Editor's Letter

Where's the outrage, I wonder.

Over the past few years, government scientists and fisheries managers have inched toward tighter restrictions on a number of popular sport fish. They've slowly but surely chipped away at when and where recreational and commercial anglers can fish, and how much they can keep.

It's never been a secret. It's not a conspiracy. Our nation's top fisheries management law, recently revamped, specifically demands that action be taken to end overfishing.

Grouper, black sea bass and vermilion snapper were among the first species dropped in this legislative hopper. Each measure, each step in the process, spawned council meetings, committee meetings, public hearings, press releases, online updates and news coverage.

Until very recently, this process had triggered surprisingly little backlash. To be sure, some early measures were met with heated protest from a contingent of headboat operators, commercial anglers and charter captains throughout the Southeast - they saw what was coming and made sure their voices were heard, both at meetings and on a variety of fishing Web sites. They knew fisheries managers were under the gun to curtail offshore bottom fishing first, a move these commercial operators knew would destroy their livelihoods.

But where was the recreational angler in all this? Why weren't these meetings jam-packed with ticked off, visor-wearing, Costa-sporting weekend warriors?

Sure, now that the red snapper issue threatens to put a kink in all types of offshore bottom fishing, more recreational anglers are starting to take notice (see story on Page 8). But it's still not exactly a groundswell of opposition. Nothing compared to the ranks environmental groups can muster, at any rate.

I've often wondered why that is. More than once, I've found myself standing in a meeting room, interviewing government officials deeply involved in the process. More than once, we've looked around and asked each other the same thing: "Wonder why nobody showed up?"

I have a theory. It may not be what some folks want to hear, and I certainly could be wrong. But here it is:

It's not that recreational anglers don't know what's going on. It's not that they don't care.

Instead, perhaps there's a whole generation of conservation-minded anglers out there who support more protection for the fish they seek: even if it means they can't keep as many or go out as often as they'd like.

I'm not talking about dyed-in-the-wool environmentalists or animal-rights activists. I'm talking about sportsmen and sportswomen who fish and hunt and put their fair share of meat in the freezer.

But let's face it: People filling $50,000 boats with $200 in gas for a trip offshore probably aren't subsistence fishermen. They're in it for the thrill. A couple of fillets are certainly welcome, but above all, they want action. Bent rods, screaming drags, three fish hooked up at once. Great pictures, great company and a great time.

To many of these folks, management issues boil down to a simple and understandably self-serving question: Would I be willing to make fewer trips and keep fewer fish if it meant that when I did go, I'd find a lot more action and get to tangle with bigger fish? Well ... yeah. Of course.

Granted, this equation doesn't work if new management measures don't improve fish populations. But there's certainly reason for many anglers to think they might.

Look no further than the red drum. There was a time when folks killed redfish left and right. Stacked bull drum like cordwood on the beaches. Filled the bottom of johnboats with puppy drum.

Predictably, there was also a time when redfish were few and far between.

These days, South Carolina anglers can keep only a few per person, and redfish too small or too big are off-limits. As a direct result, spot-tail bass have become the backbone of the local angling scene. Everybody - I mean everybody - can catch them. Tackle stores depend on them. Charter captains depend on them. Flats boat manufacturers depend on them.

Back in the day, some hardcore anglers might have seen new redfish limits as an assault on personal freedom, another example of heavy-handed government interference. Do they feel the same today?

I think many anglers are thankful for sound management every time they catch and release a monster red drum (and they've been biting well, recently). Many of these same folks are likewise thankful every time they get a chance at a nice buck, and for the wild turkeys they see and hear every spring.

All of this, to some extent, is the government's fault.

: Now, before somebody starts chunking 2-ounce egg sinkers at my hull, let me say this: I'm not convinced that a widespread, long-lasting closure of most offshore bottom fishing is the best way to meet to the management challenges posed by red snapper. And it's clear that some of the options on the table now are certainly more extreme than a simple slot limit for redfish.

But I also don't think every new game restriction is evil, incarnate.

Maybe there's still time for some compromise on the red snapper issue. Maybe there's still time to find a way to help the fish without hammering the fishermen quite so badly.

Wherever you happen to stand on the issue, there's still time to speak up. The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council meets June 8-12 in Stuart, Fla., then again Sept. 14-18 here in Charleston.

Red snapper will definitely be on the menu.

- Matt Winter, senior editor