TU & Stream Access – a defining debate
- This topic has 24 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Jun 11, 2007 at 7:32 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
If you haven’t noticed, there is an issue that is true tempest in a teapot, one that can blow TU apart – Stream Access.
There are a lot of small/local chapters that deal with stream access. It’s the big wigs at the national level that don’t want to spend any $$ on access.
JHDavid:
Technically, he is right. It’s not in the mission statement. Neither is anything about fishing. Although these are important issues to every angler, TU’s mission is very specific and limited to conservation of trout and their watersheds.
I continually run into folks in our local area and even some members in our chapter who think TU is a fly fishing “club.” Wrong! That’s FFF’s mission–to promote and educate about the sport of fly fishing.
I am happy that our chapter has been able to improve stream access on our tailwaters, but that is only ancillary to the main goal of our habitat work. “To conserve, protect and restore …” yada yada yada.
No defining moment here. That’s been the mission since its inception.
Respectfully,
ScottTechnicaly “No” , it’s not in TU’s Mission Statement as pertains to stream access; however, what is TU “protecting” trout for if it’s members cannot gain access to them? Suppose EVERYBODY was wealthy enough to “own” their own private stream. We would all have our own fish to “protect” and fish – then what would we need TU for? I don’t want my money going to protect and/or restore trout and habitat for some private organization or individual who would then prevent me from fishing those very fish. I’m afraid TU’s “Big Wigs” are more concerned with alienating potential big donors than it is with the grassroots member’s ability to gain access to fish. If TU’s Pres. gets his way, you’ll find an ever decreasing stream/river accessability as they would choose NOT to get involved.
Here’s a good article that shows both sides of the debate.
You might also check out TU’s policy on the issue. When the National Leadership Council was formed a few years ago, I think they spelled out a process on how they would determine which access issues to get involved with or not.
Range wars and class warfare can derail any organization’s mission. So I think they made a tough, but necessary decision. They were going to get criticism either way.
Yeah, the new issue of FR&R has a pretty good article on this debate. It really isn’t about class or range warfare and it doesn’t have to be. The review board set up to “rule” on access issues on a case by case basis isn’t really working – Montana TU proved this. I would ask again – if TU’s mission statement is to fight for and maintain fish AND fish habitat then what good does this serve if it’s members cannot gain access to these same fish? My dues/contributions should not go to maintain habitat and stocks for private waters, it’s just that simple. Private, i.e. “clubs” are enjoying the fruits of TU’s ,(read: “MY”), labor/money. I don’t care what a man’s net worth is or what piece of property he owns. If TU insists on continuing with the present course of action private stream landowners will be essentially paying, with their contributions to TU, to keep me and many other TU Members OFF thier waters! Further study into this matter by TU would not serve to “derail” their mission, on the contrary, it would serve to bolster support for the organization and show it’s members that it works for ALL of us! EVERYONE knows what’s going on here: TU’s current leadership would like to increase it budget SIGNICANTLY by courting potentialy large donors. TU leadership has made it about money, not it’s “rank and file”!
Access to streams for stream habitat and environamental groups is like free speech is to democracies. You cannot be on the fence on this issue, if you are then you may want to revisit the issues.
I would not underestimate the importance of this debate, many local chapters are considering withholding all funds to national. At least one state may leave TU.
– David
TU has to go where the money is. I expect grassroots support is minimal in the grand scheme of things. I know TU doesn’t get anything done on $35/year dues from individuals or a percentage of monies from chapter fund raisings. I imagine that’s all used in operational organizational costs.
One of my friends who passed away a couple of years ago was Marvin Schmidt. Marvin was the first person in the country to set up a charitable remainder trust with TU and all of the proceeds from his estate went to TU after his death. It’s that kind of substantial money and money from corporations and organizations that is able to endow TU with some means to do projects.
But a lot of local money raised goes into whatever project the local chapter(s) want to put it in. To my knowledge national TU has never told our chapter we can’t donate money to habitat improvement projects that improve access. Several chapters across the south have partnered with G&F agencies to buy lands for public access. I don’t see those local decisions stopping.
And I don’t agree with the opinion that would rather abandon all conservation efforts on private lands because “I may never get to fish there.” Streams and fish are worth saving even if public access is limited. Many land owners holdings eventually wind up in public use because of the efforts TU, Nature Conservancy and other like groups. One has to take the long term view and have a strategic vision. Lands change hands and what’s private today may be public tomorrow–and maybe because of some involvement along the way.
I think Dave made a good point that fishermen have to take it upon themselves to fight the access battles in legislatures and courts and let TU do what it may be better designed to do with advocating for trout and salmon wherever they belong.
Thoughts of a “fence sitter”
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this debate and I think some really good things have the potential to come out of this.
Rich:
I like that approach. I would welcome an access rights group and would support one.
I think future issues concerning water use, quality and access are going to so involved and complex, groups with very specific targeted agendas are going to have to emerge to make headway on them. It seems nothing can get done on the large scale anymore without lots of money and lobbyists or attorneys.
Looking forward to hearing others’ thoughts on your post.
The reason Montana is winning the battle is becouse we have a contstantly growing sportsman based population,and economy..
Rich:
I like that approach. I would welcome an access rights group and would support one.
I think future issues concerning water use, quality and access are going to so involved and complex, groups with very specific targeted agendas are going to have to emerge to make headway on them. It seems nothing can get done on the large scale anymore without lots of money and lobbyists or attorneys.
Looking forward to hearing others’ thoughts on your post.
You have to have professional involvment at times for sure.
As a past president of two TU chapters and a current member of TU’s National Leadership Council, I can tell you that TU is involved in both advocacy and activism, both influencing policy and legislation and working on projects to make streams better for trout.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.