Like it or not the issue here is money. Lodges, outfitters, guides, the "Business" of fishing is BIG money. If you don't believe me look at your fishing catalogs from Orvis etc. There is serious big money to be made by managing restricted access for people who have the money to pay for it. By being "neutral" TU has taken the position that they will not oppose the current trend of restricted access and pay for play. And why should they? These are the corporations and people who have the money and the political connections. These are the resources that TU needs to drive forward it's conservation program.
The United States is one of the few places in the world where it is widely held that the public has the right to fish. Consider that many of worlds Atlantic Salmon streams are "held" by the landowners and fishing is available only to those who can pay serious big money.
I personally, feel no pain if someone has to pay for the privilege ( not right?) to fish at a fancy lodge on restricted water. But if a corporation can buy up the river banks on a major stream out west, why can't the local farmer charge ten bucks to fish the river that flows through his pasture? Suddenly my "right " to fish a river is dependent on my ability to pay.
This is not an abstract issue that only impacts people in places you and I may never see. It impacts all of us and it impacts our favorite "home streams". There is NO neutrality on the issue of stream access. You are either on the side of public access or not.
It would seem that we will soon see on which side TU is on.
AgMD