’s what happened and Congress used your own tax dollars to strip you of your property rights leaving you with nothing? And what if that special interest group had authority to control virtually every aspect of your property, even to the point of manipulating it in order to make loads of money?

Now, that’s not right! But that’s what can and does happen!

The National Center for Public Policy Research issued a press release today announcing that they have sent a letter to the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others, asking Congress to stop funding and supporting the National Heritage Areas programs.

The following letter — signed by a diverse group of more than 110 organizations, elected officials and citizens — was delivered on September 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici, House Committee on Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Don Young as well as all the members of the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees.

Here is the complete press release as issued by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Hypocrisy Watch: Congress Expands Opportunity for Self-Dealing While Claiming Historic Progress on Government Ethics

114 Groups and Local Leaders Call for End to National Heritage Areas

Washington, D.C. – At the very time Senators were congratulating themselves for passing what they termed “the most sweeping ethics reform in history,” they approved a series of “national heritage area” bills that significantly increase the potential for self-dealing and corruption, says the National Center for Public Policy Research.

In response, The National Center for Public Policy Research brought together 114 policy groups, grassroots leaders, local government officials, sportsmen groups, civil rights organizations, property rights advocates, farmers, ranchers, and individuals to call on Congress not to support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

The letter is being delivered to the House and Senate leadership and the leadership and membership of the respective natural resource committees.

Among the letter’s signers are the National Taxpayers Union, the 60 Plus Association, American Family Association, FreedomWorks, the Family Research Council, Partnership for the West, Gun Owners of America, two county supervisors, two mayors, eight aldermen, one city councilman and over 90 others.

National heritage areas are creations of Congress in which special interest groups, whose work at times has been funded through secret Congressional earmarks, team up with the National Park Service to influence decisions over local land use previously made exclusively by elected local governments and private landowners.

“If the investigations into earmarking abuse tell us anything, it is that we need greater accountability, not less. National heritage areas push us toward less government accountability,” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Committees composed of unelected and unaccountable individuals – some of whom have a financial stake in local land use decisions – are given substantial influence over these very decisions through national heritage area designations. If you think power corrupts elected officials, just wait and see what it does to unelected ones.”

Dr. Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation has revealed another way special interests can use national heritage areas inappropriately. He describes how a federally-funded partnership seeking Congressional authority to manage a proposed new heritage area to cover parts of four eastern states is apparently planning to use its management authority, if granted by Congress, to give itself a “near monopoly on real estate development opportunities” within the proposed heritage area. Such a monopoly presumably would be immensely profitable for this select group of politically-connected individuals.

“National heritage areas corrupt the principle of representative government,” the coalition letter warns, “by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests the authority to develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance their efforts.”

“National heritage areas are nothing more than government sanctioned looting of private property rights, and in many instances, minorities and lower income folks bear the biggest brunt of this theft,” said Deneen Borelli, Fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “Property rights, the hallmark of liberty, are being eroded by special interest groups and their government allies who promote national heritage areas.”

The letter also thanks Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) for his “leadership on this important issue.”

“National heritage areas drive a federally-funded, special interest wedge between citizens and their local government,” said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for The National Center for Public Policy Research. “The federal government should not be forcing taxpayers in one state to pay for special interest lobbying in another.”

To view the letter, go to www.nationalcenter.org/NHACoalitionLetter0907.pdf.

To read what others are saying about national heritage areas, go to www.nationalcenter.org/HeritageAreaQuotes0907.pdf.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, D.C.

There is quite a wide and diverse group of representatives supporting the efforts of the NCPPR.

In response, The National Center for Public Policy Research brought together 114 policy groups, grassroots leaders, local government officials, sportsmen groups, civil rights organizations, property rights advocates, farmers, ranchers, and individuals to call on Congress not to support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

Included in that diverse group of 114, is U.S. Hunting Today(Black Bear Blog and Skinny Moose Media). I proudly signed the letter being sent to Congress, et. al. and provided a statement, which was also sent along with the letter. If you view the pdf file of the letter, you can scroll down immediately following the letter and find the list of those who support this effort. My name and affiliation to U.S. Hunting Today is included.

When you view the pdf file that contains many statements made by various representatives of supporting groups, you can read the statement that I made.

What Sportsmen Are Saying…

“As a hunter, I want to be able to get on land to hunt, but I’m an American first who respects the property rights of landowners. This isn’t a government issue. We shouldn’t advocate for the federal government to take away the rights of others in the name of
appeasing special interest groups.”
-Thomas K. Remington, Managing Editor, U.S. Hunting Today

I would encourage all readers to take the time to study and review this issue. As with many government programs, there is far more than initially meets the eye. I am not advocating that we as Americans stop working toward the preservation of our national heritage but it has to be done the right way. I think Joseph T. Waldo, President, The Law Firm of Waldo and Lyle, P.C. put it best when he said:

“Protecting our heritage is a noble ambition, however these matters need to be handled at the local level by those closest to the issues at hand. It is important that the fundamental right of private property not be threatened by more misguided federal legislation.”

