Close

Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member?

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

May 14, 2009

Pew's Reichert Talks to Anglers

Pew

The Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.org) describes itself as "a knowledge-based advocate for policy solutions in the areas of the environment, state issues, economic concerns, and the health and financial security of the American people." Backed by Pew's assets that approach $6 billion is Pew's powerful worldwide Environment Group. For the first time in his 20-year tenure heading up that major part of Pew, Josh Reichert has granted an interview to a sport-fishing publication. Arguably, no single individual among all environmental organizations wields more influence in the area of marine conservation in the United States and the world. Whether one agrees with what Reichert says or not, we think it's critical to hear his thoughts on issues of concern to anglers and the larger recreational-fishing community. Certainly, Sport Fishing does not necessarily agree, and certainly, this interview is in no way an endorsement of Pew. Its purpose is solely to give sport-fishing interests the chance to better understand - and therefore deal with - the motivation and direction of the environmental manager of Pew. We would welcome the reaction of those who read this and will look for that in our forums, where readers can go to share their thoughts. - Ed.


SF: Let's start with Josh Reichert. How long have you managed the Pew Environment Group?

JR: I've been the managing director of the group since 1990. The Environment Group of the Trusts consists of over 120 people and is a professionally and geographically diverse group of scientists, communications professionals, lawyers and policy experts.


SF:
Would you describe yourself as an angler?

JR: When I was growing up, I spent a lot of time fishing, predominantly fly-fishing. While I love to fish, it's difficult for me to find the time these days to get out on the water.


SF: What negative and/or positive associations do you have with the sport?

JR: I certainly don't have a negative attitude about fishing. It's a widely popular sport, and as long as it's done in ways that don't damage the marine environment, it's a fine thing to do.


SF: Is this, in nearly 20 years [as head of the environment group], your first-ever interview with a major sport-fishing publication?

JR: As far as I can remember.

SF: Why?

JR: I don't think anyone's ever asked [for an interview].


SF: What is Pew's [environmental]  mission?

JR: As a whole, our mission is to strengthen environmental quality on land and in the oceans. We work  on three very specific problems: the mitigation of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change; the    protection of large, still relatively intact ecosystems on public lands; and the protection of the ocean environment, with a predominant focus on marine fisheries. With regard to our oceans work, we recognize that ultimately, global warming's impact on the world's marine environment will dwarf the problem of fishing. But at the moment, no activity is responsible for so much destruction of life in the sea as industrial fishing.


SF: You mentioned industrial fishing. How do you see recreational fishing fitting into the overall concern with  consumptive use?

JR: There are problems with both commercial and recreational fisheries. For some overfished species, the predominant problem is sport fishing, although for most it is large-scale industrial fishing.


SF: Would you say the two [types of fishing] are similar in terms of their significance to the problem of overfishing?

JR: No. The impact of industrial fishing is much more profound worldwide. However, we have management challenges that need to be addressed in both recreational and commercial fisheries. Our work is aimed at reducing the decline of these populations in ways that make them more sustainable and healthier.


SF: Sport fishermen by and large tend to view themselves as conservationists. To what extent do you feel sport fishermen really are conservationists, and how significant is that?

JR: I would assume that most are and, if asked, the majority of weekend anglers would say that the resource should be managed in ways that keep it healthy. In that sense, I think there is a conservation ethic among a large percent of recreational fishermen.


SF: How important is that [conservation ethic] to Pew's goals?

JR: It becomes a much more important variable if we can find ways to work together. There are certainly large numbers of anglers who, if organized effectively, could be a  significant force for conservation.


SF: There's a growing anxiety among anglers around the country about the loss of opportunity to pursue their sport. Many relate that directly, rightly or wrongly, to Pew. Are you aware of this?

JR: I'm certainly aware of the anxiety. In many cases, it's misplaced. Oceans cover more than 70 percent of the  surface of the earth. But the amount now closed to fishing in the form of reserves is infinitesimal - far less than 1 percent.


SF: I don't think it's fair to measure closed areas against the entire ocean. What counts [to anglers] is where the closed areas are. If you consider closed areas as a percentage of prime coastal fishing grounds, it's not quite so infinitesimal.

JR: Consider two large areas that have been declared marine reserves in recent years, both of which we worked on - the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench. There was virtually no recreational fishing in either of those [remote] places at all. Yet certain members of the recreational-fishing community opposed both as a matter of principle.


SF: But that goes back to my point about anxiety over loss of opportunity. That is the thought: If it's OK [to close off large areas] over there, the next thing you know, it will be OK over here.

JR: I've heard that concern - that if a reserve is created in one place, it opens the door to having them everywhere. In my opinion, that's a rather silly position to take. It's tantamount to opposing the creation of the Grand Canyon National Park on the grounds that it will result in tying up the entire country in national parks. Look, we believe in reserves. I think there are certain places where fishing and other extractive activity should not be allowed. That said, our work in marine reserves is a relatively small percentage of what we do. To date, our major efforts to establish reserves have been the two I mentioned. We have not  been involved in major efforts in the lower 48, except in Oregon, or Alaska to create reserves in U.S. coastal waters. That's not to say that we might not in the future. But our main focus has been on reducing the destructive impact of commercial fishing.


SF: How do you account for the perception that Pew wants to close off much of the ocean to fishing?

JR: I think it is mainly the result of efforts by some fishing organizations to whip up their constituencies in order to help them recruit members and raise money. Anybody who looks closely at our work will quickly understand that this is a ridiculous allegation. With the exception of the Oregon coast, our reserve work is now focused predominantly overseas and on three areas: the Coral Sea and some other areas of Australia, New Zealand's Kermadec Trench and the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. We may add places to that list in the future, but right now, that's the extent of it.