Rich Kovars
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
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.
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.
The reason Montana is winning the battle is becouse we have a contstantly growing sportsman based population,and economy..
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.
