Here is the information on Virginia’s outdoor recreation economy.
As I find other interesting articles and videos on this subject I will put links at the bottom of this post.
As a part-time fishing guide, water is an essential element of my life. What happens to and in the water has a direct impact on the quality of the experience for my clients. As a board member of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association (AFFTA), I have a keen interest in how the industry looks at and addresses water issues, whether they are access or quality. As the deputy director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network where my focus is on marine issues, so I am tuned into the challenges we face with our oceans.
One subject that gets my attention in all three areas of my professional life is the issue of plastic pollution. The shop I guide for, Mossy Creek Fly Fishing, found an innovative solution to the use of disposable plastic containers for fishing flies. AFFTA quickly embraced this solution and now promotes it as an industry best practice. Packaging is the biggest part of the plastic pollution problem but not the only one. It was the small stuff that recently caught my attention.
One company that is at the forefront of environmental issues is Patagonia. They have been educating people about plastic pollution in our oceans for years. In June 2016, they turned their attention to microplastics in the waste stream. According to the post, What Do We Know About Tiny Plastic Fibers in the Ocean? in Patagonia’s Footprint Chronicles, the microfibers in synthetic clothes like fleece are shed during washing and are not captured by filter systems in treatment plants. The microfibers wind up in the ocean, on beaches, and in rivers and lakes. According to Patagonia:
While knowing there is a problem is a key first step, the important question is what each of us can do about it. Somedays the challenges we face seem daunting especially when seen through the twin lens of policy and politics. Daunting they may be, but there are things we as individuals can do to make a difference.
Last month in a follow-up post, An Update on Microfiber Pollution, Patagonia
shared what they have learned and where they are headed. “Over the past two years, the shedding of microfibers from Patagonia’s synthetic garments has taken on heightened urgency in how we consider our priorities moving forward. We’ve been working on several fronts…”
Here are the steps Patagonia suggests individuals can take.
- Keep Using It: Keeping our gear in use longer is something we can all do to reduce our personal impact on the planet. Buy only what you need, buy high quality and make it last. In Patagonia’s recent study with researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, a low-quality, generic-brand fleece shed significantly more over its life span than Patagonia’s high-quality products (brenmicroplastics.weebly.com).
- Wash Less Often & Invest in a Front-load Washer: Microfibers shed in the wash—so wash your gear only when it’s absolutely necessary (you’ll conserve water in the process). Even your most-used outerwear should only need a full wash occasionally. If it’s caked with dirt (and we hope it will be), consider using a rag or sponge to spot clean rather than putting it through a machine cycle. And consider your washing machine: Studies show synthetic jackets laundered in top-load washing machines shed more than five times as many microfibers as the same jacket in front-load washers.
- Fiber Filters Help: Putting your synthetic clothing into a filter bag before washing by hand or machine can significantly reduce the flow of microfibers into your drain. Starting in the coming weeks, you can buy (at cost) the easy-to-use Guppy Friend (guppyfriend.com) at Patagonia.com throughout the United States and Europe. Or install a permanent washing machine filter (requires some plumbing expertise), like Wexco’s Filtrol 160 (septicsafe.com/washing-machine-filter).
I admire the leadership Patagonia shows with their corporate ethic and willingness to recognize the impacts their products have, do the research on that impact and look for solutions not only in their manufacturing process but providing ways the end users can mitigate that impact. The least we can do as consumers is educate ourselves and act responsibly. The oceans and their inhabitants will thank us.
Articles of interest:
One of the best Op/Ed pieces I have read in a long time ran this week in the LA Times.
It is an important lesson about the history of our nation when we ignore the facts and let the charlatans run loose akin to Hunter Thompson’s view of the TV business: “as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason.”
“We may live in a post-truth era, but nature does not” was written by Cynthia Barnett; an environmental journalist at the University of Florida’s and the author of “Rain: A Natural and Cultural History.”
Regardless of alternative facts, fake news or scientific censorship, nature tells the truth. That truth will flood in torrential rains. It will sear in extended droughts. It will sweep into coastal homes, especially where it has been suppressed;
Our history, aptly chronicled by Professor Barnett, shows the folly of betting against Mother Nature.
nature’s truths are bluntest in times when the nation has ignored its best scientists, quashed reports to benefit industries and been awash in fake news. And those times have been frequent.
