Friday, June 8, 2012

Being Centric




Earlier this week, it came as a surprise to find Trout Unlimited in the crosshairs of misguided anger directed at the “rhetoric” in which they employ, on behalf of coldwater fisheries nationwide. It was implied that not only is Trout Unlimited back-dooring its members by the language they use as a political tool, but it was also implied, that its mission to protect and restore coldwater fisheries through such tactics was wrong. The argument left TU holding the bag as a member based organization that had confused its core belief and moral obligation to trout and its fisheries, overturning its mission statement by becoming a political mob of extreme environmentalists. Thus, leaving anyone sitting at their table, one shade of blue.

To me, the real question at hand is two-fold; Is Trout Unlimited misleading members by the work they do through political channels locally and nationally, and is their “rhetoric” appropriate in regards to their mission statement and politics? I could give you the simple answer in one word, but I’ll try to expand on my opinion a little more in depth, if for nothing else than to hear myself talk.

Trout Unlimited was founded on the belief that protecting trout and coldwater fisheries was worthwhile, but more importantly, worth ensuring its heritage for future generations. Over the years, this organization outgrew its banks in Michigan and became a national organization with local chapters participating in the good stewardship from which Trout Unlimited was formed. These local chapters (mine is the Rocky Mountain Flycasters in Fort Collins, CO), are the boots on the ground operations that find local projects to get involved with, whether it’s Trout in the Classroom, river cleanups, restoration projects, youth camps, etc. These chapters have a vested interest in community and their members on a personal level. And for most of us, we selfishly like the movies, speakers, and camaraderie that these chapters provide. This is our vision of Trout Unlimited. The national arm of Trout Unlimited on the other hand (as I understand it), is a different beast, and their business model runs on a slightly different wave length. They understand that a strong chapter level will get things done locally, while their voice will be focused on the all-encompassing issues, such as; Bristol Bay, the Clean Water Act, the Farm Bill, Fracking, the Colorado River, Million’s Pipeline (I am from CO after all), the Sportsman’s Conservation Project, etc. And this is where politics enters the arena, not because it’s wanted, but rather it’s just part of the landscape.

Politics is just part of the deal. And when you think about how TU advocates its politics, it’s out there for the world to see. Just go to their website and take a look around.

There was an article written on the TU website, entitled “Nothings More Important than Clean Water”. A piece that had received particular heat for its incendiary language, blatantly claiming that, “nothing”, is more important than clean water. Some argued that TU had overstepped its bounds by simply using that phrase, especially during a time in our country when there is a lot outside the world of trout to worry about.

No kidding.

Maybe Trout Unlimited should start focusing their efforts on the economy, job creation, women’s rights, and the like. Forget coldwater, we’re in an election year.

This article shared TUs frustration with some guidance language that was omitted from part of the Clean Water Act, and here’s a small quote from said article,

“The guidance language pertains mostly to small, headwater streams and irreplaceable wetlands all over the country–as anglers, we know these fragile streams are home to some of our best wild and native trout populations, and they’re where the bulk of our salmon and steelhead spawn...Hopefully the Senate can put politics aside and vote for clean water. Is that too much to ask?”

It’s hard to believe that Trout Unlimited would be so reckless, and actually voice their concern over such small potatoes. And then have the gall to go as far to ask all that care to do so, to write a letter to their state representatives in support of clean water, headwater streams, and wetlands.

But the reality, politics and all, is that's what they are supposed to be doing. That is what we pay them for. We pay them to look out for our best interests as members of their organization (within the scope of trout and coldwater fisheries), and to fight for a membership base in a centric manner to ensure that these fisheries don’t fall by the wayside to a poorly written bill in congress. Politics is necessary, and from my standpoint, Trout Unlimited is certainly not hiding an extremist agenda.

We all know that there are important issues facing this country outside the world of all things trout. To get upset at any organization for fighting for its beliefs is absurd. The tone of their rhetoric is on point, and shouldn’t have to be apologized for, to anyone, especially its members.

