Spoonies in trouble at Ding Darling NWR

[dzaebst]

<p>On January 19 and 20 of this year, I was photographing at Ding Darling NWR, and took the attached photo of a Roseate Spoonbill with fishing line wound around his bill. This particular bird tried for some time to dislodge the line and failing, he flew off, still with fishing line training behind him. I saw more than one spoonie with line around its bill or in one case, it looked as though it had a hook in its tongue. I contacted the refuge manager and got no response at all. I called their main phone line and was routed to an animal rescue operation (C.R.O.W.) which responded they couldn't help unless I brought the bird to them. Even though I saw the same two birds two mornings in a row (or perhaps it was four birds, a different pair the second morning, but I doubt it).<br>

My question is (perhaps a naive one) is why do they allow fishing in a wildlife refuge like this with shallow ponds? Even though the refuge has signs up on wildlife drive about responsible fishing, it's the 1% of the fishermen who don't care that will kill the birds. It seems to me that they should ban fishing (at least with fishing lines) within the refuge boundaries. Is anyone aware that similar policies are in place at other refuges? Or is this the norm?<br>

Dennis</p>

<div></div>

[ed_tyler1]

<p>Hi Dennis,<br>

It's a sad sight to see any animal with debris left by humans caught around its body.<br>

I do some work at a local reservoir here in the UK and again although its a "Wildlife Reserve" fishing is allowed. However I undertstand that the fishing is very tightly controlled and they are only allowed in certain areas to fish.<br>

The fee for fishing is very high to try to discourage this sort of behaviour, but money can't stamp it out. But I do have to say in the fishermens defence if they catch any diving birds or see birds in distress then they do call the Warden who deals the the situation.<br>

I hope the birds manage to shed the lines.</p>

[greg s]

<p>Fishing lines/hooks are easily one of the most insidious forms of trash for shore birds in general. In San Diego I saw more crippled pelicans and gulls than I care to think about. At Homosassa Springs in Florida they have an enclosure where pelicans with lost legs and wings are kept. How many such enclosures exist along the coastline of the US... who knows?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Unfortunately, the is fairly common.</p>

<p>The attached image was captured in the San Diego area back in 2007.</p><div></div>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Dennis, I can tell you as a long-time serious angler that this is very disturbing to all serious anglers. Everyone seriously involved in recreational fishing has been trying to tackle this problem. The line companies are including memos in or on most boxes, the F&W and DNR people are doing educational spots, emails, reminders on the licenses, on the magazines to spread the word. The last two years here in NJ has seen a big upswing in this problem solving. In my opinion, it is not so much the lazy casual fisherman as it is poorly skilled novice anglers who have line mishaps and then breakoffs that they can't recover or don't recover. This needs continued education and attention. I know when I go fishing I always carry a bag and collect other peoples mishaps, cut line from trees I can reach and collect trash. The lazy part is truly inexcusable, but the mishaps are unintentional and need better education for the novice anglers. Either way, the result is the same as in your observations. This is no doubt serious business and needs as much attention as possible. I am hoping to attend the NJ Trout stocking forum next Saturday, and I can assure you this will be mentioned by someone as a topic.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Dennis,</p>

<p>I would think that it is more than 1% of fisherman. Anyone fishing that gets hung up is going to cut the line and also a lot of fish break lines. We all know how it works. You would think that a wildlife refuge would be refuge for wildlife, but it is also refuge for people. Hunting and fishing will always be allowed in a wildlife refuge. Also, the spoobills may have got the fishing line from another location. Anyway, it is sad to see and not much we can do about it is long as fishing is allowed anywhere.</p>

<p>What really gets me is allowing fishing in a National Park. At Congaree NP you can fish at Lake Wise but not at Lake Weston. However, take a walk around Lake Weston and you will see lines in the trees, snagged lures, bait containers, beer cans and much more.</p>

<p>It sucks,<br>

Derek</p>

[dzaebst]

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses. I agree with you Derek, that, despite their best efforts, even responsible fishermen are going to get their line snagged 50' or 100' offshore, and they will have to cut the line to get free. And who is going to wade out that far to retrieve their line? Most likely, they will hope someone else will get the line and hook later. But the line sinks to the bottom, just waiting for some hapless wading bird such as a spoonbill or ibis to come along and entangle itself in it, and maybe get the hook in its mouth. It does suck.<br>

