Huron River 6/5; Quibbling with the Freep

Made a quick run to the Huron above Zeeb Road last night.  Got on water about 10 to 8, saw sulfurs, golden drakes, ephorons (in June!) flying.  Put on a march brown to approximate the drakes and took a 12" smallie (first of the year); broke a knot on my leader while unhooking it and lost the fly.  Switched over to an ephoron and cast to some of the scattered rises I saw.  Took four more smallmouth 10-15", missed some strikes too.

I think I missed the bulk of the feeding action--I'd seen more frequent rises when I was getting on the river and rigging up.  But I'll have more chances.  I was considering heading north this Thurs. and Fri., but I think I'll just put some more time in on the Huron, like I say I will each summer.

The evening included an angler solidarity moment:  when I began walking toward the river last night, I slipped (dry felt soles...)  while heading down a the bank and hit the ground hard.  I wasn't hurt (and even missed the poison ivy that seems to grow everywhere along that part of the river),  but while I was getting up I saw a car pull off the road abruptly and stop just behind mine.  A guy in waders climbed out and asked me if I was all right.  Yes, just fine, I said, and thanked him for stopping.

***********************

Over my oatmeal this morning I read a story from in Free Press about two numbskulls in Dearborn smuggling invasive fish species--I had no idea there was a market in such things.  A couple parts of it, bolded in the excerpt below,  raised my eyebrows. 

A walking catfish. A confidential informant. And two men looking to make a buck.

Those are the makings of a fishy criminal case unraveling in federal court in Detroit, where two local men are charged with selling walking catfish and snakehead fish -- both considered top-level predators that have no natural enemies outside their environment.

Not only can these slimy predators breathe air, environmentalists say, but they can survive on land for up to four days...

My quibble with the first highlighted section is just semantic--when does a creature step out of its environment?  Are we talking about its native environment?     (And do newspapers still have rewrite departments?) 

The second highlighted section, at one level,  also reflects some fuzzy language or thought--why would environmentalists be singled out for knowledge of this fish?  Some, especially in the Great Lakes are, probably are quite familiar with walking catfish and would be reliable sources about their behavior.  But many, even otherwise well informed and effective ones, might not; wouldn't "biologists," "scientists," or just "experts" (which could include well-informed environmental activists) be a more appropriate reference here?   But at another level, this gets at a broader problem I have with mass media green-speak.   Coverage of conservation issues often portrays "environmentalists" at odds with one business interest or another or delivering some warning about the consequences of consumer habits, giving the impression that people with a deep concern for and a will to act on behalf of the natural world are a distinct group standing apart from the population at large.  I think to an extent environmental activists have brought this on themselves, as sometimes in making their case they don't connect well with the values of most people.  But I really dislike the implication of the word as used in so many media reports that care for nature is a few people's special hobby.  It certainly makes it easier for politicians and their clientele in the business world to make  environmental issues seem remote from the cares of Joe or Jane Public.