 We’re taught from a young age that there is always middle ground to be found, and that if you work together to find solutions to a problem that it can and will get done. In most cases, this holds true. But increasingly, it would seem, that some people don’t want to do the work. They have made up their minds that an all or nothing outcome is better than compromise. People pass blame on others for this laziness, while taking the easy way out. Pleading the one side of the story that fits neatly into the beliefs and ideas in which they feel are right. And when things narrow in scope to one set of ideals or morals, the carnival barkers cry foul, puffing their chests and screaming they’ve been wronged by another. They criticize, instead of thinking, not understanding that you can’t always have your cake and eat it to. I’ll blame Burger King for this. The “Have it your way” mentality makes things way too easy, way too one sided. Even Dominoes is selling pizza you can’t personalize. “No peppers?”… Not a chance. Sorry for asking.



 *I guess the point to all of this is that if Trout Unlimited wants to continue to get things done in the name of coldwater conservation, neither their rhetoric or politics can afford to be right or left in the political arena. Their work would suggest that they have yet to fall into that trap, and during a time where congress can't seem to agree on anything, I would argue that Trout Unlimited has gone above and beyond to wade somewhere in the middle. After all, it seems that despite politics, they are able to get some pretty impressive work done on behalf of sportsman everywhere.


**I don’t rant very often. What do I know? I would like to hear your opinions on the subject, for the opinion above is simply my own. And if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, it would most certainly not be the first time.


Research from the Trout Unlimited website, with one exception:

59 comments:

  1. As someone who works hard to work that middle ground and mine progress from hard political rock, "Thank you."

    I appreciate this more than you know...

    -Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Chris appreciate it. Keep up the good work!

      Delete
  2. I think you should "rant" more often, my friend. Good on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so sure...I'm worried about being labeled a "shock blogger" :-)

      Delete
  3. Really good write up Sanders, and a very illustrious way of going about creating such a piece.

    My opinion stands relatively the same as yours. As a teenager, I see politics as a far off venture that stands out of my reach. While this may be partially true, I feel as though I am able to influence particular sectors of politics through TU. We are able to promote the protection of our watersheds through this wonderful organization, without getting too caught up in all of the other crap associated with politics. It's the small acts that count, after all, and while we can't do much in our individual chapters, the combination of all "forces", if you will, from each region is what will form the front lines for protecting our "rights".

    The roots of TU, at least in my opinion, focus on preserving our cold-water resources, period. There was never meant to be all this hype surrounding something that can be so simple. I honestly think people are making this more difficult than it needs to be. The fact of the matter is, if we can (peacefully) protect our watersheds, we have accomplished our mission as members of Trout Unlimited. When those gentleman sat on the banks of the AuSable in Michigan, I'm sure they never would have imagined such an outbreak occurring over this subject. They set out with the goal of protecting and ensuring the longevity of their beloved waterways, and that's what we need to continue to do. While fighting for our rights is necessary, it is my belief that we need to get back to our roots, and focus on the principles that this nationwide organization was founded on, and stop worrying so damn much about who said what.

    Hell of a good essay Sanders, give me a call soon so we can go fish again...

    Jake Ruthven
    Fins on the Fly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on Jake! It's not about politics, it's about the trout...politics just happens to get in the way every once in a while.

      ..I'll be calling. Hopefully soon, I've got lots of chores to do :-)

      Delete
    2. That's right!

      Chores suck... but they have to get done... the Thompson's on fire... (not to make your chores go by slower)

      Delete
    3. Damn...you're not making this easy on me are you....ha!

      Delete
  4. Great post Sanders -- couldn't agree more and very well written.

    As a TUer I can firmly state that we are outcomes-focused. We look to solutions that work for fish, fishing, and people. We don't care if you are an R or a D. All we care about is if you are willing to put 'politics' aside and do what is right for our great rivers today and for future generations - not necessarily what is best for a given political party.

    TU's membership reflects this (being evenly split politically) as much as our conservation programs do:

    - We want responsible oil and gas development (meaning pro-jobs, pro-growth, and pro-rivers and fish). Some of our members work on oil rigs all day, but want a great place to fish on weekends. Others just live in communities that benefit from this growth, but want to preserve their long tradition of keeping the outdoors available.

    - We're just now celebrating a huge win on the Penobscot that opens 1,000 miles of river to salmon by removing a few dams while generating MORE hydropower by supporting other dam improvements. We worked with industry and local communities to make this happen

    - We want to save Bristol Bay to protect the economically important commercial fishery (both jobs and revenues) AND protect the world's largest sockeye salmon run and great sport fishing. In many ways we're simply amplifying the voices of local Alaskans and tribal members who overwhelmingly oppose Pebble mine and want to protect their economy and way of life.

