Is Trout Unlimited Selling Out?

[blackdog1101]

Please forgive me if this topic has already been posted, as I am not a regular participant here. I did a quick search of the board and did not see it. This is an urgent matter and we need everyone's support. If there is a more appropriate location for this post please feel free to move it.

There is a proposal at the executive level of Trout Unlimited which, if passed, would prevent TU from participating in stream access issues. I believe that most of us who are TU members see access and habitat improvement going hand-in-hand. Without access anglers will be less willing to donate their time and money to improve our cold water fisheries.

Please read these short articles to get the background of the issue:

[url=http://livingstonenterprise.com/news/:1f3db]Livingstone Enterprise Article[/url:1f3db] (page down a little to the article)

[url=http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/trout_unlimited_proposes_backing_out_of_stream_acc ess_debate/C41/L41/:1f3db]NewWest.net Article[/url:1f3db]

Please write your letter opposing this proposal TODAY if you have not already. TU's National Leadership Council (NLC) is meeting tonight, and we need to let them know how we feel.

Please direct your emails to:
cgauvin@tu.org (President of TU)
rteufel@tu.org (Board Chairman)
jwelter@ameritech.net (Secretary of NLC)

FWIW Mr. Welter, a friend of mine, is the Secretary of TU's National Leadership Council. In short, he is the "head" grassroots volunteer person in the TU heirarchy. Welter is very upset over the proposal, and fears what will happen to the grassroots support if the proposal passes. TU struggles already with the perception that it is a "rich boys club", and this proposal could really be harmful to "normal" guys like us who belong to, and work with, our local chapters.

Please write today and ask that Trout Unlimited not change from it's current position on stream access issues. Welter also suggests you ask that your email be forwarded to the other TU Trustees.

Thanks!!

[J Castwell]

There are two types who join organizations such as T.U. Those who want something from the group and those who wish to give something to the group. This issue rather clearly defines those members.

[namekagon]

Hell...I've been giving for along time...and I'd give sweat as well if there was a chapter near me.
In my opinion, TU on a national level shouldn't be involved in access litigation.
If there's a new policy that prevents state or local chapters from doing what they can for fisherman access...then maybe there's an issue.

[blackdog1101]

If there's a new policy that prevents state or local chapters from doing what they can for fisherman access...then maybe there's an issue.

This is exactly the case. The new proposal would prevent local TU chapters from getting involved in stream access issues.

[namekagon]

No question then...that's BS and they'll suffer the fallout...but most importantly, so will cold water fishery!!!!!

[SilverMallard]

For a freshwater fish conservation organization to make itself less relevant to anglers is simply foolish...politically and financially.

I agree that MOST access issues are local and state issues. Very few, but some, are national issues such as access on federal lands. Given the percentage of federal land through which trout streams flow in the Mountain West (primarily), I cannot imagine TU not being deeply wounded by taking a so-called "neutral" stance on stream access. It actually isn't a neutral position when an org like TU says they will no longer advocate stream access. It is actually anti-access.

DU handles it like this: DU has NO requirement or even suggestion regarding hunter access on properties they get involved with for wetland conservation/restoration purposes unless they OWN it. If they own it, it is open to the public for hunting to whatever extent sound ecology allows. But DU exerts ZERO pressure on other landowners on this issue. And they do not get involved in hunting issues on the legal or political front. On the other hand, they do more to promote duck hunting than any other organization in the world.

But hunting has the added consumptive use issue created by the lack of the possibility of catch-n-release. You cannot "un-shoot" a duck! Sport angling is a different critter that doesn't have such a limitation. I think all of these things factor into the equation.

Myself, I think TU should advocate public access on all levels to whatever extent is ecologically permissible. But I already view them as combatting serious irrelevancy issues due to their policies in several sectors of the trout angling community. So...on one hand, who cares? On the other, why add insult to injury?

[raw69]

I believe TU should get involved at every level. Why not have a national position on access? My tax money, federal and state, goes to improve these waters and stock them. Should my money only give enjoyment to rich guys that can afford private clubs? I just sent this to all 3 e-mails -
"As a TU member, Madmen chapter in Ohio, I would like to add my voice to those who believe TU should and must be involved with policies on stream access. Any water on which tax money is spent should be open to all citizens. Access to these waters should be allowed by boat and/or wading, as long as the fisherman does not trespass on dry land.
I know that you have many very wealthy members and I?m sure many of those can enjoy private water, but what about the average member. I have only been fly fishing seriously for a few years, but I have been encouraged by the lack of elitists that I?ve encountered. Please, do not just follow the money. Tight lines and open water."

[namekagon]

SM...a good compromise would be for TU nationally to take no stance but leave the state/local chapters alone.
and raw69...although well said, your concept of access ain't going to happen!

The beauty of lakes with public access, you can fish right next to the millionaire's dock!

[Jordan]

The beauty of lakes with public access, you can fish right next to the millionaire's dock!

Why would you want to? It's kind of this attitude that lead to the whole Huey Lewis thing in the first place.

This is certainly an interesting issue. On the one hand, I can see that access disputes sap the resources of an organization that is dedicated to rehabilitating and improving trout habitat. As I've always seen it, the work of TU is not done in a court room, but with elbow grease on the side of a stream - moving rocks, planting trees, counting fish, sampling water etc. I can understand if TU, as a national organization, chooses to focus their efforts on stream improvement rather than costly legal battles. On the other hand, the whole deal kind of stinks to the western fisherman. It has the feeling of a kind of mandate handed down by people who really don't have a vested interest in our waters.

Personally, if the decision to adopt a neutral stance on stream access is being made for the right reasons - in order to focus the membership on the real work of coldwater conservation, then I guess I am ok with it.

[namekagon]

The beauty of lakes with public access, you can fish right next to the millionaire's dock!

Why would you want to? It's kind of this attitude that lead to the whole Huey Lewis thing in the first place.

This is certainly an interesting issue. On the one hand, I can see that access disputes sap the resources of an organization that is dedicated to rehabilitating and improving trout habitat. As I've always seen it, the work of TU is not done in a court room, but with elbow grease on the side of a stream - moving rocks, planting trees, counting fish, sampling water etc. I can understand if TU, as a national organization, chooses to focus their efforts on stream improvement rather than costly legal battles. On the other hand, the whole deal kind of stinks to the western fisherman. It has the feeling of a kind of mandate handed down by people who really don't have a vested interest in our waters.

Personally, if the decision to adopt a neutral stance on stream access is being made for the right reasons - in order to focus the membership on the real work of coldwater conservation, then I guess I am ok with it.

Jordan
I can now see what raw69 is worried about!
How much water do you have access to ?