I noticed this was posted on another forum.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/art..._debate/C41/L41
Full Version: TU Pulls out of Stream Access Debate
...not much of a surprise...
...when it takes a 100K of the little people to match the donations from one of the "real contributors", & it's easier & more fun to solicite the rich & famous, & you get to hang w/ a much better class of people. So TU will help fund projects on private ownerships that benefit, uh, well, maybe they benefit the trout...
...when it takes a 100K of the little people to match the donations from one of the "real contributors", & it's easier & more fun to solicite the rich & famous, & you get to hang w/ a much better class of people. So TU will help fund projects on private ownerships that benefit, uh, well, maybe they benefit the trout...
QUOTE (PaulM @ Mar 16 2007, 09:13 AM) 
I noticed this was posted on another forum.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/art..._debate/C41/L41
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/art..._debate/C41/L41
Paul - here is my reply from another forum:
QUOTE (JMundinger)
Assuming that there are only two choices (and that assumption rarely is valid), I agree with the decision. The most important fisheries work that currently is being accomplished in Montana relates to the Future Fisheries initiative (habitat rehabilitation, enhancement, etc.) and work to ensure instream flows. TU has shown real leadership with both of those programs. Both programs also require genuine cooperation with private landowners. The stream access issue in Montana, as currently structured, is a perpetual conflict. If participating in the stream access issue compromises TU's ability to be successful in promoting habitat protection and protection of instream flows, I don't think they have any choice. Afterall, what is the value of stream access if the accessible stream no longer supports a viable fishery?
Having said all of that, let's talk about the fact that there is a third option. My preference would be to see TU remain involved in the stream access - but playing a very different role. The current shape of the dialogue precludes any meaningful collaboration. I would like to see TU play an active role in reframing the issue so that all stakeholders have a legitimate chair at the table.
Having said all of that, let's talk about the fact that there is a third option. My preference would be to see TU remain involved in the stream access - but playing a very different role. The current shape of the dialogue precludes any meaningful collaboration. I would like to see TU play an active role in reframing the issue so that all stakeholders have a legitimate chair at the table.
Without access, the fish are pointless, at least to the working class angler.
QUOTE (Blackotter @ Mar 16 2007, 05:24 PM)
Without access, the fish are pointless, at least to the working class angler.
....not really, Dave, especially in the case of some sensitive habitats, but it does become a sticky point where an organization helps improve a public resource, like streams & fish, but only a wealthy landowner & his cronies reap the benefits. John mentioned TU in a third roll as a "mediator", but that requires co-operation from all parties, & most of the large landowners/ associations seem to have the attitude "that what's mine is mine, & what isn't, should be...", so it doesn't go any farther. TU seems to be looking @ a roll of permanent managers of endowment waters that guarantee an income to National that will support their salaries, so they don't need to be concerned w/ soliticting nickles & dimes from the masses...
All these are valid points. When some sort of public access issue comes up here in CO though, they have usually been given a seat at the table, but I can't really say I ever saw them actually working to get more public access. However, I have seen some of the work WYTU has done on the Gray Reef of the N Platte. They raised money statewide to help purchase an access and hand it over to the state. That seems like a reasonable use of time and money as far as I'm concerned.
I do have to say I agree with Blackotter (Without access, the fish are pointless, at least to the working class angler) about the access. I know we all live in a small world, and what one guy does can affect us all, but if we can't be allowed to walk on the dirt of the land we were born on, how can we be persuaded to give a damn about it. I will care for that which I am given, not for that from which I am forbidden.
I don't really pay much attention to the National stuff.
However, TU may/could be the only organization that could really iron out the access issues once and for all for everyone. Politics is a potent brew.
MK
I do have to say I agree with Blackotter (Without access, the fish are pointless, at least to the working class angler) about the access. I know we all live in a small world, and what one guy does can affect us all, but if we can't be allowed to walk on the dirt of the land we were born on, how can we be persuaded to give a damn about it. I will care for that which I am given, not for that from which I am forbidden.
I don't really pay much attention to the National stuff.
However, TU may/could be the only organization that could really iron out the access issues once and for all for everyone. Politics is a potent brew.
MK
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.