I am thinking of writing some organizations such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and possibly the Sierra Club to see what data they have on the extent of this problem. They might have some suggestions. What surprised me when I was there was the apathy of the refuge managers and the animal rescue operation I called at their suggestion (C.R.O.W.). What really surprised me was that they allow fishing in shallow water where wading birds are foraging in the bottom mud. It's a recipe for ongoing problems. It's not as though there aren't hundreds or thousands of other places outside refuges where fishermen can fish. I'm not against fishing per se, just within wildlife refuges such as this one.<br>

Dave, I also understand and respect your position....it sounds like you are one of the good guys. One thing I am going to do is to email the photos I took of the Spoonbills to the Darling NWR so they might use them in educational outreach. If others of you could do the same if you encounter something similar, maybe the situation might improve over time.</p>

[Rod Sorensen]

<p>Dennis, a couple comments. First of all, I doubt if the refuge managers and animal rescue people are actually apathetic. I would guess they care a lot about this. But they don't make the policies. And they can't be chasing after birds like this because they wouldn't be able to catch them anyway and they don't have a bunch of staff to take the time to do this. The manager needs to manage the refuge using the regulations they have. And the animal rescue workers need to rescue animals that are immobilized by their injuries and help cure the ones they already have. Second of all, we have a general catch 22. The money from the fishing licenses helps support the whole refuge to begin with. Maybe if we didn't sell the licenses, there wouldn't be a refuge for the birds to begin with. I hate seeing this as much as anyone, but we need to be practical about what we expect other people to do about it. Talk to the people that make the policies.</p>

[dzaebst]

<p>Rod, I very much doubt if fishing licenses are the main basis of support for the refuge. And even if they were, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of other prime fishing locations outside wildlife refuges such as this one where fishermen, anglers, whatever you want to call them, can do their thing. The license fees from those sales could funnel money into the refuges. I am saying there is something wrong and illogical here. Its all a matter of policy, isn't it? If the refuge would fail without fishing-license income (from refuges), then something is terribly wrong.</p>

<p>What made me angry is a) the refuge managers refused to even acknowledge my emails and phone calls, or answer my questions. That is my definition of apathy; and b) I told them shortly after I saw the birds entangled in the fishing line that they were out there in the first pond, and they just blew me off. The lady from CROW insulted my intelligence on the phone and said they wouldn't even bother to drive out there and take a look, even though I told them I saw the same two birds two mornings in a row. That is also my definition of apathy. I understand that it is difficult to catch mobile birds, but that isn't what I am saying need to be changed. What needs to be changed is fishing with lines and hooks in the wildlife refuges such as Ding Darling.</p>

<p>As far as the policies, well, in my opinion, they are killing and maiming birds and they need to be changed. I do intend to talk to the people who make the policies. Whatever it takes.</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Hello Dennis, as promised, when I went to the Fishing Hatchery Seasonal Stocking meeting this morning here in NJ, I spent some chat time with the biologist responsible for my area to discuss this as well as two other issues. In NJ they are leaving most of this, as I thought, to the various grass roots organizations, such as the Baykeepers, various River Clubs and Trout and Bass clubs. Of course the local park officials and game wardens also play a part, but at least for here where I live, he thought the various angling clubs the best direction. As far as how to approach this in your locale, you'll have to do some research. Also, at least here in NJ pg. 41 of the Fresh Water Digest contains a Warning and a picture of a duck with his feet wrapped in line and the necessary reminder. There are such boxes throughout the whole magazine, so the idea that it's on pg 41 doesn't give it any less importance. There are assorted boxes with various warnings throughout, and most anglers read the entire mag when it comes out.</p>

[seancrane]

<p>Couldn't agree with you more Dennis. There are plenty of places to fish, let's keep the wildlife refuges for what they are set up for in the first place — being a refuge for wildlife. This should be the first and only priority. Not recreational fishing. </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Oops, some reading is in order on the national wildlife refuge system and Teddy Roosevelt. Just search National Wildlife Refuge System for more accurate information. Also Teddy Roosevelt is another good search to clear some of this up.</p>

[dzaebst]

