North American Wildlife Conservation Model (cont’d)

So what now? We know that the North American Wildlife Conservation Model exists; we know that it was (and still is) a visionary initiative; we know that most, if not all, of today’s conservation laws, acts, and international wildlife treaties have used this model as a basis for decision making; and we know that North American wildlife survives and thrives as a direct result of this conservation model.

But we also know that our politicians, who are ultimately our lawmakers, are being increasingly seduced by vote buying rhetoric that is based on misinformation and emotion rather than science and objectivity. Because they have little or no understanding of conservation issues and especially where the funding comes from they tend to take the easy path of creating “feel good” legislation to appease equally misinformed urbanites.

A case in point is legislation passed by Switzerland (soon to be followed by Germany) that will ban catch and release fishing and all forms of competitive fishing. This is typical of a decision that was made in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that supports catch and release fishing. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the financial consequences of their decision. I expect that in a few years – after funds for resource management dry up and resources begin to deteriorate – they will have a change of heart. I only hope that governing bodies adopt a more objective perspective before it is too late.

News & Info: Press Releases – May 2008
SWISS GOVERNMENT TO BAN ‘CATCH AND RELEASE’ FISHING
Catch and Release fishing will be banned in Switzerland from next year, it was revealed this week. And anglers in the country will have to demonstrate their expertise by taking a course on humane methods of catching fish, under new legislation outlined by the Bundesrat - the Swiss Federal Parliament.

The new legislation states that fish caught should be killed immediately following their capture, with a sharp blow to the head from a blunt instrument. Under the new regulations, the use of live bait and barbed hooks is also prohibited except in certain situations.

The laws come into effect in 2009 but while the Swiss government does not mention Catch and Release specifically, it does say that "it is not permitted to go fishing with the 'intention' to release the fish." EFTTA lobbyist Jan Kappel has been in contact with Martin Peter, Vice President of the Swiss Angling Federation, to see whether a joint approach to the Swiss government could persuade them to amend the legislation - which forms part of a much wider animal welfare program.

The law on the protection of animals was passed by the Swiss parliament in 2005 and officials have spent three years refining the details, taking into account the comments of interested parties. Said Jan: "Catch and Release is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with, and one of the most important in my opinion. “The new Swiss law doesn't make use of the term 'Catch and Release', which is the same as in Germany – but I don't see how governments can enforce legislation which makes 'intent' illegal.
“And demanding that people kill the fish they catch gives no thought to the conservation benefits from releasing them."

Angling Codes of Conduct with regards to proper handling and releases can be found for practically any fish species caught by anglers in Switzerland and the rest of the world. The new Swiss law makes it obligatory for anglers to take lessons before being granted a fishing license. So there is absolutely no need for an outright ban on the release of fish in Switzerland.” It’s believed that the legislation could affect as many as 275,000 anglers in Switzerland, who generate around 30 million Euros in annual tackle sales.

EFTTA acting president, Pierangelo Zanetta, said: "EFTTA does not believe that forcing anglers to kill their catches is either good for nature or for recreational sport fishing - which makes a significant financial contribution to the EU economy. “Making the killing of fish obligatory will simply reduce fish population and, at the same time, run the risk of having a negative impact on sport fishing. "Anglers and the sport of angling invest time and money to improve water quality and create larger and healthier fish populations. We believe is it far better for the fish if the fisherman decides, according to the situation, whether to keep and eat the fish or to release it."

Think it can’t happen here? Just watch politicians during the next election campaign. “Feel good” legislation is much easier to deal with than science based objective legislation. And we know that, at least in Ontario, we have a government that loves “feel good” legislation.

This series will be continued and is proudly brought to you by www.distinctnorthernart.com . Visit us and browse our wide variety of original wildlife art and etched glass wildlife mirrors.