New West recently reported that TU’s President wanted to withdraw from stream access disputes. It’s a story that made the rounds of the fly fishing online world, with message boards all atwitter over the issue.
Some thought it was better to focus TU’s resources on habitat. Others called it a cowardly retreat engineered by big-money landowners leveraging their wealth.
TU’s president — Maine resident Charles Gauvin — just responded via a New West article. Here’s an excerpt, but you can read the whole thing at: Finding the Nexus Between Access and Conservation | New West Network.
The problem with access disputes is that they pit TU members against TU members and sportsmen against sportsmen. Rich or poor, moneyed or not, site-specific access disputes involving private property inevitably devolve into he-said-she-said affairs. Without often long and expensive legal proceedings, the truth is hard to find. Rather than allow those types of battles to consume our energy and resources, sportsmen ought to work together at ways to expand sportsmen access without engaging in private property disputes with landowners.
My take? He’s sidestepping the issue.
Should the leading Trout Conservation organization attempt to protect legal, recognized access to trout fisheries — access that has been illegally restricted by some landowners?
Weigh in.
Sure, TU needs to pick its battles, but codifying a complete withdrawal seems a little extreme. And the whole “let’s all join hands and sing Kum Ba Ya together” routine doesn’t fly.
More than one poster has suggested the whole proposal — which seeks to nullify a policy developed over the past year by TU’s Leadership Council — is due to pressure from big-dollar donors who are threatening to withdraw their support (or waving dollars in Gauvin’s face).
I have no idea if it’s true, but it did occur to me that if I featured it in the headline, I’d generate a lot of traffic on the Underground.
Unbelievably, I didn’t do it. I’m getting weak in my old age.
What’s the word from the Undergrounders?
[tags]fly fishing, trout unlimited, new west, charles gauvin[/tags]
What a coward. What a fantastic error of judgment!
What good is a healthy trout population without access to it by sportsmen? Who will be the next leaders in conservation?
And how likely are we to get general popular support for conservation efforts if the only beneficiaries are the wealthy landowners?
How likely am I to shell out membership dollars if they are not going to fight for my interest? (Answer: if I could get a refund on this year’s dues I would.)
Conservation matters to sportsmen, including fishermen, because we wish to continue our traditions. A conservation organization should do its part to fight for the opportunities of our children to fish, in addition to having something to fish for.
Trout with no public access is a hollow victory indeed.
Should have seen this coming when ol’ Jack became the spokesperson. I thought the critics were wrong; silly me.
My dollars will now flow to efforts of those like Craig Matthews in West Yellowstone who supports groups securing public access to famed trout streams – The Montana Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Lands, etc.
Sorry it is hard to write coherently when one is enraged.
So give me a Phillipson installment to calm me down, TC.
Billy
BillyB(Quote)
I think this is a regional issue. For me, I have always viewed TU as a East Coast centric organization. I still support them, but I support CALTROUT in more ways since CALTROUT focuses on issues here in CA only.
Furthermore, where I live and fish we are lucky to be surrounded by public land (Forest Service, BLM, Natl Parks etc) so access is not as much of an issue either. Clean water, enough water, regulations changes and other enviromental impacts are what affects our streams.
So my point is this, If you are a TU member, in a region where TU has an impact and private property/access is a huge issue…then form a new org or support one that chooses access issues as its main focus.
This is how CALTROUT came to be in the first place; a large segment of the org wanted more attention on local issues. Hopefully, with TU now narrowing their focus they can address environmental degradation more efficiently?
I feel for those anglers who live in regions where access is a growing problem.
Dave Neal(Quote)
Sorry…if you have no idea who the hell CALTROUT is, check out http://www.Caltrout.org They do not necessarily tackle access issues either, but focus on habitat quality. My reason for itroducing them was to point to an example where a group has split from TU to focus on issues more pertinent to a specific region…maybe a Montana Stream Access Org. needs to get started?
Dave Neal(Quote)
As a TU member I will be asked to volunteer to clean-up the stream bed for a private, “No Trespassing” landowner downstream…………….don’t think so!
Turnip Truck Driver(Quote)
I’m not a big dollar donor, so TU won’t miss my membership. By the way, vote No on the Pebble Mine. Pass it along.
Mark Latham(Quote)
I flyfish and I’ve just recently joined the board of our small local TU chapter, so while I’m absolutely in favor of habitat protection and restoration for its own sake, I do have ulterior motives. I’ll just say this: if you know anyone in (especially Western) Europe, just ask them about fishing access. Two friends in Germany routinely pay a minimum of $50 (and sometimes as much as $150) PER DAY just for the pleasure of stepping into the water–and sometimes they don’t even have control over WHEN they can go fishing–because there is almost no public access anymore. That doesn’t count license fees or club dues, in addition to the usual expenses like food, travel and gear. I usually fish alone or with a buddy, but the thought of having to shell out $500 to take my wife and two kids fishing…
cdmoore(Quote)
cal trout here i come. what a blunder!!
michael rich(Quote)