In an announcement that seems to have been delayed in order to sidestep public outcry, Dick Cheney has been invited to speak at the American Museum of Fly Fishing (this nifty bit of reporting via MidCurrent):
Moments ago we spoke with Cathi Comar, the executive director of the American Museum of Fly Fishing, and learned that the Museum has gone ahead with their invitation to former Vice President Dick Cheney to attend their annual fundraiser dinner in the fall.
The decision was reached late last week but not made public until now. Cheney has accepted and will attend. Comar explained that the Museum board discussed the decision at length over the past several weeks and ultimately decided that since the Museum’s role was historical, their primary duty is to record and preserve artifacts of fly fishing history.
When asked about Cheney’s obviously negative impact on fisheries conservation, Ms. Comar replied that the Museum chooses not to take sides on political or environmental issues. “Although we work with conservation organizations,” she said, “conservation itself is outside of our role.”
The last quote is telling: “Conservation itself is outside of our role” – a statement that leads me to believe that money falls inside the museum’s “role” more than fly fishing.
And one certainly hopes Ms. Comar appreciates the irony of the museum’s focus on history; without all the desperate conservation efforts undertaken during (and prior to) the Cheney presidency era, fly fishing might well be history at this point.
Ms. Comar, know that in your pursuit of dollars and nudge-nudge, wink-wink “look who I’m standing next to” name-brand speakers, you’ve pissed off pretty much anyone who spent the last eight years fighting to reverse Cheney’s frequent assaults on our fish, wild places and water quality here in the West.
Cheney – more than any other single person – was responsible for the massive salmon kill on the Klamath in 2002 – a process outlined in the seminal Washington Post story titled Leaving No Tracks:
Cheney's 2002 Klamath Fish Kill
Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.
First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.
Because of Cheney’s intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.
Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.
The Klamath case is one of many in which the vice president took on a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business.
Interestingly, Marshall’s MidCurrent story suggests a letter was sent to all those who complained about the museum’s choices, but I’ve received no such letter (perhaps if I’d mailed in a donation with my complaint).
Naturally, the letter in question wholly sidesteps the issue:
In a board-approved letter to the many fly fishers who have complained about the Museum’s decision, Comar notes that the Museum has never allowed political reputations to influence its decisions about whether to include and display the fishing equipment of the various presidents or vice presidents.
The question isn’t one of simple popularity, and you’ll notice she’s equating collecting and displaying equipment with giving someone like Cheney a forum to speak.
Display some of Cheney’s gear? Fine. Historians will wonder how he could profess to enjoy the very thing he spent eight years trying to destroy.
Give him a forum to rewrite history on this subject?
You not only lost the logic train there, you lost me as a supporter. But then, since I don’t have much ability to contribute to the museum’s “role” (gathering cash), I gather my support probably doesn’t matter much.
See you anywhere but at the American Museum of Fly Fishing, Tom Chandler.
UPDATE: Buster Wants to Fish weighs in (more with killer graphics than words, but they make their point)
UPDATE: Ted Williams – who has led the protest from the start – weighs in on the latest news.
UPDATE: Alex at Hatches lists the “Top Five Cheney Exhibits” at the museum (funny stuff)
UPDATE: Eric Sharp of the Detroit Free Press weighs in (incredulously)
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
The AMFF is dead to me. They will never see a dime of my money. With this decision they’ve made it clear that they don’t stand for a history of fly fishing as it relates to the common man, but instead a form or recreation for the moneyed-elite to pursue in private while their corporations rape and pillage our public lands. Fuck em. Smithhammer(Quote)
I think Bruce pinned the tail on the donkey. Jean-Paul Lipton(Quote)
what he said castingoutloud(Quote)
Yeah. No more $s going their way. Z Fisher(Quote)
No bailout money for fly fishing fat cats, I support the above.
Why not make the evening and host a double feature? We could watch Donny Beaver and Cheney fawn over each other – in fact, Donny may want to take Cheney quail hunting kbarton10(Quote)
I can’t say they ever had any of my money, but they wouldn’t get any in the future from me, that’s for sure.