    - We support the new Colorado Roadless rule because it is a great local solution that balances great fishing protection with other local economic concerns (e.g., wildfire, skiing, and coal mining issues). In many ways we fly in the face of environmental organizations in the state -- but guess what -- we're not 'environmentalists', we're sportsmen-conservationists. As a Coloradan, I believe that we sportsmen-conservationists reflect the same opinions as a vast majority of folks here who all love our mountains and rivers and the amenities they provide.

    The list goes on and on and in every case we work with Ds and Rs. Neither party owns balanced conservation, but both parties should embrace it as their forebears did. Large-scale conservation that connects people and the land (and great fishing) is not a party issue, it is a distinctly American issue. We've led the world in ensuring great access for all Americans to the great outdoors and we should continue this legacy.

    It is exactly this position of TU that led me come work here and makes me proud to help continue these success in the coming years to show the world how conservation should be done.

    - Dietmar

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for stopping by.

      "Large-scale conservation that connects people and the land (and great fishing) is not a party issue, it is a distinctly American issue. We've led the world in ensuring great access for all Americans to the great outdoors and we should continue this legacy."

      ...couldn't agree more.

      Thanks so much for your thoughts and comment.

      Delete
  5. Sanders- when you rant, you do it so politely and reasonably we all want to cheer. You have to realize that certain parties are preaching to the choir, and you know what I'm talking about. You're either on board with that rhetoric or not. As for TU's secret agenda to get Obama re-elected, I have yet to find it. On the other hand those alien abductions are REAL.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us will keep working to preserve cold water fisheries. We should never discount the importance of this. It is the preservation of our landscape and heritage. We are connected to this earth. Economies, industries, energy sources and administrations will come and go, but if we preserve what is solid, and liquid, and trout, we will have preserved that which is worth saving.

    Great post. Let's go fishing.

    JT/FR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Like a lot of people have implied, it's not a right or left issue, these fisheries, but rather something we all participate in as sportsman.

      ...nothing like a good old fashioned alien abduction to get the juices flowing...

      fishing sounds good.

      Delete
  6. I agree with much of what you say. I do think that TU has suffered from some of the positions they have taken as a group. I think they are on the verge of becoming an environmental group instead of a conservation group. They may sound the same, but there is a huge difference. A conservation group has like minded individuals seeking a beneficial solution to a problem. An environmental group however has as their goal the implementation of their particular view of the world on the rest of us. Unfortunately, it is usually an extreme position.

    The role of a conservation group is to act as a mediator between the polar opposite groups in a situation. They have to become the go-between for these other groups to communicate and to find common ground. While I do believe that most American's would agree that the leveling of a mountain top to extract all of the coal is bad, we just can't simply shut down coal mines. Part of my job as an engineer is to help my clients reduce their energy usage. I applaud other forms of energy production, but I don't think that any green source will ever fully replace oil, coal, nuclear, and hydro as energy production sources. But when we do attempt to build a wind farm to harness that energy, another group will come along and stop the construction because it interferes with the migratory path of some birds. Or a proposed wind farm off the coast of Nantucket is stopped because someone's views will be impaired. If it's a good idea, then we need to find ways to implement them.

    And therein lies TU's enormous strength. We have a tremendous amount of volunteers who are seeking common ground....regardless of our political affiliations! We understand that if we don't step up and try to save our resources, then there won't be any resources left worth saving. But since many of us come from industry, we also understand that we need to have access to use our resources whether it is timber, minerals, or energy. This is where TU can shine. If the group can become the "bridge" between opposing parties and develop a reputation as a mediator, then we will gain the trust of others. When you are trusted, many doors open and access to certain people in political circles becomes easier. As long as TU can sit at the table and help negotiate a solution between a group that wants to extract as much profit from the land as it can, and another group that wishes to stop progress, and maintain the entire time that part of the solution is preserving a cold water fishery, then at the end of the day that is the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you nailed it. TU and organizations like them are in a position to be that "bridge" to bring opposing parties (political or otherwise) to come together to get some of this work done in a responsible way.

      It's never perfect, especially when you are dealing with situations like yours. How do we balance jobs and livelihoods without ignoring the fishery and resource? Tough questions for sure.

      Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate it.

