Not So Fast - Recreational Fishing Ban

The following is a letter we sent this evening to the city leaders of Deerfield Beach, FL. A proposed ordinance to ban any and all recreational fishing on the beaches there, while effectively forcing citizen and visiting anglers to pay access fees to fish on the city-owned pier, was brought to our attention last Friday. The alert came from ILSFA Lead Committee member, friend, and dedicated angler, Zach Miller.

He's spearheading the local effort there to convince city leaders tomorrow evening at a public hearing that this type of blanket policy setting and broad stroke law-making is in dire need of public scrutiny, careful consideration, and most importantly, justification. He just advised us there is a healthy contingent of concerned, level-headed, taxpaying, recreational license carrying citizens and anglers planning to attend.

Whether or not you're an angler, or live in Deerfield Beach, instances like this should cause you some level of concern about the type of important and wide-reaching decisions being made every day that in one way or another, might directly affect daily life for you or someone you know. In the meantime, lucky for you, we're not only paying attention, we're getting involved in the process.

We've been through this before, and our thanks to Zach, Pat and Tommy for being on top of this and rallying the troops. Good luck tomorrow night. We'll be there in spirit and are confident that facts, reason and the power of the people will, once again, prevail.

If you're interested in more information or attending the meeting:

Copy of Proposed Amendment

City of Deerfield Beach

Email for absentee opinion: web.clerk@deerfield-beach.com

========================================================

Dear Mayor Noland and Commissioners of the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida:

Although, we cannot attend this public meeting in person on November 3rd, 2009, due to prior commitments, we appreciate the opportunity for our views, opinions and input on the important matter of the proposed amendment to section 74-2 to be heard, acknowledged and made part of the official public record.

Our Names Are:
Sean Paxton & Brooks Paxton II

As well known advocates for sensible policies and laws in support of American sportsman's rights, we have a vested and common interest in monitoring any proposed policy or sweeping legislation that may unjustly infringe upon those rights. As such, this amendment to section 74-2 to prohibit all recreational fishing from the city's beach was recently brought to our attention, and we're glad it was.

With all due respect, the radical and far reaching intent of this proposal strikes us as misguided and uninformed at best, and carelessly extremist in nature, at its worst. In an effort to uncover the reasoning behind it, our first reaction was to pose the following questions and thoughts:

Question #1
What could possibly provoke such an aggressive move by a city to literally prohibit its citizens and visitors from enjoying one of the most basic, historically benign, and wholesome, family-friendly recreational activities, that has also been a part of Florida's culture and economy for generations?

Question #2
What did the Commission base its findings on to reasonably conclude that, 'Fishing from the beach creates a safety hazard to bathers, surfers and others using the beach for recreation' -- to the extent that an outright ban on it seemed reasonably justified?

A few related thoughts, for consideration ...

We can only wonder if these hazards were perceived or if they are, in fact, based on legitimate documentation of a trend in related incidents that would then potentially constitute a concerning hazard. If the latter were so, we'd be interested in reviewing the police or other official incident reports, filed public complaints, other validated documentation, statistics or any other legitimate comparable data.

This forced us to think about whether or not the proposed hazards caused by recreational fishing are even slightly comparable to or any worse than the many others common to any beach environment in the world such as: weather events like rip tides, lightening, heavy surf, over-exposure to UV rays, careless personal water craft operators, boating under the influence, sharp manmade objects left in the sand by beach-goers, naturally occurring sharp objects like sea shells, human altercations, potentially dangerous stinging or biting wildlife, sewage and other biological hazards. etc. Yes, indeed, the beach can be a dangerous place, but usually, considering the sheer number of people making it home safe every day ... it's not.

If 'hazards' to those recreating on the city's beach is your true motivation here, and everything just mentioned is taken into account, it would ironically appear that a more fair and balanced act by the city, on the public's behalf, would be to simply prohibit anyone from using the beach for any type of 'recreation'. After all, there would appear to be far too many hazards for it to be 100% safe for anyone ... so let's just close the beaches, altogether. Better to be 100% safe than sorry.

In comparison to whatever empirical data we can only hope you're basing this amendment on, we'd be very interested to compare it, side-by-side, to statistical data tied to any of those other hazards mentioned previously; to see how the amendment stacks up in the way of tolerance and sound judgment.

That aside, we would urge you to consider the bigger problems this amendment may cause, at the expense of the otherwise inalienable rights of the citizens of, and visitors to, your fair city. For instance ...

By forcing anglers to pay fees to fish from the city-owned pier, there is a growing perception that purely economic drivers are behind this amendment.

Inevitably, there will be an over-crowding issue with an already over-crowded pier that will surely result in conflicts between those having to now fight for their 24 inches or so of rail space. By the way, not everyone likes to fish from a pier. We, personally, can't stand it. Forcing all anglers to do so under the guise of, 'at least they get to fish' doesn't cut it. Not even close.

