From New West Network’s online magazine comes the news that Trout Unlimited is considering disengaging itself from stream access debates:
Trout Unlimited, one of the nation’s largest and most active conservation organizations, is considering pulling itself out of the debate over public access to America’s rivers and streams.
A proposed TU resolution states: “Involvement in stream access disputes is divisive and a distraction from the mission. ….The proposed amendments would prohibit TU involvement or participation in disputes that pit claims of public stream access against claims of private property rights.â€
Are they cowards or realists?
They’ve gotta know their rank-and-file membership won’t appreciate the retreat from stream access debates, but it would make their dealings with private landowners sooo much easier, and allow them to focus on habitat projects.
Still, the proposed amendments don’t sit well with the Montana State Chapter, where stream access issues are serving as a lightning rod in the ongoing class wars there.
A Montana TU member said:
Bloom says state chapters have not been consulted about the proposal and if the decision is made, it won’t sit well in Montana. “They can reconsider it, or there can be consideration by us to break off and form our own group, †Bloom says.
Just in case you weren’t already sure how he felt, Bloom also said:
Bloom has no patience for the proposed decision by the national board to abandon the access issue. “This decision was made in the shadows by a bunch of East Coast city slickers who caved in to some rich landowners.â€
Ouch. Heated? Yes? Accurate? Who knows.
The “East Coast city slickers” charge evidences the heated nature of this whole issue.
And I would point out that CalTrout (the California Trout Advocacy group) was formed after California Trout Unlimited members grew tired of watching their membership dollars leave the state while TU’s national office failed to live up to promises to fund any significant California projects.
Finally, many of California’s TU chapters got fed up and formed CalTrout. Of course, that was decades ago, and TU’s back in California.
Let’s hope they’re not about to get run out of Montana.
Any opinions? Is this a smart, pragmatic move? Or an abandonment of its membership?
You can read the whole story at: Trout Unlimited Proposes Backing Out of Stream Access Debate | New West Network
[tags]trout unlimited, stream access, fly fishing, montana[/tags]
If this goes through, I’m gone.
FWIW, you can send them an email at
http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cfg/php/enduser/home.php
They promise they’ll read it.
fishskicanoe(Quote)
My first inclination is to suspect that people like Beaver and other river hogs are potential big money contributors to TU. It seems to me that TU is more interested in raising money and becoming a player in Washington than anything else. We’ll see.
Alex(Quote)
Tom,
Ducks Unlimited was/is a conservation group started by hunters. Trout Unlimited, likewise, was started by sportsmen; however, they have forgotten the “pit from whene they were digged.” Look for trout recipes on TU sites — they aren’t there. Hmm. I would imagine that TU has gone the way of HSUS; who has forgotten that animals served as beasts of burden, companions, and work — now the rights of the animals exceed the needs of the humans. JMHO
overmywaders
overmywaders(Quote)
dissapointed but not shocked—–figured “big” money would prevail. i joined tu 3 years ago and shortly stopped renewing membership. the northern state was represented by a small chapter in Alturas. there was really never any projects going on and never anything in my neck of the woods. when I inquired about starting a chapter closer to home and dealing with our river I recieved no reply.I e-mailed again and nothing. so that was it, I was done. stream access in the town of dunsmuir is now becoming an issue in two locations currently, one on Sheerer and one on South 1st. new homes are being built on property that has a trail giving access to the river. Isn’t there a law about trails,hat have been in existence for—– well for long damn time—-that they must remain accessable?
isaac roman(Quote)
Here is a post from a National Leadership Council member of TU to a local flyfishing message board:
“Folks:
The volunteers of TU are its most important asset and a huge voice that needs to be heard. This proposal would, in my opinion, gut a policy and a process that we took 15 months to develop. The policy and the process have worked. But those who oppose TU being involved in ANY stream access dispute where a private landowner claims any rights to control public access are pushing hard to prohibit the organization from challenging that claim in any way. There are big landowners who make noises like potential donors who are behind the push, and the acting chair of the board has introduced a proposal that includes the prohibition. He wants us board members to vote on it by 3/29, but no sooner than 3/19. The National Leadership Council will meet 3/19 by phone. It’s made up of volunteer leaders from all states where we have councils. A 15-month process to develop the policy, and 10 days to gut it?
Nobody in the grassroots is advocating for taking away any rights of private landowners, but it’s a valid goal to work to protect and maintain existing public access rights, and to develop programs for purchase of public access rights from willing sellers.
There is room to work, and room to let the policy show its worth. If you wish to express yourself on this, email tu.org; Tu PResident Charles Gauvin (cgauvin@tu.org), or Acting Board Chairman Robert Teufel (rteufel@aol.com), and ask that your email be forwarded to all board members.”
fsc
fishskicanoe(Quote)
isaac roman,
You should consult a competent attorney. In the UK, Public Footpaths are taken very seriously and much of that Common Law made it to Canada as well. The US accepted the Public Trust Doctrine for waters, but not all of British Common Law(For the Public Trust and how it affects fishing see http://www.overmywaders.com/index.php?publictrust ).
The issue of “Adverse Possession” comes into play with your footpath. I suggest you look at a typical CO case — http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/opinions/2002/02SC803.doc — The requirements of adverse possession are simple enough, but for it to have been a Public footpath, the civil authorities must necessarily have regarded it as such.
I like what they do in Nova Scotia. As long as you are going fishing and not damaging anyone’s property in crossing it (typically by foot), the law of trespass does not apply. That is, you can walk to any waters to fish; even if you have to cross someone’s lawn to do so (just don’t kick over the garden gnomes!)
Best regards,
overmywaders
overmywaders(Quote)
TU stinks.
Capt Gordon(Quote)
Fishskicanoe: Thanks for the TU member post. Sadly, it confirms the “pay no attention to the big dollar donors behind the curtain” theory.
You’d hope the TU leadership was better than that. Hope every TU member takes a few seconds to write a note:
Tu PResident Charles Gauvin (cgauvin@tu.org)
Acting Board Chairman Robert Teufel (rteufel@aol.com)
Tom Chandler(Quote)
A lot of this is driven by James Cox Kennedy on the Ruby River of southwest Montana–see http://ecorover.blogspot.com
pat munday aka ecorover(Quote)