      Delete
    2. You speak the truth. Conservation nonprofits enjoy wide support (from members and from elected officials) here on the east coast for two very different reasons. Liberals love that nonprofits will act decisively and quickly in a way that government agencies couldn't even if they knew how. Conservatives love nonprofits because they focus on voluntary habitat work - not work required by law (mitigation, etc). Somehow, it works fabulously together because people are similarly passionate about the resource, and cerebral enough to not accuse the others of perpetrating Marxist takeovers of society (for example).

      Delete
    3. No doubt. Liberal or conservative, the work seems to get done despite party politics. I guess the people that try to divide this into one certain set of ideals fail, because right or left, people are smart enough to put politics aside for the issue at hand. Or as you very smartly pointed out, a shared love, that nonprofits can bring together for different reasons.

      Delete
  7. Great piece Sanders - you've nailed it on the head.

    As you know, I've been involved with Bristol Bay since almost the beginning. What's great about this example, is that the people that the mine would directly affect, didn't really have a voice in the matter. They said no, but big money and government (whether right or left) had complete control. That's why I speak out and help TU, Sportsman's Alliance, Theodore Roosevelt Foundation, etc. on the issue.

    Nice - let's fish sometime soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's incredible to think that without organizations like the ones you mentioned, what would happen to these places, fisheries, and people if there wasn't any work done on their behalf.

      Keep fighting the good fight!

      I'm down for fishing whenever...let's do it.

      Delete
  8. I agree...it's all that jacka$$ Burger King's fault.

    Don't take naysayers to heart. Some people will spread mis-information, accuse, and polarize as if it makes them happy. We know what TU is about, and I have no regrets or misguided thoughts about the work they do. Keep ranting if you will, but don't waste too much energy on nincompoops.

    I picked up a nomad net today, and will be exercising it next week. I'll wind up the week driving through the Fort next Friday late afternoon from Laramie. If you're around and have the time let's make some casts together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burger King jerks...

      I agree, it's not worth it to waste too much energy on these "nincompoops" But for some reason I felt compelled to waste some this time...

      You're gonna love that net. Especially if you're as clumsy as I am...keep me posted next week, would love to get out there and throw a few bugs around.

      Delete
    2. I get a lot of satisfaction from ranting to NOIP (No One In Particular) too. I sent you an e-mail so we can keep in touch regarding later in the week.

      Delete
    3. For some reason I didn't get the email. Try using seana154@gmail.com. Look forward to hearing from you!

      Delete
  9. This well thought-out, splendidly-written, socially-conscious and responsible entry serves as a good reminder that I bring nothing of substance to the blog table ;) Nicely done, Sanders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Kirk..although, i would disagree an what you are bringing to the blog table

      Cheers

      Delete
  10. A rant is good, even if you don't think anyone's listening...but they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. It's nice when you get people responding to posts like these. Glad that some are listening.

      Delete
  11. Sanders, this is a very eloquently written post even if I disagree with the actions of TU, at least on the national level. TU chapters do excellent work and are fantastic resources for their respective communities.

    But I will question the organization that touts the importance of clean water but has not had any public statements on Macellus Shale in 2 years(at least none that I was able to find) and the damage that it is still currently doing to both fisheries and peoples drinking waters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Anthony!

      I think you bring up a very fair question...I would be interested to know, how groups like TU decide where to focus their efforts on a national level?

      Thanks for the comment.

      Delete
    2. You see, THAT is a grownup question: How/why does TU make its decisions on becoming involved in policy efforts?

      Delete
    3. I think Anthony nailed it. As a TU member, I am aware of what is being done nation wide and at home, but my passion lies within the waters I fish most, or have the best opportunity to fish. And locally, TU to me, is defined by my chapter and people I know through the Rocky Mountain Flycasters.

      So how do we locally, have a voice to get more national support closer to "home"? Marcellus Shale, Drilling in North Park, etc...we all have work close to home that deserves some more attention.

      Delete
  12. It's a grownup world out there and I find it particularly childlike (or perhaps just a child's intellect) to claim that "JOBS" and "PROSPERITY" are simply real, true, honest things (not political tools) while simultaneously, "CLEAN WATER" is a tool being used to perpetrate the Marxist takeover of our society and all individual rights (BTW, I didn't see the part of the Constitution giving my upstream neighbors the right to pollute my water).

    What some people completely fail to understand is that decades of grassroots volunteer work on the ground can be undone (and more) with a simple stroke of the legislative pen. The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Homebuilders, and other groups know that - and they're COUNTING ON IT. Why bother having a national-level conservation organization if you can't stomach being in the room when those decisions, tradeoffs, and payoffs are being made, to at least stand up for the resource? Oh, wahhhh, they used rhetoric. Good thing the anti-regulatory folks don't.

