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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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!
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.
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.[/quote] Jordan
I can now see what raw69 is worried about!
How much water do you have access to ?
We were some of the first members of T.U. Wife was member #13, first lady member. The first fight we entered was a legal battle against a huge chemical company that wanted to build a plant using water from a stream for cooling and return it to the stream at 187 degrees. Thermal pollution. A court battle. We won.
The issue here is not about stream access - it’s about the role of TU as an organization, and the best way to use their limited resources to conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries. Like most fishermen, I’d love to see increased access, but as a member of TU, I’d rather my time and money go toward protecting and improving my local trout habitat.
It’s a sticky issue, I’ll grant you that, but I’m not sure I see the harm in adopting a neutral position on stream access.
I’d much rather have my TU $ go toward something like this than towards a sticky, years-long access battle. It just seems like their are so many threats to our streams, and in my opinion, things like access have to take a back seat.
If you don’t believe that access is an integral part of the water quality and coldwater fisheries conservation effort, then you don’t know much about it. How do you monitor water you cannot access? And we all live downstream. Who do you suppose does the yeoman’s work of monitoring? Anglers and paddlers do! And West of the Missisippi River, about 80% of ALL land is owned by the federal gov’t. But every farm, mine, CAFO, industrial plant, brewery, etc. sits on private land. Subdivisions are privately owned property. These are all sources of pollution that degrade our fisheries.
A year or two ago, TU was touting the benefits and broad vision of their efforts to get the hunter-driven and angler-drive conservation organizations all singing from the same hymnal and working together at the ecosystem level for the good of all. Well, if they take an anti-access position, that is DEAD. Hunting IS an access issue first and foremost. So one has to wonder what is going on at TU HQ these days that they would even be considering this.
The issue here is not about stream access - it’s about the role of TU as an organization, and the best way to use their limited resources to conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries. Like most fishermen, I’d love to see increased access, but as a member of TU, I’d rather my time and money go toward protecting and improving my local trout habitat.
It’s a sticky issue, I’ll grant you that, but I’m not sure I see the harm in adopting a neutral position on stream access.[/quote] Neutral Yes! On a national level, to mandate to local level…serves your purpose Jordan…limit access for the rest of us. I’ve been a member of TU for at least 10 yrs to support stream trout and I don’t even have a chapter in my state let a lone trout streams , so don’t give me your BS!
The issue here is not about stream access - it’s about the role of TU as an organization, and the best way to use their limited resources to conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries. Like most fishermen, I’d love to see increased access, but as a member of TU, I’d rather my time and money go toward protecting and improving my local trout habitat.
It’s a sticky issue, I’ll grant you that, but I’m not sure I see the harm in adopting a neutral position on stream access.[/quote] Neutral Yes! On a national level, to mandate to local level…serves your propose Jordan…limit access for the rest of us.[/quote]
I’m trying to limit fishing access for the ‘rest of us?’ News to me.
All I’m saying is that if TU is faced with the choice of hiring a lawyer to gain river access for fishermen, or hiring a lawyer to stop Acme Industrial from dumping poison into our water, then I would rather them go up against the chemical company than against Huey Lewis. And you know what? The choice is exactly that simple. TU is a non-profit organization with limited funds. They have to choose their battles.
Newsflash: TU doesn’t exist to provide you with places to fish. It exists to protect and restore natural resources.
Newsflash: TU doesn’t exist to provide you with places to fish. It exists to protect and restore natural resources.
Without access, though, who will be willing to do the work to solve the problems? Who will volunteer their time and money to conserve water they are not allowed to access?
The issue generating this entire issue is due to three wealthy landowners; Charles Schwab (stock brokerage) and Huey Lewis (rock & roll musician), who own a portion of Mitchell Slough, and Jim Kennedy (Cox Newspapers), who owns land on the Ruby River. Both of these waters have historically had public access.
Cox put electric fences above and below the bridges at public road crossings to prevent lawful public access from a nearby bridge.
Schwab/Lewis bought land on Mitchell Slough and then tried to challenge the law permitting public access, claiming it’s not a navigable stream but is a “ditch” and not subject to stream permitting requirements or, by implication, the steam access law. Whatever opinion some might have of that water, hydrologically it’s a stream and was navigable before Schwab/Lewis took it over.
Not suprisingly, these three are also big dollar contributors to TU. As others have said, “Follow the money.”
Newsflash: TU doesn’t exist to provide you with places to fish. It exists to protect and restore natural resources.
One other point. TU tries to say it is not about fishing, but rather cold water resources. In my opinion, this is a canaard. Why else would an organization work so hard, over nearly 50 years, to conserve so many miles of water for for exotic trout? Brown trout, common throughout the country, were planted for angler recreation. Rainbows have been transplanted throughout the country for the same reason. If TU’s mission was pure, and was only to conserve the endangered strains of trout, and to repopulate areas that were exterpated of their native species, then I think the “we’re about cold water resources” statement would have merit. But that horse is long out of the barn.
Much as TU may not care to admit it, they are about fishing, and with that comes angler access.
There are access battles that can and should be fought. Personally, I’d be delighted if all states adopted the MT access law. All TU is saying is that they will not be the ones fighting these battles, and will instead concentrate their resources on conservation and restoration. A few long court battles over access could literally sap the entire budget of a non-profit organization like TU, and then what happens when they need the money to stop polluters, or raise awareness regarding whilring disease or mud snails?
TU is not a fishing advocacy group. They do not exist to wage court battles over fishing access, lobby for lower fishing license costs, or to fight for your right to fish “right next to the millionaire’s dock.” They are a conservation organization, with a mission to conserve, protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. It has nothing to do with fishermen, and everything to do with protecting the environment.
If the decision to adopt a neutral stance on access issues has been made in order to focus more on conservation, then it’s the right choice, as far as I am concerned. Access is an important issue, but if the battle for access is made at the expense of conservation, then what’s the point?
I hate to keep pounding this again and again, but TU’s mission is not to expand fishing access. It’s to protect the environment. It’s not an organization to give you benefits - it’s a collection of volunteers fighting to stop the degradation of our coldwater fisheries, and help repair the damage that has been done.