On that note, there must be a capacity limit for the pier so there will no doubt be times when license-paying, law abiding citizens will not be allowed or able to enjoy a well-earned Saturday afternoon of fishing with their family. A pier full to capacity will quickly put those plans on ice for many.

The new FWC licensing requirement for land-based recreational anglers (for the first time in Florida's history) is now in full force. Those more than willing to pay that fee will now also be forced to pay additionally for what amounts to a bridge toll every, single time they want to simply go fishing within the city limits.

Citizen and angler's rights aside for a moment. Let's talk dollars and common sense. The American Sportfishing Association represents the  interests of America's 60 MILLION anglers. Those sportsmen, women and children generate over 45 BILLION in retail sales. Recreational anglers impact the American economy to the tune of 250 BILLION dollars, which results in gainful employment for over ONE MILLION people. With Florida being the recreational sportfishing giant that it is, and with its 663 miles of beaches, and 1200 miles of coastline, it's a fair guess that some respectable portion of that 250 BILLION dollars, all that positive economic impact and jobs can be accounted for right here in Deerfield Beach.

In our various roles, and as members of the media, we are often called upon for opinion and commentary, including that regarding the travel and sportfishing industries. You have to think what kind of impact a prohibition like this would have on the city's image if headlines such as, 'Deerfield Beach - The Most Fishing UNfriendly City in Florida' began popping up. We don't want to see that happen and we'd rather not have to comment on it.

In closing,

On this amendment's surface, and it doesn't appear to go much deeper, there seems to be more legitimate questions than sensible and sound answers, at this point. With that said, we would respectfully urge you to deny the proposed amendment to Section 74-2 or to, at the very least, table it until a more realistic, fair and less damaging resolution for all those concerned can be reached.

Respectfully:
Sean Paxton
Brooks Paxton II

Update on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 10:34AM by Sean Paxton

We're happy to report that Zach Miller notified us of the Mayor and City Commission's move to deny this proposed amendment intended to ban recreational fishing on Deerfield Beach. We commend everyone that showed up to speak in front of the city leaders, as well as anyone else that might have sent absentee letters of opinion to them, as we did.

I'll get a direct recap from Zach and post it, but from all indications, this was yet another knee-jerk reaction to limit the rights of many, initiated by a few that would like to have it all to themselves for their own limited purpose. Apparently, with the strong showing and collective voice of reason, there wasn't much resistance before the gavel fell in favor of the right and just vote.

Brooks and I congratulate all who were part of this and a special thanks to Zack Miller, Pat Dirindin and Tom Argue from BoatlessFishing.com for organizing a successful opposition.

L-R: Zach Miller, Tom Argue, Pat Dirindin

Some of 'The Doers' in front of City Hall, less another 10 or so that already exited. That's a solid showing, especially on short notice.

Panic Button Abuse and 'Yuppie 911'

Modern technology and innovations in travel, communications and gear have made adventuring in the outdoors accessible to just about anybody with the cash and time to get there, but it's a double-edged sword. Just walk through a sporting goods superstore like REI or Dick's and listen in on some of the conversations between sales people and customers and you'll get a feel for what I'm talking about. The fact that people are interested in getting off the couch, away from the flat screen and into the wild is a positive trend with big money industries like Eco-Tourism and Adventure Travel experiencing explosive growth in response to the growing demand.

More and more, though, we're seeing some people get in over their heads, biting off more than they can chew, and basically feeling they can simply jump to the top of the mountain. When this happens, search and rescue personnel are called upon as the professionals they are to do what they do best, and they're doing it all day, every day.

From an LA Times Article: According to the Wilderness Medical Society, from 1992 to 2007 in the US National Parks System, there were 78,488 people involved in 65,439 Search and Rescue (SAR) incidents. These included 2,659 fatalities, 24,288 injured or sick people, and 13,212 "saves," or saved lives. On average there were 11.2 SAR incidents per day at an average cost of $895 per operation. Total cost from 1992 to 2007: $58,572,164.

Anyone that spends a lot of time in the outdoors, ends up pushing the limits because that's what limits are for, and it's why you're out there in the first place. But putting the time in -- out there also adds up to valuable experience. I'm not saying there will never come a time when I get myself into a situation where the assistance of highly trained personnel skilled in the finer points of saving other people's asses won't become necessary. If it does, I hope there's a way to contact them and that they can make it to me in time. One thing's for sure, if I'm hitting the panic button, it won't be for anything short of a last resort.

As an advocate for getting as many people as possible interested in and caring about adventure and wildlife, I also urge an investment of time and effort to 'know before you go' and to also 'learn to return'. The latest in hi-tech equipment and battery operated satellite communications don't mean much of anything without knowledge, experience, preparation and common sense. Even with all that, things still go wrong and even the most experienced can go down, but if your idea of roughing it is sleeping at a Motel 6, then think it through. Get some training, maybe even hire a guide for your first time out and learn from a pro.