Even if you don’t see that this program can potentially strip Americans of their property rights, at least see it as a waste of tax dollars at a time when government has out-of-control spending, as most of these National Heritage Areas get funded through earmarks.

As hunters and fishermen struggling at an almost constant rate to find lands where we can enjoy ourselves, the last thing we need to be doing is advocating programs that remove more open land from everyone who recreates.

Contact your representative, today!

Tom Remington

Coming from what must be the equivalent of the National Inquirer, this website out of New Zealand is saying that it was likely an American who brought didymo to New Zealand. And that is based on the fact that some scientists seem to think that the kind of didymo in New Zealand closely resembles that found in North America. Not the United States. Not Canada. No, North America and therefore I can conclude with the same authority that it was George Bush.

Someone gag me before I say something more than I should.

Tom Remington

I probably shouldn’t even be giving this any ink but it has stirred at my inner being for most of the night and morning today, so I figure I better get it off my chest so I can move on.

Didymo, didymosphenia geminata or rock snot, is a nasty invasive algae that can cripple a trout stream. As it grows it is often described as looking like toilet paper stuck to the bottom of crystal clear and fast moving waters – ideal for trout. As the “snot” grows, it can destroy the aquatic life that trout feed on and just as importantly is sends the aquatic ecosystem into disarray.

Recently, didymo was confirmed as being in existence in the Upper Connecticut River, some prime trout habitat and a popular fishery as well as being frequented by canoers and kayakers. Shortly after this discovery, didymo was again found on the White River in Vermont and the most recent discovery occurring on the Batten Kill River in Vermont and at the border of New York State.

Not to sound like an alarmist or a defeatist but it may be safe to say the the waters of New England are beginning to take a hit from this invasive species. What overall impact this will have on our trout waters and economies remains to be seen.

When the first announcement came about the discovery of didymo in the Connecticut River, what I saw in my movement around the Internet were fishermen clamoring to get the word out. As a matter of fact some groups and individuals hustled around to get up signs in an effort to alert the people and hand out fliers with instructions on how to help stop the spread of this algae. This effort all done ahead of the efforts by state officials.

What I didn’t see or hear was bickering among sportsmen about whose fault it was, or who was going to be the ones to take credit for getting the word out. It was more of a unified effort. Any discussions about how didymo got to the waters of northern New England and how it is spreading were done with the attitude of education and enlightenment. I for one knew very little about didymo prior to this.

Yesterday, I was alerted to a thread that was posted at the forums of Fly Fishing in Maine. Although I have been a member of the Fly Fishing in Maine forums for quite some time, I almost never post there but like many places I frequent, I do so to read and find out what sportsmen are talking about. I have no ill feelings toward the website, its owners, administrators or members. Had a post like this shown up on my own website, I would have reacted in the same manner.

As I said at the beginning of this article, I shouldn’t be giving this my time but I feel it needs to be pointed out that in my opinion, the vast majority of fishermen, no matter what kind of rod they use or bait they cast, don’t feel as this person does. Here’s the post.

It is often said that fly fishing is the most noble form of our sport. Not only do we take fishing to an art form, but the majority of us show our target species and their ecosystems the utmost respect. Enter Didymo – our community takes up arms to defend against this paralyzing threat.
But what about the average joe tossing his worm on a hook? Is he aware and does he care?
Fishing is a leisure activity and its finest appeal is the relaxation it affords our tired bodies and souls. We work and toil our lives away and fishing gives us a moment of respite from the turmoil of life.
Who wants to interrupt this relaxation with hours of cleaning equipment, exchanging felt soles for rubber, navigating waterways to eliminate fishing infected areas, etc. The fly-fisherman will do this happily, because we know what’s at stake.
What about the rest?

It is troubling that there are actually individuals alive on this planet that believe that because they cast a fly onto the water, they are somehow more “noble” than let’s say someone opting to drown a worm. American Heritage Dictionary defines noble as 1. Of, in, or belonging to the nobility. 2. Having or showing qualities of high moral character…. 3. Superior in nature or character; exalted: a noble ideal.

When a person chooses to take up fly fishing, I would like to think they do it because of the challenges and enjoyment they get from all aspects of the sport not because they are looking to become an elite member of the fly fishing fraternity that thinks others don’t care. There is nothing wrong with wanting to fly fish. There is nothing wrong with spending gobs of money to enjoy the sport. There is nothing wrong with buying a Zebco rod and reel at Wal-Mart of $9.95, digging some worms out back and heading down to the local brook and catching the night’s supper. In my opinion both disciplines are “noble” when compared to many other things our society indulges in.

When we begin assuming attitudes of superiority, nobility and grandeur all because we think we are better than another because of how we choose to fish, it is a sad day for all outdoor sportsmen. We see all too often these days such attitudes more geared for the promotion of our own special interests than for what’s good for all, including the fisheries we all strive to protect.

