Tossing Mullet
You have to hand it to them – recreational fishermen are a tenacious bunch. Gill netters aren’t cold in their grave yet and these industrious protectors of the right to fish have taken on another enticing endeavor – blood-baiting! Now there’s a descriptive word for you – conjures up images of ultimate fighting contests and any number of other blood and gore events. I’d never heard the term before but I’m not much of a fisherman (no patience), so that’s understandable. I could be a “catcherman,” but the other, fishing for the sake of fishing – not so much.
I have heard of “chumming” however, so I tried to find its etymology online and failed. It apparently is an American term of unknown origin, first appearing in the mid-19th century. I did find a reference to “chumming” associated with seasickness (another reason I don’t fish) and all seem to refer to introducing a variety of presumably attractive food items into the water to attract fish that are then duly slaughtered by the industrious (and not-so-patient) fisherman.
At any rate, I was struck by the recent story that the State of Alabama, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Orange Beach City Council have both undertaken the latest assault on the Coastal Conservation Association’s “Right To Fish As Long As You Don’t Use A Net” campaign. Apparently both management entities have had the temerity to suggest that you can not (not should not) use bloody, half-spoiled meat and materials of any kind within 300 feet of the beach in order to attract and catch sharks.
Where will this regulatory juggernaut end? Certainly it has to be interpreted as yet another encroachment on our individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution! I think fishing was mentioned somewhere. I’m pretty sure that the LNG “open loop” opponents used that argument, but I might be wrong.
Sharks and shark fishing was popularized by Peter Benchley’s book, “Jaws,” in 1974. The subsequent movie’s music is still used to represent the most threatening of situations, piscine or otherwise.
But there has also been an emerging concern for the role played by these predators at almost the top of the food chain. The pinnacle of the food pyramid is actually us, because we have almost certainly eaten more sharks than they have eaten humans. A number of them are quite tasty, but the big bucks are made by the despicable practice of “finning” in which only the fins are harvested for shark fin soup, a Chinese delicacy served at festive events, and there seem to be a lot more Chinese than sharks.
At any rate, the decimation of the pelagic sharks may be one of the most important factors in the dramatic changes observed in the world’s ocean fishery. There is a strong theory of “top-down” control by large predators in the complicated food webs that characterize the marine world. While such theories may be hotly debated by marine biologists, there is little doubt that the numbers of these slow-growing, low reproductive capacity fish had declined through the last half of the 20th century.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides for management of sharks. The large oceanic species are defined as “overfished,” while the small coastal species are said to be “fully fished.” The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is funding research by Drs. Sean Powers and John Dindo of USA and the Dauphin Island Sea Lab to look at the distribution and populations of our coastal sharks. The work is integral to the new Richard C. Shelby Center for Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management at the Sea Lab.
Meanwhile NMFS has just outlined new measures to prevent overfishing of sandbar, a commercially valuable Atlantic coast species and other sharks. The final environmental impact statement contains other regulations designed to prevent overfishing of several shark species and can be found at the Highly Migratory Species Management Division’s Web site, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ according to the April edition of NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico News.
So – let me get back to the story. Recent fatal shark attacks have rekindled our basic fears of these ocean predators and our fascination with large animals that dare to take us on – like lions and tigers (oh my!). They are not yet technically overfished, they are big and most fight pretty hard so there is an obvious interest from recreational fishermen who can kill about 3-4 birds with one stone. They can reduce the threat by wiping out these dangerous fish, have a good time, be king of the hill, and don’t have to pay the outrageous costs of fuel to go out where the sharks are – they can bring them right into the hook!
These intrepid hunters have apparently been using “chum” on or near bathing beaches to partake of the sport of shark/surf fishing. It is not clear from the reports as to whether they were particularly successful, but obviously someone other than the sharks has elevated the issue to a regulatory level. It occurred to me that these individuals may have yet another objective in pursuit of this version of sport that almost certainly has crossed the mind of some of the Baldwin County natives.
Do you know how long you have to wait in line at a Gulf Shores or Orange Beach restaurant? It’s outrageous most of the year now – so a few less snowbirds or Spring Breakers can’t be all bad. Besides, the publicity is great for the fishing, if not the tourist, industry and maybe the feds, State and city will back off this onerous extension of regulatory inroads into our freedom to fish.
Furthermore, the situation is normal, as they say, because there are already regs in place to handle this situation. Dogs and horses can’t poop on the beach or in the water in Baldwin County because of human health concerns right now. So it seems obvious that disposing of what is called chum or bloodbait has to be a violation of those statutes, not to mention any number of water pollution standards.
We’ve got it covered, no new regulation!
George Crozier is Lagniappe columnist. Contact him at george@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Tossing Mullet
