I read with great interest Editor V. Paul Reynolds' recent article entitled "Are Anglers Sportsmen, Too?" After a little investigation, I learned that according to Webster, a "Sportsman" is "Someone who is active in sports" or "Someone who observes the rules of play and wins or loses with grace". As for "Sport", Webster defines that as "An amusing or interesting pastime", "A physical activity", etc. So, I guess the simple answer to Paul's question is YES, contrary to Paul's assertion we anglers are in fact "Sportsmen"!

However, to play out Paul's position, it seems that some sportsmen feel that since certain groups that represent anglers (Trout Unlimited, Penobscot Fly Fishers, Isaac Walton League, etc.) did not stand by their fellow Sportsmen in regard to beating back the pending Bear Referendum, they are somehow not worthy of the title "Sportsman". In this regard, I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Reynolds'. In fact, many anglers I know dedicate far more time to their chosen pursuit and are as good at it as any other Sportsmen in the field.

Personally, I spend well over a hundred days per year fishing and pride myself on being a pretty accomplished angler. In years gone by I also counted myself as a serious upland game hunter, pointing dog owner, archer, 4-wheel drive enthusiast, recreational shooter, whitewater canoeist, backpacker, hiker, camper, and general all-around "Sportsman". In fact, I feel quite confident in regard to my ability to hold my own in almost any outdoor circle. However, as of a few years ago, I now spend all my free time angling (it's what I like to do most!)

Apparently, some see this failure to support other Sportsmen in their time of need as an uninformed and dangerous position. First and foremost, the groups in question are "Fishing" groups and unless you subscribe to the "Beginning of the End" theory (and this is debatable), unlikely to be effected by the outcome of the referendum. More importantly is that a non-position is not a vote "for" the referendum; it is a position of neutrality. To imply that this means that members of these groups will or will not vote for the referendum simply is not fair.

As an avid angler, I would give my favorite fly rod for a position of "neutrality" from my fellow Sportsmen when I am fighting for stricter regulations for the betterment of my chosen pursuit. However, I am often faced with strong opposition against that which is far more important to me than it often is to those opposing me (fishing is all I do!). It is "Sportsmen" not HSUS taking this stand. The reality is that Sportsmen routinely do not support each other and to single out the angling community for this particular issue is simply not fair.

When an ATVer ignores a sign prohibiting motorized access into a remote pond, he is acting "against" his fellow Sportsmen. When a casual angler opposes stricter regulations being proposed by anglers who fish day in and day out, he is acting "against" his fellow Sportsmen. The same can be said for poaching, litter, vandalism, theft, etc., that is now unfortunately commonplace in our great outdoors. So yes, I suppose Sportsmen are working against Sportsmen but we anglers are clearly not the only ones.

The people working against Sportsmen in regard to the bear referendum is HSUS, the non-sporting community and in fact other "Sportsmen" who simply do not agree with baiting, hounding and/or trapping. This is no different than the Sportsman who does not believe in FFO and/or C&R and stands up publicly against it, and in turn those Sportsmen who do believe in it. However, when this happens do we question whether these individuals are Sportsman? Once again, we are making this an "Angler" issue which it is not.

The reality is that Paul is correct; Sportsmen working against Sportsmen are a dangerous trend. However, it is NOT the angling community that is to blame here - we all are. Until all Sportsmen learn to respect the position of other Sportsmen we will continue to find ourselves at odds with each other. Even in our finest hour we represent well under 20% of the population (hunters are less than 10% nation wide). As such, at least 80% of the world does not do what we do and a good percent of them don't even like what we do.

Calling anglers and the groups that represent them to the table to question their Sportsmanship for not opposing the bear referendum only makes matters worse. We are all entitled to our own opinions and in fact when we disagree, a position of "neutrality" is both a noble gesture and in my opinion more than fair. Next time you attend a public hearing where serious anglers are trying to tighten up the regulations to create better fishing, think about it - are you supporting them, fighting them, or staying out of it?

Remote Pond Update:

While most articles generate some level of feedback (both good and bad), none has generated as much as my recent piece on Remote Ponds. More importantly, none of the feedback was negative. Most of the people who contacted me noted that they have no confidence that the powers that be will do anything about the situation unless pushed. Additionally, many requested that I update them periodically in regard to what if anything is being done.

So, here is where we are at. One of the ponds noted received new signage but over a month after I had contacted the landowner (Plum Creek), nothing had been done about blocking out the ATV's. The other pond noted is the proud owner of a new road that comes within mere feet of the water as well as cutting the walking distance to two other ponds in at least half. I also discovered that another LURC water in the area was managed for General Law (with wild fish!)

Additionally, while Plum Creek is working on a plan to establish a formal ATV trail network on their property, they were not all that receptive to the idea of non-ATV interests being involved in determining the trail routes (i.e., away from critical areas would be a great idea!). While up north near Chesuncook, I ventured into another of my favorite LURC waters only to find that there are no signs whatsoever and in fact no barrier preventing illegal access.

So, as expected while my article generated a little smoke, it has yet to generate any real fire. My next plan is to approach the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine through the Fishing Initiative Committee (of which I am a member) to see if they will adopt the cause and help force some action. To date, SAM/FIC has done more in this regard than all the other fishing activism groups put together. As such, I hold high hopes that we can win this one.