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
-
But, there’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater by delineating as a national policy that access-rights will not be supported, because in places like Arkansas, it’s a non-issue anyway.
Zach
That isn’t entirely true.
They can, at the same time, reasonably say, “However, access is an important part of appreciating the environments we conserve; therefore we encourage local T.U. affiliates who are closer to individual needs to evaluate and seek access where possible.” If there’s a conflict on a local level between access and conservation, then conservation would win under T.U.’s charter.
Zach:
I went back and read Gauvin’s column. That’s pretty much what he says.
“TU can and should have a robust program to promote voluntary and incentive-based stream access.”
His quote referred to on the first post comes after this and seems to be a caveat that TU is not going to get involved in expensive and controversial litigation in a turf war since this is not part of TU’s reason for being.
Zach:
I went back and read Gauvin’s column. That’s pretty much what he says.
“TU can and should have a robust program to promote voluntary and incentive-based stream access.”
His quote referred to on the first post comes after this and seems to be a caveat that TU is not going to get involved in expensive and controversial litigation in a turf war since this is not part of TU’s reason for being.
The question then becomes who decides to pull the plug when things turn bad?
Wow! Charters for any organization are not “stagnant”, they can, do, and must sometmes change with the current issues that confront them. Many here talk about TU’s Charter as if it’s the Constitution and thus MUST stay as written forever – on the contrary, they must always be re-evaluated and discussed ad finitum if neccessary. I think it may be time for TU’s charter, and thus “purpose”, to be re-evaluated and perhaps “re-assigned”. Stream access is PARAMOUNT to TU’s successs as an effective organization. I think it is wonderful and encouraged that estates and wealthy individuals, organizations, landowners, trusts, and businesses make sizable donations to TU – this SHOULD NOT, however, become TU’s targeted demographic set. It is the grassroots that start and breathe life into organizations such as TU, to forget this is the beginning of the end. The name is “Trout UNLIMITED” NOT “Trout SOMETIMES”!
Not much that I can add to this, but I have to throw my mouth into it. That’s what I do. The name is not “Trout Unlimited so long as it’s about ME”. I think that’s a little selfish. I have no problem with local chapters getting involved in access, and don’t believe that National TU should necessarily issue an ultimatum that chapters cannot do so, but I do believe that TU at the chapter level has strayed too far away from real habitat issues towards fishing issues. I for one, believe that TU should be more in line with orgs like Nature Conservancy that work to protect species that the public will never be allowed to see…for the good of the species. Heaven forbid someone advocate for trout and not for themselves.
Maybe my perspective comes from being heavily involved in TU in a state where access isn’t even remotely the hot issue. (while it is indeed an issue, in WV many land grants predate the formation of the USA and the language grants the landowner rights to the surface of the water…same as Virginia). But in WV, TU is the ONLY advocate for coldwater resources. Unfortunately, many of our own chapters in our state have strayed a bit from the mission statement doing things like throwing fingerling brown trout into native brook trout streams. As I type; coal, timber, agriculture, development, land moguls, etc. are planning their attack on our Antidegradation laws for the upcoming legislature. There are over 1000 individual wild trout streams in this state (and countless miles), but these industrial interests are poised to eliminate all but 130 from the Tier 2.5 Antideg list. Making it legal for them to degrade the streams at will in the name of economics. The legis. and the governor are ready to rubber stamp the proposal. In my mind, access is the absolute bottom feeding last thing on the planet that TU national should be concerned with when there are issues like WV’s, and there are many many more just like this in other states, to be dealt with. Habitat should be priority 1 through 99. Fishing comes in after 100.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.