Wilderness Rescuers Fear 'Yuppie 911' Makes Calling for Help too Easy

Search and Rescue Operations in National Parks Costly, but Effective


Photo Courtesies: Courtesy DND/MCpl Rebecca Bell, Jimsphotos | Agency: Dreamstime

Sons of Lee Marvin & A Missing Colt .45

Life ain’t all serious and since it’s Halloween on a Saturday, seemed like as good a time as any to lighten up a little. That doesn't mean we can't try and cook the noodle a little bit while we're at it, though. Maybe learn a little something; if not some useful information, let's at least settle on something interesting. Remember … it's Halloween on a Saturday, folks.

TRICKS AND TREATS
Pic of me during a 2008 expedition to observe and document the carnivorous habits of an arachnid, more commonly known as the orb weaver spider.

Never knowing where you might end up at the end of a google search, I came across an article, while researching the validity of Lee Marvin’s big game fishing prowess … apparently the stuff of legendary proportions. I’m lucky to have been reared in a generation where the dudes that kicked ass in the movies actually had to tone down their real-life selves a few notches, in order to pull off their fake big screen antics. We're talking about the likes of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and the rest of the original Motley Crue from movies like 'The Dirty Dozen' that co-starred a true American badass by the name of Lee Marvin.

Turns out, he was an accomplished big game angler, but what does Lee Marvin and marlin fishing have in common with purple hearts, Tom Waits, the battle of Saipan, a Colt .45 and John Lurie? Find out all that and more in this article on OutsideLeft.com aptly entitled,
'Fishing With Lee'.

Land Shark Alert! Seriously...Not a Joke

'We reached the old wolf in time to watch the fierce green fire dying in her eyes. There was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and the mountains. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch. I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer that no wolves would mean hunter’s paradise, but after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view'. - Adrew Leopold

Apex predators - those animals that are not preyed upon as healthy adults in the wild, and that must at least partially, depend on capturing live prey to survive aren't just critical links, but the all-important lynch pins of any healthy environment. While we are trying, but only beginning to understand their vital and necessary roles, the world's top predators are being killed off at alarming rates; making the negative effects of their increasingly conspicuous absence a concept that's all too easily understood in the cumulative effects we're now seeing.

Photograph by Beverly Joubert

I recently realized that spending so much time in marine-related activities and causes has resulted in a regretful disassociation for me. Fortunately, a piece on NationalGeographic.com about the decline of big cat populations brought me back to dry earth, reminding me of the connected totality of the planet's wildlife and ecosystems. Just like sharks, their terrestrial counterparts -- big cats like lions, tigers and cheetahs are a bellwether for the overall health of their respective ecosystems.

Perhaps, due to their heightened pop culture status, many are aware of the trending decline of global shark populations and some species' reduction in numbers to an estimated 20% of what they were only a few decades ago. By startling comparison, and according to the Big Cat Initiative (launched by the National Geographic Society), lion populations are currently estimated at an anemic 1.7% of what they were in the 1800's. Sure, that sounds like a long time ago, but as is the case with sharks, it's no excuse for apathy. These declines are not passing fads, but mathematically quantifiable trends, and the cause is a familiar one with the loss of any apex predator. To quote NatGeo, 'Lions are victims of habitat loss and degradation as well as conflicts with humans'. In more ways than one, I don't see 'conflicts with humans' being unfairly succinct as a causative statement.

Cause and effect. We've identified the cause and we're no doubt seeing the effective decline of these top predators and their habitats. A problem, once identified, doesn't deserve any further attention or effort that robs either from its solution. Sharks, lions, tigers, bears, wolves -- In the grand scheme of conservation and sustainable policy and practices, none is more important than the other. Taking action is, however, of the utmost importance. Whichever, wherever, however, and with whomever, pick a worthy cause, and roll up your sleeves, but do so with a laser-like focus on effecting a real, measurable and lasting reversal of spiraling trends like those mentioned here.

For one of the most graphic representations I've seen depicting species decline, check out this interactive Lion Population Decline Map and more info about the Big Cat Inititiative. If you or someone you know is involved in related research, education, new technology, and other efforts, direct applications for grants are also being accepted by the initiative.

151st Birthday for Conservation Pioneer

Born October 27, 1858, Theodore Roosevelt created enough federal wildlife reservations, national game preserves, national forests, national parks and national monuments in his lifetime to conserve 234 million acres of wild America.

A man of deep conviction and above all a man of action, Roosevelt had the foresight to take on the issues still so significant to sportsmen today, understanding that if we want to ensure that critical fish and wildlife habitat, special hunting grounds and secret fishing holes will be around for future generations, we must act now.  

In the spirit of T.R., on this, his 151st birthday, take action on the conservation issues that matter the most to you. The TRCP is working every day to sustain our nation's irreplaceable outdoor heritage. Your help can guarantee that all Americans have access to high-quality places to hunt and fish - now and forever. Support the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today.

"Great thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind." -Theodore Roosevelt

Photo credit: The Library of Congress
Deerskin suit, rifle in hand.