anonymous
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Looking forward to the photo essay/switch rod article- though a couple of things are bothering me- despite the superb prelim images.
WHAT”S WITH THE WHITE SHIRT ZACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT ONLY WHITE BUT!!!!! YOU HAVE THE SLEeVES ROLLED UP!!!
Lauren had the good taste to make sure her cuffs are buttoned, I mean really Zach get on the beam here- I think you have to switch back to your usual RED shirt , if you can’t handle the protocols of
Here are some pics of the set-up. I’ve been pretty happy with it so far…
…I guess these would be necessary too…
Cameron, the Element is definitely ideal for what we do. I purchased the vehicle (2007 EX) just a little over a month ago, and it has impressed basically everyone who has been in it. Great storage space, versatility, decent mpg, awesome stereo, and its pretty safe from my messy fishing buds too (coffee spills, muddy waders). No rugrats for me yet, but I bet it would be great for them too. The only thing I am somewhat concerned about is the durability of a urethane interior, but we will see how that goes. As for the “box” comments, I was braced for that. It’s definitely been fun watching my buddies opinions of the vehicle change from unsure to very positive after a weekend of fishing and camping out of it. Have you made any modifications to yours to make it more “fishing friendly”?
…Sorry about the size of the photos, but I wasn’t sure how to change the size in the link I used to post it.
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”!
Ty Mike:)
Simon- They fight VERY hard- VERY smart- I like to spey fish for them in heavier current areas and they will get you well
Zach:
I finally got around to starting to listen to your podcasts on the road. My old smartphone died and I had to upgrade to a Treo. It’s really nice to be able to download MP3s and listen while I drive.
I listened to your interview with Robert Behnke today while running errands. Great job!
One suggestion. The volume is set all the way up on my device, and I could bearly hear the interview with road noise in the background (my windows were up). Don’t have the problem with other MP3s. If there is anyway to bump up the volume on your end that would be great. You might see if others have similar issue.
Thanks again for all your work to do these. I’ll look forward to listening more now.
Scott
PS. If you are interested in cutthroats, Patrick Trotter’s _Cutthroat: Native Trout of the West_ is terffic. Behnke wrote the forward.
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.
I just took a look at the back of my vehicle (Honda Element) and discovered two hooks hidden under the interior trim by a sliding piece of plastic.
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.
Rob Galbraith has a report on a visit to Canon’s corporate offices and their strategies over the next several years where he mentions the processor.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8739-8970
Of interest to me was the Highlight Tone Priority feature that will be coming out on the highend EOS-1D Mark III’s. One of the things that digital imaging cannot come close to as does film is the “ability to maintain detail and enhance gradation in bright areas.” Of course this is all on their pro equipment, but it will be fun to watch where this goes down the road with consumer grade products.
Canon is also toying with the idea of a new file format. Yikes! Just what we need.
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”
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”!
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.
Technicaly “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.
David:
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,
ScottTy Ian:)
Those were taken on basically small black leech patterns, it,s spring here we have a leech hatch-
Stu calls them his own pet name for the pattern ,but for the most part
Tim:
A. K. Best continues to use Park’s clear lacquer for head cement. I used it for several years, and it does a good job. You just have to throw out the contents of your head cement bottle from time to time and refill. You can find it at Lowes, Home Depot, etc.
If you want something that really looks nice, try the Orvis high gloss head cement. It does a nice job for streamers where you want to show off the head and painted eyes. I like it for Deceivers.
I use Zap-A-Gap in lieu of head cement on nymphs. Just bead it up on the threads and take about 5 wraps around. Hold for a few seconds and trim. The trick is learning to spread small beads on the thread.