    BTW, I'm in no way affiliated with TU - not even a member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is massive hypocrisy in claiming that others are wrong in using hot button words as a political tool, especially when those words don't line up with your beliefs politically. It's so ridiculous, I think that is what got me to write this thing in the first place.

      And you're right, politics is a dirty business. And if you don't think there are other organizations fighting just as hard to get their way on certain issues, you're kidding yourself. It's just part of the deal.

      Delete
    2. You're absolutely right regarding those opposing TU's work re: the Clean Water Act. They give generously to lobbyists to drive the agenda that focuses on growth over all else. Their goal could be stated as "Nothing's more important than development...". So what's so bad about taking the opposing side of the rhetoric and helping to drive action? Nothing. There needs to be a voice there and TU and its members are that voice.

      Delete
    3. Nothing fits perfectly into everyone's agenda. And that's the importance of having opposing viewpoints. You can't let the foxes watch the hen house for too long, there would be nothing left, either way.

      Delete
  13. A good post, a very good post indeed. TU should carry on with its focus and to Hell with those who try to bring TU down by these "politics" claims. IT IS POLITICS but not party politics, unless one of the parties opposes the TU mission then it should be a matter of "WOE BETIDE..." any party or party politician found to oppose it.

    The only nay say that needs to be taken on board is this bit "there is always middle ground to be found".

    THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND for rivers and their inhabitants. The habitat is right and they are there and healthy or else the habitat is not right and they are dead and absent.

    Compromise always means that good has to give way to evil, which means evil gains something that it should not have and good loses that something it should have.

    The other thing to remember is that this is not a clean fight, so fight to win or the rivers and their inhabitants will lose. Only anglers and those influenced by anglers give a damn so make sure you influence plenty of folk.

    TU are doing the right thing, help them to keep doing it by individually making the party politicians tremble and take great care not to oppose the will of its members.


    Regular Rod

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND for rivers and their inhabitants. The habitat is right and they are there and healthy or else the habitat is not right and they are dead and absent"

      Wholeheartedly agree!

      I think that it's hard for people to realize that it isn't a clean fight, and that is a tremendous point that you bring to the table. Things get done by an any means necessary mentality (on either side of the coin), and that unfortunately is just the world we live in.

      Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it a lot.

      Delete
  14. I think there is a great deal TU could learn from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The RMEF concentrates on keeping their message and activities focused on conservation rather than environmentalism. As one of your readers suggests, there is an enormous amount of distinction between the two. Having been involved in both TU and RMEF, I simply appreciate the style by which the elk foundation goes about its business to accomplish its objectives. It's quiet, it's respectful yet forceful, and it develops solutions that are permanent, as in forever. Then again, it's a different membership. I've been around both crowds, and I have friends in both camps. It's touchy feely, and you'd have to experience it to believe it. About the kindest way I can put this is to say that elk folk are serious about seeing elk be around forever. My impression is that a lot of TU members are more concerned with preserving fishing for trout rather than trout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't disagree. I think that's part of our roots as an organization. That said clean water and healthy wild trout and good fishing all go hand in hand. If the focus is on wild trout, I think it all fits together. Hence TUs focus on headwater streams.

      Delete
    2. There is definitely a fine line to balance between the two; conservation and environmentalism. Maybe that will become one of TUs issues going forward, how do they get their message across without alienating some of their members with the language, rhetoric, and current practices that they use on behalf of trout and their fisheries? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to step back and reevaluate what they are doing. That being said, I have no problem with how they are currently doing business, but that doesn't mean that TU couldn't or shouldn't take a look at what they are doing to get better/different results.

      Delete
    3. And to Steve's point, I agree.

      "clean water and healthy wild trout and good fishing all go hand in hand. If the focus is on wild trout, I think it all fits together"

      Delete
  15. Hi,


    Recently I came across some great articles on your site. The other day, I was discussing ( http://www.upthepoudre.com/2012/06/being-centric.html) with my colleagues and they suggested I submit an article of my own. Your site is just perfect for what I have written! Would it be ok to submit the article? It is free of charge, of course!

    Let me know what you think
    Contact me at john26anderson@gmail.com

    Regards,
    John Anderson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks John, I'll shoot you an email and take a look at what you got.

