Email this page  Print this page  del.icio.us  digg

TU's Turmoil

I am writing in response to Jeff Hull's rather lop-sided piece [July/October] that would have its readers believe a controversy over stream access has crippled Trout Unlimited. Nothing could be further from the truth. The organization's professional and volunteer conservation programs are all meeting or exceeding their objectives. As Hull notes, TU is indeed a "powerhouse of habitat protection." It became so-and will continue to be so-by staying focused on its mission and avoiding, wherever possible, collateral entanglements over matters such as stream access.

I would like to address the suggestion that Hull makes at the end of the article: that TU's leadership should poll the membership to see if it feels that the organization should be involved in stream access disputes. We had a very extensive dialogue with the membership in the late 1990's, and we learned that the membership is deeply divided on the issue. Those divisions continue today: While the Montana council's leadership wants to be involved, in May the New York state council's leadership voted against any involvement. In the face of those differences, it is up to TU's leaders to use their best judgment whether stream access advocacy is within the mission. Running an organization by plebiscite is a poor substitute for leadership.

TU leaders are working to resolve their differences. A diverse group of TU volunteer leaders has been meeting to develop changes in TU's current Access Policy. In August, they will report their results, and I am hopeful that we will have a satisfactory resolution.
Robert J. Teufel
Chair, Board of Trustees
Trout Unlimited

An Open Letter to [TU President and CEO] Charles Gauvin:
While I admire the work Trout Unlimited does to protect trout, salmon and watersheds, I am, regretfully, pulling my support from Trout Unlimited.

The decision to not allow your chapters to weigh in on stream access in Montana or anywhere else indicates your organization's future direction in regard to pacifying the ultra-rich donors within TU. I see what an untenable situation you find yourself in these days. You can either stay true to the grassroots donors, like me, who contribute $100 or less each year or you can coddle the ultra rich who may donate tens of thousands of dollars. From an operational standpoint there is no question which way a not-for-profit organization must go to survive. I see the same thing happening at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Sadly, your organization could have been the catalyst for this change and the rich would have fallen back in line once they saw their money and greed could not buy them our rivers. But, in the recent Jeff Hull article in FR&R it seems your former ultra-rich representative John Maher summed up your attitude to stream access by calling it a "collateral issue." I assure you this is not a "collateral issue." The right to see, experience and enjoy our natural resources, especially the ones we have fought so passionately to protect, is still more American than greedily trying to hoard it all for a select few.
Darren Ward
Draper, Utah

Jeff Hull's excellent article regarding the turmoil going on within TU over whether its chapters should fight for stream access was quite incredible. Taking Jeff's facts at face value, I have to ask if the TU Board of Trustees has completely taken leave of common sense, or are the Trustees just that out of touch with what motivates people at the grassroots level? To lend credence to the latter possibility, a Trustee in our region hasn't once attended our monthly chapter meetings since the chapter was revived three years ago, even though the meetings are less than 10 miles from the Trustee's home.

As the one who took the principal lead in re-activating the moribund Chapter #920 in San Diego three years ago, I feel Mr. Dietl's comment says it all: "While it's our mission to preserve . . . coldwater resources, if I can't fish because more and more access is being privatized, then to hell with it." I suggest this is probably the sentiment of all active TU members. If the TU Board continues to not recognize this, the membership will shortly be limited to those in for the warm-and-fuzzy feeling they get when annually sending in their $35 dues and receiving the calendar-i.e., there will be no soldiers in the field.

There should be no question that trout fishing is part and parcel to the objectives of TU, and the vast majority of active TU members are also active fishers. If fishing access to a stream cannot be guaranteed, what is the point of TU's using contributions to improve fisheries that only private parties can access? While such a scenario may be an exaggeration of most TU conservation projects, it does underscore that guaranteeing stream access must occur in conjunction with conservation efforts. If assuring stream access is deemed not part of the current TU mission statement, then it behooves TU to amend its mission statement to reflect working for stream access and not to turn a blind eye to this issue-mission statements are not cast in stone and delivered from the Mount.

Contrary to the Board of Trustee's current strife with Montana chapters over this issue, that state should be held up as the hallmark of comprehensive stream conservation, including assuring that use of streams by the public is preserved. As anyone who has spent time fishing Montana knows, that state has done a wonderful job of not only acquiring fishing access but also of providing terrific highway signage directing fishermen to the access spots.