<p>"Oops, some reading is in order on the national wildlife refuge system and Teddy Roosevelt. Just search National Wildlife Refuge System for more accurate information. Also Teddy Roosevelt is another good search to clear some of this up."</p>

<p>Clear some of what up? That fishing/angling is a valid purpose for/in wildlife refuges? That was a hundred years ago. Things have changed.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Things haven't changed. Refuges are about preserving wildlife for hunting and fishing. We're Johnny come latelies.</p>

[seancrane]

<p>Really? "Refuges are about preserving wildlife for hunting and fishing." Sounds like some sort of Sarah Palin Saturday Night Live spoof. Although allowed on many refuges (and strictly monitored), hunting and fishing have nothing to do whatsoever with the establishment of the wildlife refuge system.<br>

<br /> According to the system itself "The National Wildlife Refuge System was founded in 1903, under Theodore Roosevelt's leadership, to protect birds from extinction. NWRs are devoted primarily to protecting important animals and bird species and their habitats — and keeping our most important natural lands 'forever wild.' Most of these natural treasure are open to the public and offer unrivaled opportunities for visitors to observe abundant wildlife."</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>This is what the NWR site actually says:</p>

<p>"By Executive Order of March l4, l903, President Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, along Florida's central Atlantic coast, as the first unit of the present National Wildlife Refuge System. It is misleading, however, to conclude that this was the genesis of wildlife sanctuaries in the United States."</p>

<p>The site also discusses the sources of funding, etc. One will note that there are no funds from photography licenses involved. Nor was there any intention to preclude hunting or fishing as a blanket prohibition. Someone should have kept reading.</p>

[seancrane]

<p>Craig, if you're referring to my post, I never said or implied that there was "any intention to preclude hunting or fishing as a blanket prohibition." In fact, I acknowledged that hunting and fishing are allowed on many wildlife refuges. My point is that the refuge system's reason for being is the preservation of species and their habitats. Much like Dennis, I don't think anything should infringe upon this reason for being. Fishing line around a spoonbill's beak is a clear infringement. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Unintended consequences do not necessarily change usage. There should be an attempt to remedy the problem, but banning hunting and fishing will never fly with the system as a whole.</p>

[dzaebst]

<p>"....Banning hunting and fishing will never fly with the system as a whole."</p>

<p>Perhaps you believe that because that's the way it's always been. Based on what I have observed, I think we need a change in policy. Again, to reiterate my position, I am not against fishing and hunting per se....just against the same inside refuges which are designed to protect wildlife, especially those with very shallow water where wildlife searches for food.</p>

<p>I have written all my senators and congressmen as well as the fish and wildlife service. I am awaiting their reply. I also plan to write several conservation organizations making them aware of what is happening.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Good luck with writing congress. I believe that the current balance between hunting, fishing and preservation is about right. Hunting and fishing is not inconsistant with wildlife preservation. In fact, it's often been the hunters and fishermen in the forefront preserving wildlife populations.</p>

<p>If we don't keep our refuges friendly to hunters and fishermen we put those very refuges in danger, but cutting off the support and alienating some of the most valuable supporters.</p>

<p>I agree that procedures need to be developed to minimize the danger of accidental death to the wildlife, particularly that that's endangered and not being directly hunted and fished. The coyotes, eagles, hawks and owls kill enough without us adding to the carnage unintentionally. Widespread banning of fishing will likely be a negative for the refuges.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>The NWR system is a complex beast with each refuge allowing different activities based upon the flora and fauna of the refuge as well as the user community. If you actually did a bit of research, you will find that the refuges whose primary mission is the protection of (i.e. endangered or threatened) wildlife typically heavily restrict hunting/fishing if they even allow public access in the first place. Other types of refuges serve different purposes and communities with federal and local authorities engaged in the constant balancing act of protecting flora and fauna, protecting habitat, and ensuring that there is a large enough user community to ensure the continued functioning of individual refuges as well as the system as a whole. </p>

