trout unlimited..never agian

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1,742
Location
CO
You can disagree with Alfa without attacking him personally. He did state he did give "thousands" to TU in the past.
If you read the TU Financial Statement for 2021 (FY 2021 TU Financial Report ) you will see that almost half of all their
revenue comes from the US Government and State and Local governments (in other words, taxes paid by the public)
29 mil out of 60 milion dollars. I can understand why Alpha is displeased that restoration was evidently done using public funds that didnt support public access. Maybe in that case the private landowners made some donations. maybe not. I do not know.
Either way, not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.....we are fortunate to have TU for sure. and TU is highly rated as a non profit,
 

Hayden Creek

Well-known member
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
2,471
Location
SoCO
You can disagree with Alfa without attacking him personally. He did state he did give "thousands" to TU in the past.
If you read the TU Financial Statement for 2021 (FY 2021 TU Financial Report ) you will see that almost half of all their
revenue comes from the US Government and State and Local governments (in other words, taxes paid by the public)
29 mil out of 60 milion dollars. I can understand why Alpha is displeased that restoration was evidently done using public funds that didnt support public access. Maybe in that case the private landowners made some donations. maybe not. I do not know.
Either way, not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.....we are fortunate to have TU for sure. and TU is highly rated as a non profit,
No one is attacking Alfa. Calling him out? Sure.
If you can't stand the scrutiny don't make the thread.
Everything in this country is supported with public dollars. If the taxpayers in Montana voted then they voted in the people that made this happen, intentionally or not. If not maybe they should have done more research before casting their vote.
 

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1,742
Location
CO
No one is attacking Alfa. Calling him out? Sure.
If you can't stand the scrutiny don't make the thread.
Everything in this country is supported with public dollars. If the taxpayers in Montana voted then they voted in the people that made this happen, intentionally or not. If not maybe they should have done more research before casting their vote.
calling him a troll or saying he is hammered is not scrutiny but a personal attack. Scrutiny is addressing his basic concern about a non profit funding trout restoration without the option for public access. It is a legitimate issue worth discussing. Of course IMO not a legitimate reason to abandon TU.
 

Hayden Creek

Well-known member
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
2,471
Location
SoCO
calling him a troll or saying he is hammered is not scrutiny but a personal attack. Scrutiny is addressing his basic concern about a non profit funding trout restoration without the option for public access. It is a legitimate issue worth discussing. Of course IMO not a legitimate reason to abandon TU.
Really? How many times has he told us all we are wrong for spending money the way we want to because it doesn't jive with him? How many different threads and approaches has he used in doing so? Troll.
Other than his posts in the jokes thread every addition of his is posted to ruffle feathers. Troll.
There is nothing about this issue worth discussing from his perspective. His "friend" failed to do research. He failed to do research. Bitching about it serves no purpose other than ruffling feathers. This is like complaining about a public road serving a gated community. Tough shit. To some life just never seems fair.
 

alfaromeo

Well-known member
Messages
794
Reaction score
595
Location
sacramento
No one is attacking Alfa. Calling him out? Sure.
If you can't stand the scrutiny don't make the thread.
Everything in this country is supported with public dollars. If the taxpayers in Montana voted then they voted in the people that made this happen, intentionally or not. If not maybe they should have done more research before casting their vote.
sorry not been here.. stilll working on my 2.2ecotec alfa romeo spider conversion.. getting close to being back o the road
 

Meuniere

Well-known member
Messages
558
Reaction score
543
Location
Western Washington
Well, I don't know if "kinder, gentler" applies in this world anymore, but it is entirely possible that one can make an error in judgement, decide to be forthright about their viewpoint, and learn from the details and complexity of the situation as it is elaborated by many who have greater experience and perhaps broader perspective. That seems to be what is happening here. No, TU isn't a "club," which would involve conferring particular and exclusive privileges to its members. TU to me seems to be about giving back to what we love, and if there is scrutiny about how the "giving" is applied by the organisation, that is fair, but an informed, and I mean INFORMED viewpoint would reflect a concerted effort to get detailed, accurate information, and thank you to everyone here for filling in the gaps.

And I, for one, never have imagined that TU was about enabling public access.
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Messages
8,545
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Rothschld, Wisconsin
Blaine Spring Creek is accessible at a few places that I know of, so while the land surrounding the creek is private, the creek itself is not. I have fished it near the fish hatchery. I know some people who mistakenly floated into it several years ago and had a long day of boat dragging and fence dodging and then an interesting incident with a diversion dam before getting back to the mainstem.
Like these canoeists?