      Appreciate it,
      Sean

      Delete
  16. A wonderful rebuttal, Sanders. You and River have both covered a lot of ground on this issue and it's been very helpful from both a political and scientific view point. Well done.

    To suggest, as another has done, for an organization to apologize for advocating on its position, using strong, honest language, is foolish. That's what advocates do; positions of compromise cannot be reached without clearly defined strong views.

    If TU started with "Clean Water is modestly important, perhaps not as important as development, but well worth considering in the context of everything else and ensuring balance" can you imagine what sort of compromises they would negotiate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steve for all the comments.

      That is what I found so amusing. TU is doing their job. They are acting on behalf of their member base in the way they feel will have the most impact. And to chastise them for using specific language is laughable. Maybe there is a better way to do it (which I don't have an answer for them), but there is no need to apologize.

      I think we all know what would happen if they became the "we'll get em next time" crew...it would be ugly. And most likely, they wouldn't exist.

      It's good to have strong opinions, it's better to be reasonable and willing to work through compromise to get results. And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't appear that TU hasn't been willing to work with all comers to make things happen.

      But that is just one man's opinion.

      Delete
  17. Very well done sir...I think your sentiments ring true with most of us who are members of TU and support their efforts.
    Unfortunately to get anything done in the society we live in you have to "play the game" of politics and the result won't always be what we'd like to see. You can't win every battle , hell you can't even fight every fight and you can bet that along the way you'll piss someone off. You just have to use some common sense and make decisions based on what you think best supports your mission statement and go with it , I can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Politics is a necessary evil for sure. Especially when there are so many different special interest groups fighting for a little piece of the pie. I have no problem with TUs actions, as long as (what you stated), they stay true to their mission statement and core business. It's just too bad that even little things like "Clean Water" can be so divisive.

      Delete
  18. Wonderful post! It is so interesting to see how politics and rhetoric play a role in an organization's support of their members and the mission they project to the public.

    Great information and great work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Erin! I appreciate the kind words. It never ceases to amaze me how one person interprets something one way, and another person interprets the same thing differently. It's got to be a tough job for the TUs of the world to keep "all" of their members happy...

      Delete
    2. The sad thing is when this happens, people are quick to forget that they all have a common interest and reason why they joined TU in the first place.

      Delete
  19. Owl keep to myself and stay out of this one, if that's cool.

    *I'll

    Dang auto-correct...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! Auto-correct is a tricky mistress...

      Delete
  20. Your insight into the role of TU is spot on. A thoughtful response. When TU works on the national level, there is a public and political arena. TU has to play ball on both. And, as for as I know, they do it without supporting any political party. As many have said, there may be more pertinent issues to deal with at any one time, but I wouldn't expect TU to hold off their attempts to continue lobbying and pushing for legislation that is either less deleterious or an improvement for fisheries. Like you said, that is what I pay them for.

    It is always a pleasure to stop by. Thanks for having me :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!

      Hopefully, TU continues to work in the way they best see fit to deal with these coldwater issues. It's a hard job to navigate through all of the political bs and keep everyone happy. But that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

      Delete
  21. Sanders, My appreciation for you writing continues to grow especially after reading this. The comments are proof enough of your craftsmanship. Thanks for taking the time. Your voice and those who have commented show how important TU's work is. As the saying goes; "you never miss the water 'til the well runs dry."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Tom, I appreciate it a ton!

      I had mixed feelings on publishing this one. However, it has gotten a great response, proving that organizations like TU are for the most part on the right track, and doing outstanding work in the field. Something that most of us that love cold water and their fish can relate to...something we will continue to stand up for, and fight for. That thought makes me happy.

      Cheers

      Delete
  22. Awesome job Sanders - well done

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is an excellent post. Fisheries come from the environment. That makes any concerned angler an environmentalist, no matter what party they inhabit. To pretend otherwise is to substitute wild fish and fisheries for a domesticated mess of poridge.

    I drove up Hwy 14 today to see what has happened to Poudre Canyon. The water quality was ghastly but there were more "functional" burn areas with living trees than I had dared to hope.

    All the aspects of that fire affect the fishery. Beetle kill. Climate change. Dought. Extended fire season. Fire suppression. Recovery plans...

    It's all ecology, it's all environmentalism and it's all TU's business. How can any one say it's not?

    I should have been reading your blog more recently. I'm adding you to my blog roll.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete