Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic
Topic: Good News From Montana, Great Story about Stream Access< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
mattklara Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: FP Admin Team
Posts: 3864
Joined: Jan. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 26 2007,02:49  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This is what we need more of in the world.  Glad to say that this news is from my old neighborhood.
Belgrade, MT.

Homeowner invites anglers to use his land for river access

By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/06/23/news/000fish.txt


--------------
Sign the petition supporting wild steelhead release on Oregon's Umpqua River system.

Sign The Petition Here


"What are the odds that Matt has a steelhead tattoo located somewhere on his body?"   - joesnuffy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 2
corvuscorax Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Jul. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 20 2007,04:12 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

When I approached the board members of a TU Chapter in the state that has virtually identical access laws as MT that they should stand up on this issue, the consensus was that the TU chapter "did not want to take up any issue that could make it a lightning rod"(direct quote) .  Now that didmo has been found in that state, they want others to help set signs out and contribute........I applaud the fellow who welcomed the anglers, and I hope never forget that it may happen that the individual makes the biggest difference when he or she uses their courage to do the right thing and then just does the right thing, without looking around to see if someone gives them credit for it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Paul Arden Search for posts by this member.
Fly God 2010
Avatar



Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 25672
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 20 2007,11:29 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hi Corvus, and welcome to the Board.
I agree. Apart from which, a lightning rod would be a great thing to be for any organisation such as TU, in fact I can't think of a better analogy.

Cheers,
Paul


--------------
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 4
Rich Knoles Search for posts by this member.
flybitch 2008
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3151
Joined: Nov. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 20 2007,11:31 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hi Corvus, It helps to remember that TU is a habitat organization. :glare:  Rich

--------------
Barrio Pro Team
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Bob Wyatt Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5850
Joined: Oct. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 20 2007,15:54 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

That's true Rich, but like DU, on which TU is modeled, habitat is closely related to access to fishing.  Ultimately, DU enhances and protects habitat for better
duck hunting. ( I ama big supporter of DU , BTW, so this is not meant as a criticism).  As anglers we can't separate protection of trout from our desire to catch them.  So this requires protecting access.  

TU could be a little more of a political lightning rod on the access issue if you ask me.


--------------
"...every fisherman will have to be a riverkeeper, a steward of marine shallows, a watchman on the high seas. "
Thomas McGuane

www.trouthunting.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 6
Rudi Ferris Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2655
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 20 2007,17:39 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Bob is right; which is no great surprise.  

He’s seen a lot, and thought a lot about what he has seen.  Additionally, and related to the Youth vs Age thread, he has a longer duration of life’s experience, a greater data set if you will.  Not all old-timers are sage or worth listening to, but those that are, are so because they’ve seen a lot and can factor changes into a broader field of vision.

What??  Do some think that the whole concept of Elders, the Grey Bearded Wizard or Council of Wise Men is some fallacious construct of more than 60,000 years of Humanity and human evolution?  Your kidding…I hope.  :D  But youth always confuses wisdom with heroics, which in itself defines the usefulness of both young and old.

---------------------------------

Back to it:  angling: trout, their habitat, can’t reasonably be separated from us and our habits and habitat.  It’s what the deal is all about.  Additionally, privatization or commercialization of the resource goes hand in hand with its destruction:  indeed both cause and reinforce the other.  Here is how.

The more of the resource that is lost by ill environmental practice, the greater the essential reason to privatize and control what's left of the resource.  And, if one doesn’t have to worry about THEIR fishing getting ruined, because it is private and exclusive, this entirely changes their concerns and bearing.

All sorts of industrial and financial moguls as well as the kind of politicians that do their bidding have been anglers, and often committed ones too.  But while they are angling themselves on the one hand, they are creating or financing or defending destructive environmental practice that ruin angling, on the other hand.  

The reason they can square such contrariness to themselves is that they usually have THEIR fishing that buffers them from the rest of the world and its angling concerns: the state of the resource and their ability to use it….  
So: The single greatest reason to prevent privatization and the segregation of anglers into classes is itself an Environmental Reason.

If the entire resource is everyone’s, that resource will gain the protection of everyone. There is no hiding place for those who would destroy this part of the World—angling—all the while claiming to be anglers themselves.