<p>Put in other words, refuges allow hunting and fishing when the authorities have decided that the benefits of allowing hunting and fishing (or oil exploration, ranching, etc...) outweigh the costs of such activities. In a perfect world of infinite resources, none of these activities (including photography) would be allowed in the NWR system, but we live in a world of finite resources and the money has to come from somewhere. More users means more entrance fees and a bigger slice of the federal budget. Not to blunt and unpleasant, but if you think you are more intelligent than the people running the refuge system and have some other way of balancing the compromises faced by NWR managers then by all means write angry letters to your Congresscritter. As a photographer, hunter, angler, and paddler I hope they are ignored unless you are requesting the institution of a federal photography license (fair is fair) and a small tax increase with all proceeds going to expand the NWR system. </p>

<p>In any case, most entanglements could be avoided by requiring anglers on NWR property (or anywhere else for that matter) to use biodegradeable fishing line, just like the lead problem was solved not by banning hunters but by requiring the usage of non-toxic shot. A little research and introspection could go along way towards resolving these sorts of problems with minimal inconvenience to all, especially the flora and fauna.</p>

<p> </p>

[dzaebst]

<p>I am not writing "angry letters". I am writing informational letters and asking for information in return. I do not think I am more intelligent than they are...but I may just have a different point of view. </p>

<p>My point of view is that whatever we are doing isn't working very well. There may be other solutions than banning fishing, but I don't know anything else that would be 100% effective. I also refuse to believe that the refuges get a large part of their funding through fishing licenses alone, but if they do, that needs to be changed. In my humble opinion, that means stop treating the wildlife as things to be hunted, fished, or used by humans in any way that is economically most beneficial. </p>

<p>Maybe this is a quixotic task, maybe not. I recall the situation with the Ivory Billed Woodpecker back in the 1940s going extinct or nearly extinct because no one could stop the logging of the Singer tract in Louisiana. Jeez, we killed off the Ivory-billed woodpecker so we could have pretty sewing machines made out of wood. </p>

<p>I have been, and am continuing to do, my research as you suggest. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Send money if you want results, lots of it.</p>

[dzaebst]

<p>My first response to that crack, was that it deserves a response. But then I thought better of it, and decided, after much thought, that hey, you guys are right! What a revelation! I think I'll get me a few dozen fishin' licenses (gotta support them refuges), about five fishin' poles, an' go out and see if I can tangle me up some spoonbills! I hear they taste like turkey. I just can't wait.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Dennis, while I see your points you are missing some key information and insights. First, if you ban hunters and anglers from NWRs, then NWRs become a less valuable asset and will be more likely to be turned into ranches, farms or suburbs without a large and vocal user community advocating for the continuation and expansion of the NWR system. While in some cases non-hunters/anglers can provide such a community, anglers and hunters tend to be far more numerous, more motivated, and more organized. </p>

<p>Second, while fishing licenses don't support NWRs (federal hunting licenses do), most states spend all revenues derived from state-issued hunting/fishing licenses on maintaining or obtaining places where wildlife can flourish. This is in fact an enormous pot of money and in many states provides most or all of the funding to the departments in charge of parks and wildlife. Absent this funding, taxes would have to be increased to pay for parks and wildlife, and while I for one am amiable to such an increase, you will find that your average American is not. In other words, without the continued financial support of hunters and anglers, the wild places you so love may become extinct. </p>

<p>Third, if you do some research you will find that in addition to license fees, hunters and anglers pour a large amount of money into creating and maintaining public and private wildlife refuges. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the CCA do a tremendous amount of good and actually have converted more land into sanctuaries than even the venerable Audobon society. </p>

<p>Forth and finally, I'm not sure what part of the country you live in or whom you associate with but I find that the most passionate and ardent defenders of the natural world tend to be hunters and anglers. For them, the outdoors is a passion and they want to have access to wild places in order to experience it. I sometimes meet photogs and wildlife watchers that exhibit a similar level of passion, but there are far fewer of them and they tend to cluster in a few specific areas. Take for example my beloved Galveston bay. Thousands fish or hunt it every day while there are only a couple of birders/photogs out each day. Who do you think is more effective at ensuring continued public beach access (and keeping the beaches clean)? Who actually goes out in their boats to clean up the bay? Who lobbies against continued government dredging projects? Which community can best influence the politicians and bureaucrats we entrust with our wild spaces? While the birders and photogs do what the can, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the much, much larger hunting and fishing communities. If we lose those communities, we will lose our wild spaces forever. Please keep that in mind. </p>

<p> </p>