Is forward-facing sonar simply another cool technology… or the end of sportfishing as we know it?

THE CASE AGAINST FFS

By Andrew Vivian

Forward Facing Sonar (FFS) is a hot-button issue in fishing today. There is no question this technology provides anglers with an advantage targeting fish. Views on how it should be used, if at all, remain an open debate, however. Opinions range from strongly opposed to supportive of responsible use. But if we think the ethical use of FFS is the central issue, we’re missing the point.

The biggest issue with FFS is that private industry is making decisions about our fisheries without us. I am not against the marine technology companies. But their primary motivation is revenue, not sustainable fisheries. In fact, the more anglers there are who abuse their technology to capture trophy fish, the more these companies stand to benefit.

Let’s be honest, FFS is not popular because of its marginal benefit. FFS is popular because of the staggering advantage it gives unskilled anglers who are willing to exploit it. Because of this advantage and the potential for exploitation, it’s time for communities of anglers and conservationists to insert their voices and call for the regulation of these tools. If regulations such as one-line per angler make sense, why would we not consider regulating a much more powerful tool than a second rod?

FFS is popular because of the staggering advantage it gives unskilled anglers who are willing to exploit it

My second concern with the FFS debate is that we are stuck looking backwards. This technology is out there. Anyone with cash to burn already has one (or two) units. Other than some tournament restrictions, there are no laws that limit their use. That is a problem, but it also begs a larger question the fishing community has yet to honestly ask itself: Where is our line in the sand? If we don’t decide for ourselves, revenue-driven technology firms will decide for us.

A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME

In some ways, the debate about FFS is not about FFS. It’s about what’s next. How far away are marine electronics companies from integrating artificial intelligence and machine learning into the next generation of fish finders? If you think FFS is bad for recreational fishing, consider a future where sonar units instantly integrate weather, moon data, temperatures, pressure, seasonal info, and learned fish behaviours to put you on top of breeding-stock trophies every time you fish.

Are we willing to wait for this technology to come to market, then appeal to everyone’s sense of what’s right to use it responsibly? The whole reason we spend thousands of dollars on this kind of technology is to have an advantage. The FFS debate is important, but it will not be nearly as important as the fish-catching technology that will become available in the next five to 10 years. Deciding what’s right for our fisheries must be done ahead of market introductions. Otherwise, we will always be one step behind debating the use of technology everyone is already using.

The expense of FFS technology is a barrier to access that’s creating a class-system in fishing

The third problem with FFS technology is how the barriers to access are creating a class-system in fishing. You don’t have to be an economist to understand how expensive fishing electronics are today. I don’t have an issue with that. Spend your hard-earned money on what you want. But the lack of regulation on electronics is creating a divide where wealthy anglers have an advantage over those with less money.

Is this the system we want? Or would we all benefit from some basic regulation that levels the playing field somewhat? Imagine a world where recreational anglers are restricted to a single transducer and 20 square inches of combined graph per vessel. Not only would we curb the arms-race in fishing electronics, but we would also protect our resources from exploitation by a narrow economic class.

ACT NOW FOR FISHING’S FUTURE

Finally, we need to stop debating the morality of FFS and start tabling practical solutions. Invoking guilt or social responsibility is not an effective regulatory method. Technological innovation is a fact of our time, and we need to start seriously considering what we want the future of fishing to look like as it coexists with that reality. Introducing limits on the amount or type of technologies per vessel is one solution. Introducing mandatory on-line conservation courses as a gateway to using FFS is another. So is adopting different rules for recreational anglers and those who depend on the fishery for their livelihood.

I recognize I am not the only voice in this debate, and I do not pretend to have all the answers. That’s my point. We need to start leveraging our angling clubs and groups to figure out where we stand as a fishing community. Only then can we advocate for change (presuming that’s what we collectively decide). If we don’t want change, at least we’ve made that choice deliberately and with all the facts.

The FFS debate is important. Improvements in technology have delivered us at a crossroads. This is our chance to figure out our collective position on fishing technologies moving forward. How much exploitation are we willing to tolerate in our recreational fishing industry? How long are we willing to look backwards? When are we going to get serious about advocating for implementable solutions? The current FFS debate is an important opportunity to answer these questions. The future of fishing depends on it.

Arnpiror, Ontario’s Andrew Vivian is a recreational angler concerned about the future of fishing. He is an active member of both Muskies Canada and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Where do you stand on the ffs sonar debate? Please email your thoughts to editorial@outdoorcanada.ca.