The thing that I just don’t understand… how much money could they really make on this event? I mean, really? I am a Development Director. I run events and work with major donors. I can’t think of an amount of money that would make it worth the effort to destroy the good will of the greater population. What’s the play here? Seems damn short sighted to me.
All I can think is that this was a Board decision… a crony friend of the Dark One who was looking more towards the image of the Destroyer than the wellbeing of his charge, the museum. Once they made up their mind, then it was just a battle to show who was stronger… kind of like trying to convince my 2 year old to put on her shoes or to eat the tilapia. Bjorn(Quote)
Wait, Can’t he get arrested in Vermont?.
Even as someone who sides republican a majority of the time, I was never even close to a fan of Cheney. I agree completely with everyone else, AMFF is selling out the everyday fly fishermen that are really important for some crooked shooting, false casting politician in a penguin suit. I feel like the History of Fly fishing is so much more than this tiny display of celebrity rods has to offer.
Riot in the streets anyone? Benjamin Rioux(Quote)
While the museum is in New Hampshire, the event itself, I believe, is in New York. Seems like the museum may have to look somewhere other than the average fly fisher to get its support in the future. Board’s decision was no doubt exercised in part by the back’s-up-against-the-wall; can’t-back-down mentality. Still, the whole thing is more likely Bjorn’s “crony of a friend…” scenario at play.
I say forget about those mutherfuckers. They’re finally gone. Kentucky Jim(Quote)
Beloved brother of the rod no more scott(Quote)
Benjamin Rioux(Quote)
I think the Museum is about to end up in a Museum. DSflyman(Quote)
The museum is in Manchester, VT- right next store to the Orivs flagship store. Nice looking little place, although every time I’ve been through it appears the museum is closed. I’m usually more interested in getting home for supper, or back to the river after lunch, but have been wanting to stop in and take a look around one day.
Not anymore.
Even if the museum isn’t a conservation organization, and even if they try to stay out of political debates- there must have been a more worthy celebrity than Dick Cheney. Seriously, the dude fly fishes what- 12 times a year? Even Tom Chandler gets out more than 12 times per year!
What has Cheney done for fly fishing? He has done nothing for the “sport”. Absolutely nothing. Never, ever, ever- never! He’s just a former VP who happened to fish with fly gear. So what?!
Somewhere, there’s a person who deserves this honor. 40 Rivers To Freedom(Quote)
I knew it!.
And I completely agree. Where was Lefty Kreh’s phone call? Benjamin Rioux(Quote)
Seriously, I was planning a trip to VT and possibly stopping in at the AMFF. That portion is definitely canceled. I’d encourage all others who agree to also boycott the AMFF. What a bunch of jokers. NihonFisher(Quote)
Ok, so it’s in Vermont. Everything else I said still applies. Kentucky Jim(Quote)
Being passionate about an issue is to be admired and applauded, yet being unwilling to listen to the different thoughts and actions of others is stupid. If Cheney has been the Hitler of fly fishing as many of you proffer, I would think that history will document such actions well. Where best is history explored? I suggest in museums dedicated to the specifics of an activity. Withholding funds to a museum that presents hundreds of years history for the actions of one night is a book burning action. Those of you that are grabbing your rods and reels, running home, and hiding from Cheney are displaying weakness, not strength. Turnip Truck Driver(Quote)
@Turnip: Thanks for your willingness to comment. I disagree that we’re somehow running and hiding from this thing. I’d say we’re meeting it head on. And remember that “Hitler” and “book burning” are two phrases you’ve used here, not anyone else. Public protest over the honoring of an individual that has done significant damage to our wild places (and by extension, the sport) doesn’t feel like a book burning. We’re not denying the reality of the Cheney years, yet it appears the AMFF is.
After all, I got to see the Klamath Salmon Kill unfold at close range, and Cheney’s role in that is undeniable.
He shouldn’t be honored by the AMFF (with the implied endorsement it represents) any more than Joe Camel should be honored at an American Lung Association fundraiser. Tom Chandler(Quote)
Point well made,
However, I highly doubt any fly fishing museum will dedicate an exhibit to Dick Cheney’s crimes against the “sport.” While I don’t plan on boycotting the museum completely (I’m a History Major, so fly fishing+History is right down my ally.) I am completely against their present actions. If “hiding from Cheney” makes me weak, I wear it proudly. Benjamin Rioux(Quote)
“If Cheney has been the Hitler of fly fishing as many of you proffer, I would think that history will document such actions well. Where best is history explored? I suggest in museums dedicated to the specifics of an activity.”
