Anglers say the Fort Atkinson City Council is just looking for a way to cast out local undesireables.

Those of us who dig worms and bait our own hooks seldom use words such as "gentrification," probably because it's been awhile since we discussed where low-income people go when cities rebuild their downtowns to attract wealthier occupants.

Fort Atkinson's City Council voted 3-2 on April 1 to ban fishing on the Rock River along a 1,310-foot section of its 3-year-old Riverwalk. Since then, some anglers have been hurling accusations everyone grasps, including racism. Local whites long fished that riverbank with blacks and Hmongs from outside the community.

Anglers say city leaders evicted them without trying to make fishing compatible with those who jog, stroll, live or work along the Riverwalk. Therefore, the Rock River-Koshkonong Association scheduled a protest rally by the Riverwalk on Saturday, hoping to raise money for a law firm to investigate the ban.

Among their contentions is that Fort Atkinson received three Knowles-Nelson Stewardship grants totaling $389,452 from the Department of Natural Resources to develop the Riverwalk. DNR lawyers investigating the complaint concluded a 1997 legislative revision allows grant recipients to eliminate fishing if it's deemed unsafe or incompatible.

The Riverwalk runs for 2,252 feet along the Rock's southern shore, crossing private land the city leases. The area has always been privately owned, but walleye and white bass anglers fished there for decades when it was largely undeveloped. As City Manager John Wilmet said, "It was in such poor shape no one really cared."

The city's Parks and Recreation Department monitored the southern Riverwalk in 2007 and concluded it was too narrow and too near the water for fishing to safely coexist with other uses on all but 943 feet of it. Its Jan. 28 report said anglers often propped fishing rods on public benches and put gear on the walkway. Other complaints included littering, overnight camping, a lack of convenient restrooms and safety concerns involving fishhooks and casting.

Fishermen, however, say city officials targeted fishing to remove shoreline fishermen from view of "upscale" stores, offices, restaurants and condominiums. They think fishing-related problems could be solved through existing laws and intermediate steps suggested by the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber recently recommended more trash cans and signs directing anglers to public restrooms.

Bill Camplin served on the City Council from 2001 to '05 and owns the Caf� Carpe, overlooking the Riverwalk. He said the ban hurts civic pride.

"Fishing is a great thing for families and the community," Camplin said. "People from all walks of life have always come here to fish beside each other. It sticks in my craw to ban something that removes law-abiding people from the Riverwalk."

He said there's no obvious racism, but added: "I think it's more of a class thing."

LaVerne Behrens is a Fort Atkinson realtor and longtime Council member. She voted for the ban and says a few fishermen ruined it for all.

"My office overlooks the river, and this goes well beyond littering," she said. "My conscience is clear. Some of them are downright rude when you ask them to move their stuff. There's a concrete garage here and they've used it as a bathroom. I've had a guy sleeping in front of my office."

Behrens said race and class have nothing to do with it. When discussing the Riverwalk's popularity with Hmong anglers she said: "It's just a different culture. That's what I see there. They've got all their youngsters running around and they've got their picnic baskets and all the stuff they haul along. (In one case) these people were using (a woman's) front lawn for a picnic, including her tables and chairs. I can see why they have some issues."

Former Madison alderman Brian Benford grew up in Fort Atkinson and thinks the ban is racist. He takes offense when Behrens suggests anglers "rent a boat" if they want to fish near the Riverwalk.

"This is an attack on low-income people," Benford said. "Most of them can't rent a boat. Before you exclude one group from a section of river that's open to the public, you better try some alternatives."

Behrens responds that the Riverwalk was open to fishing for three years, which pinpointed where it can't be allowed.

"It didn't work out," she said. "We needed an ordinance with teeth because there's now habits that have already formed. … We needed a ban to get the environment down there that we wanted."

Maybe so, but imposing a ban while offering no plan for compensatory fishing access creates an environment of resentment and antagonism.

How can that revitalize a community?