For this person to suggest that because he is a member of an elite group of “noble” fishermen, he and his fellow anglers are the only ones who care enough to want to do anything about didymo, is absolutely absurd. It makes you wonder what other thoughts this person has toward his fellow man.

The most encouraging part of this post comes from the responses that follow. As of this writing there were 11 responses and not one of them agreed. I don’t for one minute believe that the majority or even a small minority of fishermen at Fly Fishing in Maine honestly feel that spinning rod fishermen don’t care whether didymo grows and spreads in New England waters. We all have differing ideas on how best to manage our fisheries and often times, as has been displayed during the latest legislative session, ideas clash and emotions run high. This debate is far better than sportsmen sitting at home not getting involved at all. It shows more and more of us care and are willing to step up to the microphone and be heard. Let the debating continue but posts like this one do absolutely nothing to further the cause of understanding and preventing the spread of this and other invasive species.

Tom Remington

Restore-Sam never learned to walk. Its life was short, so short it failed to make an impact on anyone, even at a time when fellow sportsmen seemed pitted against one another in legislative battles being waged in Augusta.

Many thought that with an ability to learn to talk early, Restore Sam showed promise and would grow up to be a strong body, one with excellent leadership skills, all the necessary characters to unite Maine sportsmen back to the day when any outdoor matter meant something to all Maine sportsmen.

Remember the announcement that came with the birth certificate?

RESTORE SAM is dedicated to returning the focus of SAM to what the average Maine sportsman desires and not as an advocate for special interest groups who pit one type of sportsman against another.

Such grand plans, creating hope in the minds of many who were frustrated. What began as a flash in the pan, soon whimpered away as just another website with a good idea. I for one, had thoughts that perhaps such an activist group could perhaps create a force that would reunite the Maine sportsmen at a time when outdoor sportsmen all across America seem to be waging war against each other in hopes of promoting their own special interest.

I tried a couple of times myself to resuscitate Restore Sam by prompting it with challenges to get up out of bed and fight but soon it became obvious that Restore Sam was crippled, perhaps by lack of direction or leadership, but powerless to get out of its own crib.

Rest in peace Restore Sam. We really didn’t have a chance to get to know you, so few will really miss you, which is sad.

Tom Remington

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Last year the Pennsylvania legislature unsuccessfully tried to adopt a law requiring kids to buy a fishing license before they can drown a worm. This tax proposal met with opposition and died in session last year. That isn’t deterring those who believe charging a kid five bucks to go fishing, is worth every penny.

According to the Morning Call, the new bill is identical to last year’s.

The proposal being discussed is virtually identical to the bill introduced last year by former Rep. Bruce Smith, R-York. Smith’s bill called for a mandatory $5 fishing license for kids 12-15. The fee would include trout stamp and Lake Erie stamp fishing privileges.

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission supports this bill and Douglas Austen, commission director, says five bucks is no big deal.

”The common response we get when we tell people we want to charge kids to fish is, ‘No Way!”’ he said. ”First of all, $5 isn’t an issue for most kids. Five bucks is less than a Happy Meal in most places.”

Most kids? So should we continue the trend of believing it is ok to eliminate some kids from fishing because they couldn’t pay the fee? Even though there are several organizations who say they will provide vouchers to any kid who wants to fish and can’t afford the fee, one has to question the move in the middle of a time when we are all scrambling to figure out how to attract and retain more hunters and fishermen.

But the PA Fish and Boat Commission says that 100% of all money collected will go toward that goal.

Austen said money raised through the sale of youth fishing licenses would be used to hold special youth fishing events, purchase equipment for fishing tackle loaner programs, develop printed and online educational materials and host fishing workshops for teachers who could incorporate fishing and fisheries conservation into lesson plans.

”The whole point of this is to get kids connected with the outdoors and create people who, as adults, are knowledgeable about the value of the natural resource and will take that with them, whether they become biologists or waterways officers or bankers or doctors,” Austen said.

”I’ll be honest with you — if these kids grow up to be adults who vote for conservation and stewardship, and never fish another day in their life, that’s still a success.”

I question whether they will achieve the goals they think they will. While I agree that such programs will educate those willing to get involved, I don’t think it will reach other kids that might get just enough out of fishing to keep them out of trouble but would be deterred from the requirements and attention. There are such kids.

The Commission estimates that they will be able to generate as much as $2.2 million dollars to put toward their program. Taxing kids $5 to fish I don’t believe is in the best interest of fishing. History shows us that once a tax is levied, it is never repealed and it just keeps going up. A tax is a tax and all taxes are an impediment that stifles growth.

If the Fish and Boat Commission, along with Trout Unlimited and other groups and individuals so believe that this program is so valuable, then let’s do it through volunteering and donations. How much of that hoped for $2.2 million will go toward administration costs and how much toward attracting and retaining kids to go fishing?

It may sound good on paper but to me it sounds too much like just another bureaucratic taxation in which to pad the coffers of a fish and game department that doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to staying within its budget.

I would try a different approach.

Tom Remington