35547101902_92570d2b4b_o.jpg
 

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1,742
Location
CO
And I, for one, never have imagined that TU was about enabling public access.
I do not pretend to know much about TU but here in Colorado I do see signs at access points on private lands where TU seems to have implied they obtained/or help to obtain public access to private waters especially involving large cattle ranches. I would be very disappointed in TU if they didnt make public access a priority when HALF of their funding is from tax dollars from the public. ($29,000,00 out of $60,000,000).
 

trev

Well-known member
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
1,870
Location
south of Joplin
It does not mention public access anywhere in TU's mission statement or their vision that I recall.

Conservation, preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment and of wildlife actually need restriction of access and use in order to be successful.
The idea is not to use up what our possible descendants may want. Save things for the "future generations". Inaccessible areas become resource reservoirs.
 

Bonesonthebrain

Well-known member
Messages
98
Reaction score
74
Location
North Carolina
Joining an organization like TU should be for the greater good, not what you can personally get out of it. I am a TU member, have only gone trout fishing twice in the last 20 years. The monthly meetings are informative, met several interesting people and have volunteered for events like the fly fishing lessons for disabled vets. So in the end I do benefit, but it is not the reason I joined or participate for. My only expectation is that they hold true to their published mission statement.

A little bit flustered right now, as I just ‘liked’ a trev post. :)
 

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1,742
Location
CO
Joining an organization like TU should be for the greater good, not what you can personally get out of it. I am a TU member, have only gone trout fishing twice in the last 20 years. The monthly meetings are informative, met several interesting people and have volunteered for events like the fly fishing lessons for disabled vets. So in the end I do benefit, but it is not the reason I joined or participate for. My only expectation is that they hold true to their published mission statement.

A little bit flustered right now, as I just ‘liked’ a trev post. :)
If TU is all about the "greater good" for Trout then maybe they should be against fishing altogether since fishing it is basically waterboarding fish with the opportunity to kill them and eat them.
The reason to give more public access to fishing is so more people can enjoy and appreciate the resource and then be more concerned about preserving it. Just like zoos which are inherently unfair to the animals in the zoo but through public access to a new generation of children foster an appreciation for these animals and a desire to support preservation of their natural habitat and future survival outside the zoo.
 

Bonesonthebrain

Well-known member
Messages
98
Reaction score
74
Location
North Carolina
If TU is all about the "greater good" for Trout then maybe they should be against fishing altogether since fishing it is basically waterboarding fish with the opportunity to kill them and eat them.
The reason to give more public access to fishing is so more people can enjoy and appreciate the resource and then be more concerned about preserving it. Just like zoos which are inherently unfair to the animals in the zoo but through public access to a new generation of children foster an appreciation for these animals and a desire to support preservation of their natural habitat and future survival outside the zoo.
TU does many things to further enjoyment and appreciate the resource. It is not an all or nothing scenario for public access. They have taken a measured approach to it and decided to not make it a priority. This makes sense to not be seen as an organization bent on public access, which has as many pitfalls as it does benefits.
 

flybri2

Well-known member
Messages
133
Reaction score
19
Location
NJ
Not at all, it should restrict all use of that land. Conservation is the preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment and of wildlife. All of which require restrictions of use and abuse.

"A conservation easement is a voluntary, legal agreement that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. Also known as a conservation restriction or conservation agreement, a conservation easement is one option to protect a property for future generations."
I think the whole definition needs to be shown.
"a careful preservation and protection of something especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect water conservation wildlife conservation."
Even this definition has changed. When I started fishing & hunting over 45 yrs, ago, the definition was the wise use of natural resources.
I wonder when the powers that be decided to change the definition and include the word preservation. Remember preservation means the non-use of a resource.
 

Unknownflyman

Well-known member
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
1,585
Location
L'Étoile du Nord
Since when did writing grants for research and conservation projects to secure tax money for projects come with guaranteed titled deed access? This has never been the case. Public land can be open or closed to fishing and other regulations such as catch and release only, fly fishing only and private land may or may not have easements but benefit the entire river, stream, or watershed.
Most TU projects focus on spawning habitat and bank restoration, some include HI improvements and stocking on marginal waters, many streams are not suited for natural reproduction or very poor and with the DNR provide trout fishing opportunities.

Securing tax money from writing grants is nothing new, and if you look at the ledger that money is getting spent on conservation projects.

Trout unlimited`s ledger is solid. It's not a perfect world out there, in my neck of the woods, we have been waiting a long time for urgent projects to begin that help the fish and the future of a fishery but have nothing to do with fishing per say its private land, and we will never fish there, but it needs to get fixed and there are lots of areas that need trees, barricades, rip rap, buffer zones and it protects spawning habitat that I would never fish anyway.

