Global Warming Reeling in Anglers, Hunters
This post isn’t exactly related to my daily accounts of clean energy goings-on, but since I’ve been hunting since I was 12 (don’t ask about my record), it caught my eye.
The impacts of global warming are starting to hit home for a lot of us, and those out in nature see some of the earliest effects. In Culebra Creek, Colorado, locals are reporting very early run-off from the mountains. This means less water in the summer and fall, according to Jack Williams, a scientist with the conservation group Trout Unlimited. Fish like trout need cold water and become stressed on hot summer days. He told Reuters:
"We are finding a lot of concern among anglers and hunters about climate change. These people value traditions and their family and it will affect their children and their ability to enjoy these kinds of outdoor experiences.”
Goose hunting is another sport that’s been affected by a warmer climate. One guide on the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island estimated that hunters only bagged about 40 percent of the geese they normally get. Warmer temps allow the birds to stay longer in coastal areas that used to freeze up, and allow for an earlier grain harvest. That means there’s less food in the fields to attract the birds when the hunting season begins in the fall.
According to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), more than 40 million Americans hunt or fish and they spend $70 billion a year on licenses, equipment, and supplies. That sort of participation and money, of course, leads to political influence. In fact, anglers and hunters played an important role in securing congressional protection from oil and gas drilling last year for the Valle Vidal area in New Mexico and the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana.
Eighty percent of anglers and hunters surveyed by the NWF said they believe the U.S. isn’t doing enough to fight global warming, especially our addiction to oil. Their lawmakers had better be listening. In particular, the Republican Party – which counts on sportsmen and women for a strong base of support - has often been reluctant to move decisively on global warming in the past. Anglers and hunters have a great opportunity to reel in their sluggish elected officials on this issue.
National Wildlife Federation
Reuters, via Planet Ark
targetglobalwarming.org
March 25th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I doubt the validity of this “Eighty percent of anglers and hunters surveyed by the NWF said they believe the U.S. isn’t doing enough to fight global warming”. Most hunters aren’t dumb enough to believe that man is causing global warming. They must have been tricked by the question.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
For information on global warming, visit the Journal Science (”The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) or this article on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm)
March 25th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Well, the NWF never surveyed me (hunter/angler since I was 4), but I would be in the evil, sadistic, dissenting 20% that think the government shouldn’t impose any new legislation on businesses with respect to climate change.
The EPA has an incentive to say global warming is a problem. As does the IPCC and US government. If enough fear and propaganda is spread, people will willingly give up control of some of their liberties for security (from the scary global warming monster!). The EPA will undoubtedly get increase funding in the coming years and the US government will increase taxes to fund scientific garbage to find correlations between the mating patterns of some endangered insect and the weather (who cares?).
Politically speaking, the Right already has their bogeyman (Islamic terrorism) and the Left is desperately trying to promote theirs with Global Warming (OOOOOOHH!! Booga-booga!).
Al Gore and his ilk keep saying this issue isn’t political. Please, folks, it is. Al Gore is a big Democrat (heh, that’s actually more funny after reading that sentence again). If it wasn’t political, he wouldn’t be spouting the propaganda.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
James;
Who cares about EPA research? Anyone who understands the interconnection between our quality of life and the Earth’s health.
You seem to think establishing legislation to control pollution would somehow detract from your civil liberties. I think many, including myself, feel that attitudes of carelessness have detracted from their civil liberties for far too long.
Regulation of pollution is one of the few political issues we should all be able to agree on. I hope that you, and others who feel similarly, are able to one day see the long term responsibilities we all have towards our home and future generations.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Wow. I read this blog and was amazed by the poor conjectures.
Trout - in the past 20 years the temperature has increased less than .5 degree. It has increased only 1.5 deg in the last 100 years. So the first 1 degree in the first 80 years didn’t hurt the trout fishing but the last .5 did? Give me a break! I have another theory - overfishing or perhaps other pollution in the water killed the fish or caused them to not reproduce as quickly as before. Or maybe their food sources have changed (are there less bugs?) or maybe another food source changed so now something is eating trout eggs. Lots of maybes which are just as factually possible as the temperature increases a little bit.
Multiple studies over the years have shown that it is the change in length of day that cause migratory birds to move. Not the temperature of the air. Same argument as above though - why did the last .5 degrees make a difference when the first 1 deg didn’t.
As a meteorologist on a comment on a global warming site pointed out - the change of temperature is equal to about a 50 mile move south. Take a look at
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/02/22/fever-claim-on-global-warming/