---------------------------------------

That TU chickened out of being a “lightening rod” about the issue of access or privatization is a dead giveaway that they don’t really understand….or they are chickens. Maybe they don’t have enough Heros as opposed to Greybeards?

In my understanding (for whatever that may be worth) that TU in Montana has been an essential player in the access debate, as behooves an organization that understands the dire social and environmental consequences of sequestering anglers according to privilege and money.

Where did this other TU chapter so essentially and crucially fumble the ball?  

Cheers,   Rudi
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Rich Knoles Search for posts by this member.
flybitch 2008
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3151
Joined: Nov. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 21 2007,03:12 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think it's part of the TU culture, Rudi. Access and rights aren't at the top of the list. These organizations do a great job at what they do.

The FFF would be better suited to take up access and Anglers Rights issues. Rich


--------------
Barrio Pro Team
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Rudi Ferris Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2655
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 21 2007,06:57 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hey Rich,

I know what you are saying and my little household are members of both Trout U. and Ducks U.  They are terrific organizations. Period.

---------------------

Maybe there is another way to look at this.  Having had some experience of similar situations, it may not be important that TU itself start the dialogue and movement toward an access/angler’s rights issue in a State with potentially the same beneficial outcome as we’ve seen in Montana.

This may be best to start with another group, as you suggest.  But what becomes vastly important is not who starts the effort, but what eventual allies make the effort much stronger.  T.U. is perhaps shy about initially engaging the issue, but they may well be very staunch when it has developed.

Finally, this is what really counts.  So, TU may have some Elder statesmen and women that are initially very conservative about where they appoint their efforts.  But this isn’t to say that when a group of young heroes make a charge, they won’t cover them and lean into it with them.

Ya gotta have the bold AND the thoughtful, and you have to find a way for them to both contribute and create strength from the other’s weakness.  That’s how humans have done it since our ancestors of the glacial gravels.

Cheers,   Rudi
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Rudi Ferris Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2655
Joined: Jul. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 21 2007,17:45 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Have looked a bit more closely into this issue.

http://www.newwest.net/index.p....L41

At its heart appears an essential conflict:  TU National prefers to steer clear of helping common anglers preserve and enforce their rights apropos the Montana Stream Access Law. It appears that the National Leadership of TU is worried that they will receive less revenue from disgruntled wealthy, riparian owners.  

------------------------------------

It seems important to me that the Law itself, decided in the Montana Supreme Court which unquestionably establishes the Public’s Right to use the rivers of the State, leaves little wiggle room for those shy of simply enforcing and defining the Law.  

What is questioned now is whether Montana Landowners can fence off the river at public roadways and bridges in order to keep the anglers and other users of public resources out.  This is remarkable and obviously the last vestige of the philosophy that one CAN own/control what everyone agrees is the Public’s.

I have no idea how this will eventually play out, but were I in Montana, the National Leadership of TU would utterly disappoint me…and I would bail them to rejoin an outfit to argue for the enlightened Law.  I may do this anyway, being thousands of miles away from Montana.

After all, what is my pipsqueak contribution compared to the large amounts that the wealthy and influential can pour into the coffers of TU in order to buy silence about such an essential angling question.

I don’t believe for one moment that the way to protect natural resources is to privatize them, and essentially, that is what TU is arguing.

--------------------------------------------

Some great dialogue below this article.  Montana is the site of a “populace” political movement that is fomenting in the Rocky Mountain States.  TU had better be pretty careful; they are behind the curve on this one.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
mattklara Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: FP Admin Team
Posts: 3864
Joined: Jan. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jul. 21 2007,18:42 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

I agree that TU's stance on this is weak, but it is intentionally so.  In their defense, they describe themselves as a conservaiton organization, not an angler rights organization.  They do a lot of good work in ther described target area.

I think Rich is right, that this is a better issue for the FFF to worry about.  They are more of a fishing club than a conservation lobby.

TU does alot of good with those rich landowners dollars, especially fighting agains CBM development in MT.

Matt


--------------
Sign the petition supporting wild steelhead release on Oregon's Umpqua River system.

Sign The Petition Here


"What are the odds that Matt has a steelhead tattoo located somewhere on his body?"   - joesnuffy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
18 replies since Jun. 26 2007,02:49 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic

» Quick Reply Good News From Montana
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code