She points to the Great Plains of 1870’s and the then touted theory that “rain follows the plow.” It did not as we know and the dust bowl was the punishment for those over hyped but unsubstantiated lies of the day (“alternative facts” in today’s gasthly phraseology.)
“The farmers helpless, with no weapon against this terrible and inscrutable wrath of nature, were spectators at the strangling of their hopes, their ambitions, all that they could look to from their labor,” wrote a young reporter named Stephen Crane at the Lincoln State Journal.“The farmers helpless, with no weapon against this terrible and inscrutable wrath of nature, were spectators at the strangling of their hopes, their ambitions, all that they could look to from their labor,” wrote a young reporter named Stephen Crane at the Lincoln State Journal.
There are many who will opt for the political over the scientific, the short term gain over the long term interest of their fellow man. They will find comfort in those post-truth theories that fit their narrative, facts be damned. As Barnett points out, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
In the end, the one truth that will always win out; nature bats last.
My friend Andrew wrote on Facebook:
Tom – you are my trusted outdoorsman issue/policy guy ￼:) What’s your take on this? It sure doesn’t sound good from here.
This being: How Fishermen, Hunters, Bikers, and Hikers Are About to Lose Their Say on Public Land Use The Bureau of Land Management’s once bipartisan, “common-sense” planning 2.0 rule to give outdoor recreation a voice is now under fire. from MENSJOURNAL.COM
TS: One of a series of moves by House Republicans to thwart public use of public lands. No bueno. The good news is many outdoor groups are calling BS and fighting back. Over time I believe we will prevail until then it is #resist and #persist…
Andrew: ok thank you! Is there someone who is tracking the progress of stupidity like this so that citizens can weigh in with appropriate congresspeople? The outdoor coalition is pretty big and broad ￼:).
TS: No single source at this point. Bookmark: Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Trout Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Outdoor Industry Association, American Fly Fishing Trade Association. Watch for press releases, policy updates and action alerts.
VA’s U.S. Senator Tim Kaine and U.S. Senator Mark Warner are usually pretty reliable on this stuff when they hear from folks. The key is they need to hear from folks as they are not on Committees that deal with this stuff. U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Comstock is new and not on relevant committees either. She would benefit from hearing your concerns.
Andrew: One last question for you Tom – the bill that zeroes out the value of public lands, any idea what that is and where it stands? That one seemed a particularly onerous threat. Thanks much for the info friend!
TS:It was not a bill. It was a House Rule. It was agreed to and can and likely will be used to score legislation that includes or allows land disposal or transfer.
The pertinent language from the rules package reads in part; “requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.”
It is tied, as you see to budget mechanics, an area to complex to try and discuss here. Suffice it to say it does pretty much what Ms Eilperin says…
And my friend Steve pointed out correctly: Also, the Senate has not passed any such rules change, so land transfer legislation still violates Senate budget rules without and offset.
Andrew: OK – I did see that article a couple weeks back, but I’ve read my quota of WashPo articles already this month – time to subscribe! Now the question I need to go find an answer to – “What is the process for the federal government to sell off public land?” Does the Senate have any say? Secretary of the Interior, or Agriculture for national forest land? No problem if you don’t know those answers, then again, I guess those of us who care about these things better figure it out.
TS: Congress (meaning House and Senate) can legislate the disposal of federal land. If legislation is signed by the President into law (enacted) then it is a done deal. And there are case where the sale or transfer may make sense. The Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture, may make recommendations for sale or transfer but those would need to go thru the legislative process and be enacted into law.
I spent many years looking at this and it is not cut and dry on what is good to transfer and what is not good to transfer. There are a variety of programs that deal with transfer that are beneficial to good public land management.
Andrew: Thanks a ton for that! Hoping I understand correctly ￼:) basically for those of us with an interest in public lands, the merits need to be looked at case by case, but the specific parcels proposed have to go through some kind of approval by full House and Senate, correct? And we’d be lucky if we even find out about it unless its particularly egregious, given how they stuff everything into one giant POS – usually the spending bill that keeps the government open for business – and shove it down our throats these days. Helps to know the process though! And I’d offer a final guess that monument designations like Bears Ears and Katahdin/North Woods, are a whole different process than above since they are designated by Executive branch?
TS: Yes the transfer has to be enacted. Yes, the projects could be enacted in “must pass” bills. I have seen that cut both ways however with good projects being protected. Yes monuments are designated by the President and the authority to do so comes from the Antiquities Act. Which by the way is under attack. Bears Ears has the Utah delegation apoplectic…