To go off on my own tangent, I believe in seasons and closed seasons when its too tough on the fish, and unfortunately we are going to see this more and more with ground water wars and issues, industrialization. farming and climate.

So do we fight for what's left or just let things slide and kill off the rest of them and bitch about money? Tax money was spent so I get to kill fish there? Or I cant fish there so screw every group involved? A lot of narratives in the thread.

Yeah, If you have lots of misspellings and rants without any factual information, I assume they were drinking, nothing wrong with that most everyone tips a few, and I didnt call the OP a troll, but this is a trollish thread and not his first.

I wish my nipples were as sensitive as some of my readers.

Peace
 
Last edited:

fatbillybob

Well-known member
Messages
675
Reaction score
427
I don't buy the whole OP troll label. Those in the know can educate without putting up walls and barriers to a good discussion. Perhaps the OP was just ignorant of what TU does. I know I am. If nothing else this thread of the OP opens some eyes. My 1st exposure to "conservation easement" was the Craig Matthews $3 bridge project. We were told the area would be preserved for future generations and forbid development and ensure public access that we already had to that property. It worked.

I wrongly assumed that "conservation easement" included public access and that these lands were being preserved for the public. That's me. That means I can use it. From other knowledgeable posts I'm obviously wrong. It is good to protect animals but I would never support PETA because I understand them to be against hunting and fishing. If TU is going to lock away public lands so I can't fish them I would not support them either.

Conservation and preservation is not this or that. They are on a sliding continuum. If we were all really 100% commited to conservation, preservation and protection of the planet our suicide would be a good start. That obviously isn't going to happen. All we can hope for is to F'up the planet a little less. There is going to be a give and take. Some streams are going to have diapers on the shoreline and others will be verboten. And people are going to have to read the fine print on what they are signing up for.
 

alfaromeo

Well-known member
Messages
794
Reaction score
595
Location
sacramento
i have removed myself from this site.. really dont enjoy being called a drinker i.e. hammered..or a troll.. i was just stating what my freind came across on his trip
 

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
1,742
Location
CO
TU does many things to further enjoyment and appreciate the resource. It is not an all or nothing scenario for public access. They have taken a measured approach to it and decided to not make it a priority. This makes sense to not be seen as an organization bent on public access, which has as many pitfalls as it does benefits.
Logical explanation. makes sense. thanks.
Since when did writing grants for research and conservation projects to secure tax money for projects come with guaranteed titled deed access? This has never been the case. Public land can be open or closed to fishing and other regulations such as catch and release only, fly fishing only and private land may or may not have easements but benefit the entire river, stream, or watershed.
Most TU projects focus on spawning habitat and bank restoration, some include HI improvements and stocking on marginal waters, many streams are not suited for natural reproduction or very poor and with the DNR provide trout fishing opportunities.

Securing tax money from writing grants is nothing new, and if you look at the ledger that money is getting spent on conservation projects.

Trout unlimited`s ledger is solid. It's not a perfect world out there, in my neck of the woods, we have been waiting a long time for urgent projects to begin that help the fish and the future of a fishery but have nothing to do with fishing per say its private land, and we will never fish there, but it needs to get fixed and there are lots of areas that need trees, barricades, rip rap, buffer zones and it protects spawning habitat that I would never fish anyway.

To go off on my own tangent, I believe in seasons and closed seasons when its too tough on the fish, and unfortunately we are going to see this more and more with ground water wars and issues, industrialization. farming and climate.

So do we fight for what's left or just let things slide and kill off the rest of them and bitch about money? Tax money was spent so I get to kill fish there? Or I cant fish there so screw every group involved? A lot of narratives in the thread.

Yeah, If you have lots of misspellings and rants without any factual information, I assume they were drinking, nothing wrong with that most everyone tips a few, and I didnt call the OP a troll, but this is a trollish thread and not his first.

I wish my nipples were as sensitive as some of my readers.

Peace
I dont really disagree with what you have said ,...you make some very salient points.... but I am more sensitive than most of the nipples you probably encounter when I see on google earth a great stretch of public water on public land that is landlocked by private land.
As far as trolling or stirring the pot goes. I am sure as the cold and/or closed season progresses it will get a bit worse. But I would rather see a heated debate like this than a dead forum which has happened to a bunch other forums thanks to a tendency for platforms to migrate to FaceBook.
 

dharkin

Well-known member
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
305
Location
Massachusetts
I own 27 acres on a private spring creek (not O'Dells) near Ennis. See below.



So I am very familiar with the access points on local waters. There are NO public access points on O'Dells.

I wish I had thought to ask permission to fish your property last week Silver. I was fishing the Big Hole with no water.
 
Top