A specious line of logic at best. So, are you actually inferring that if Cheney’s crimes against the environment haven’t been documented in a museum, that the veracity of those crimes is suspect? I’m sorry, but that is some of the most facile thinking I’ve heard from anyone over the age of 3. The museum has clearly stated it doesn’t get “involved in politics,” so I wouldn’t expect to find that aspect of Cheney’s history “explored” by the AMFF at all. Yet that very history is the real issue here. Do honestly see the AMFF providing that information to its visitors, now or at any point in the future? Of course not.
No one is “proffering” anything about Cheney’s agenda against the environment – it’s all been well documented, and in typical Cheney style, he’s been brazenly arrogant and unapologetic about it. His war on our Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and just about every other piece of environmental legislation he’s been able to get his hands on is fact, not speculation.
Nice attempt at absolving the AMFF of its culpability on this matter, and trying to pass the blame on to us who are protesting Cheney’s presence there as somehow being “weak,” but clearly it is exactly the opposite at play here. And no amount of elaborate, twisted, apologist logic is going to confuse that fact. Smithhammer(Quote)
Undergrounders: In my original post, I mucked up the link to MidCurrent, which broke the story. I fixed it, and you’ll find the discussion’s quite different in the comments section over there. Tom Chandler(Quote)
As an add-on to my post above –
The museum is clearly trying to have it both ways – on the one hand, they’re saying that they “don’t get involved in politics,” as an excuse and an absolution for extending this invitation. And yet, on the other hand, the very reason, THE ONLY REASON, that they are choosing to honor Cheney is because of his political background – not because of anything truly constructive that he has done for our sport or the environment we need to protect in order to continue to pursue it. Smithhammer(Quote)
Is the pro-Cheney/AMFF crowd really that brainwashed that they can rationalize and defend their decision to have Cheney speak at the AMFF? It would appear so, especially after reading some of the comments on MidCurrent.
I stand on middle ground with no political affiliation (they’re all agenda-touting crooks in my book) and even I can see through this sham. I really can’t see what benefit Cheney has offered to the AMFF other than the negative press garnered on his selection as keynote speaker and likely a few $$ being tossed their way through croneyism. He has done nothing for the environment that wasn’t self-serving or benefiting his cronies or financial interests. I also can’t find his merits and contribution to the fly angling world other than the fact that he calls himself a “fly fisherman”.
My take on Cheney’s role of speaking at the AMFF: It’s like having Hitler address the crowd at a US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Yeah, he had a role in influencing policy affecting angling over the past 8 years, but is was not a favorable one. Or is this just really a big setup so that the AMFF and its membership can throw Cheney under the bus and tar and feather him out of town? My guess is no.
If this is the direction the AMFF wants to head with their fundraising, I will not be patronizing the musuem when I’m in Manchester this summer. You can just as well leave that page of history off the book, unless you document the real,/i> truths. Jean-Paul Lipton(Quote)
JP,
shoot me an email, no way you’re coming all the way out here awithout sampling some of the finer carp waters the area has to offer- 40rivers@gmail.com 40 Rivers To Freedom(Quote)
I live in Oregon and was in the Klamath basin when the Bush admin “opened” the flood gates, the fish kill was real, it was obviously a very IN YOUR FACE event but that was just one of many stupid decisions by the Bush admin. For the life of me cannot figure out why ANYONE can support Cheney and call themselves fly fisherman? The Bush (Err I mean Cheney administration) has been more anti environment than any previous administration in recent memory. I for one am not saying the Democrats are saints BUT they are a far cry better than the alternative. Of all the people that could speak @ this event and they chose Cheney? Really? Why make it political, especially from a lightening rod like Cheney? Why not someone from the sport? Devin(Quote)
TC, you were there and I have great respect for your reporting, but I did pull up and read the “September 2002 Klamath River Fish-Kill: Final Analysis of Contributing Factors and Impacts, July 2004. The report was completed and issued by the California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, State of California. The report is 173 pages and I could not find Cheney’s name anywhere within the documentation.
The Hitler and book burning references were inserted to tease the commentators who whined their intentions to withhold visits and funds to the museum. If I were to say, I’ll never fish the McCloud because of Nancy Pelosi,” you would mock me also.
To me, she is the Eva Braun of Congress and tuna fisheries. By the way, I was not alone in referencing Adolf, see Mr. Lipton’s reply.
Last Spring I had the good fortune to visit with Jack Dennis, acclaimed fly fishing personality and a Wyoming resident, as Cheney. He has known Cheney for many years. The subject of fly fishing and conservation came up re: Cheney and Dennis could not have been more complimentary.
I applaud your poster’s protests while laughing at their threats. Turnip Truck Driver(Quote)
Why the hell should I support a museum that is based on an industry that largely ignores my style of fishing? I think this is a big step back for the industry, and like others mentioned before me, only supports the notion that corporate fly fishing does indeed still suck, and only supports the elite and privileged. They could give a damn about the common man.
If us brownliners had the deep pockets and silver spoons, you could damn sure bet the shoe would be on the other foot, and the AMFF and the industry would be following us around like a little puppy. But we’re not in it for the glory; we’re here to fish.
Until then, I’ll save my hard earned bucks for organizations that give a shit about our environment and don’t sway in the political winds. There’s plenty of them out there that really need our help. The Federation of Fly Fishers has done way more for our sport than the AMFF has and ever will, and that’s why they get my dollars. Jean-Paul Lipton(Quote)
????.
1st off I prefer to discuss without name calling, simply comparing someone or something to Hitler is neither appropriate nor mature and frankly a bit creepy. When one does not have much of an argument or point to make, they resort to name calling, nuf said……
Cheney, the last time I checked, was the VP in the Bush administration, who was the staunchest anti environmental regulation VP EVER. Nixon had more concern for the environment, and that is saying a lot.
Never rely on Fish and Game for 100 % non biased reporting, Department of Fish and Game falls under the Interior Secretary which was headed by none other than Gale Norton who now lobbies for Big Oil. She was on site and helped open the flood gates which drastically lowered water levels in a drought season and thus elevated water temperatures and killed the Salmon, end of story.
Just because Cheney fishes does not make him the appropriate speaker, especially @ a time when our sport is @ risk more than ever from water issues, deforestation, farming, ranching, global warming to name just a few. Devin(Quote)
Exactly~
Lipton: 1
Turnip: 0 Benjamin Rioux(Quote)
OK guys, we don’t need to turn this into a competition or start with the name calling. Frankly, I don’t see this as a brownliner/blueliner/corporate thing – hell, a fly fishing corporation was working behind the scenes to have this whole thing go away.
@Turnip: As for Cheney’s role in the Klamath fish kill (the biggest ever witnessed in the West), it’s pretty extensively documented in the Washington Post’s Leave No Tracks articles, and I don’t think anyone’s disputed the information contained therein. His assaults on Clean Air/Water acts are also pretty well documented. This feels like a dead end from a debating standpoint; I believe the only real question is whether the AMFF should suffer a loss of support for inviting Cheney or not, which amounts to a personal choice. Tom Chandler(Quote)
What the ____!
How, Why… what were they ON?
Some above have said ‘no more support’, I say let us actively pursue a change of leadership at the museum too! Springman(Quote)
This issue has certainly grown quiet lately. Should the museum try to sneak Cheney into a fundraiser in the Fall, the whole mess will probably reignite. Tom Chandler(Quote)
It is amazing how many liberal fools fly fish. You should be ashamed. Your agenda leaves you naked. Mr Cheney is a friend and advocate. Long live the reasonable conservative fly fisher! Long live the fly fisher who doesn’t cow toe to the environmental fools. He loves the prescious waters from a perspective of realism and forward thinking. Richard Cheney is a real fly fisher’s man’s man. Those that criticise are desecrating the prescious salmonid environment Mr Cheney is desperately working to revive! Idiots. johnson(Quote)