I doubt TU is as out of touch as suggested above, but it certainly has a potential conflict of interest in asking big bucks from the same people it should be battling with over stream access rights-thus, the true reason it is backing off the latter is in deference to its overly ambitious fund-raising goals. Personally, I have dropped my membership in TU, and will not renew it until the Board of Trustees comes around to supporting stream access.
Patrick Case
San Diego, California

"...to conserve, protect and restore..." is the heart and soul of TU. Always has been. It is of course subject to interpretation, and frequently, is by those who would like a stronger TU National presence and focus on an issue found in their forefront. Clearly, the loss of public access in the Western states is an issue for those anglers who want to fish public water accessible only by private land. In the southeastern US, we have an issue concerning a Wild & Scenic river that may soon be invaded by recreational boating. But: "conserve, protect, and restore." Is access across private property or restricting boaters part of that mission statement?
As for TU splitting over this question, frankly, I doubt it, although your author, Jeff Hull, writes with a tone of prophecy. I have been a TU member since 1993 and served in multiple Chapter and State Council offices over the years. Rumbling in the ranks is far from new. Remember all those in the 1990's who vowed they were going to leave this "wacko extremist group" because TU wanted to preserve water and land? And there has been a more recent flap about TU National being only interested in Western waters and ignoring the rest of the country.

TU as a national organization is limited by the resources they have available. TU National cannot take on every issue in every watershed. So they have to pick their fights carefully, and if they are smart, they will make sure they pick some they can win. Face it, it's easier to get and maintain support for a winning cause. And TU does win and they have won some key battles that can benefit all anglers; keeping the water in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison is a good example.

I do empathize with Western anglers because they are seeing their access slipping away. The new owners of the riverfront properties in Montana, Wyoming and across the West are raising condos, not cows, and the condo owners don't want anglers wandering around in "their yards." The developers want to sell "private water frontage" with the starter mansions. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it would have been better had the stakeholders for continuous public access to public waters worked together earlier to preserve public access through easements, parks and parking areas. That said, it is not too late to start working with local and state lawmakers to help them see the ongoing revenue stream angling presents that could be shut off. Beyond that, the circumstances in Montana should be a wake-up call for TU Chapters and State Councils around the country to look at their public water access laws and initiate those conversations with lawmakers to find out how to keep our access.

But will this split TU? Not a chance. Some members will leave to find organizations more in tune with their immediate and local needs, but Trout Unlimited will not fracture over what is essentially a local issue. And for those who want to find the stronger focus for the localized issue, you should pursue those avenues. But there is no rationale for leaving Trout Unlimited; keep your TU membership for those "conserve, protect, restore" issues like blocking mining development on headwaters.

Last cast: Is TU National raising big bucks and are those funds somehow tainted? First, TU needs to raise funds to hire professional staffers, fund research and pay legal talent to fight some of the stickier battles. But put the wader on the other foot for a minute and consider: If you were a stakeholder on the other side of the issue, if you wanted to restrict public access, where would you put your money? TU National? I think I would instead donate to local political candidates who are strong private property rights advocates, not TU.
John Kies
Laurel Park, North Carolina


I wanted to take a moment to thank Jeff Hull for his article. For the most part, he is on target. However, he underestimates and possibly misunderstands the real extent of the problem. The growing rift he describes in TU is real and extends well beyond Montana and access issues. The blurb at the top of his article noting that TU is "fly-fishing's leading conservation organization" actually underlines the cultural problems he attempts to downplay in his text. Here on the left side of the Rockies, once you get away from the concentrations of fly-fishing urbanites targeted by TU promotions, the face of TU is a lot more blue collar and a whole lot less likely to be made up of fly fishermen. Class and culture is a factor in some places, but the real issue is that TU has evolved into a corporate structure that centralizes power and decision-making away from the grassroots of the organization and real-world problem solving. One needs only to look to the American automobile industry or the Bush administration policy in Iraq for daily examples of failures of this kind of governance.

TU's version of Iraq came two years ago, when the Executive Committee under Kirk Otey's leadership suspended the Washington Council of TU, citing a bill of particulars that even NLC loyalists now concede were wrong. The consequence was the destruction of one of the largest and most effective state organizations in the country and a major setback to salmon and steelhead conservation at a time when longtime conservationists tacitly admit that none of the traditional strategies are working here. The conservation issues in the Northwest dwarf those in the rest of the country and essentially never have been understood in Virginia. Meanwhile, TU offers us a view of conservation solidly anchored in the 1960's and very little else.
Paul Sparks
Olympia, Washington

Regarding the Letters [July/October] that came in response to the Generation Gap essays in your April issue, I was stupefied by the self-righteous and stereotypical mentality of some older fly fishers. It's rather presumptuous to assume that because one is younger they do not appreciate the history that accompanies fly-fishing, or lacks proper etiquette. If there is a difference, it has more to do with the lack of elitism and the good ol' boys club mentality that exists among the older fly fishers.

I have been fly-fishing now for four years and my experience has never been anything other than sincere and appreciative, as fly-fishing has been life changing for me. If you have an issue with an individual who happens to be younger than yourself, then try being a role model and set an example instead of stereotyping and lumping a whole generation into one group. I happen to think crotchety old men (or women) who fly-fish are pretty rude too; I would contend that older individuals who write these quirky little anecdotes speak for themselves. If this is the general attitude of the older crowd, maybe it's time to pack up your vest and buy a golf club membership instead. Lastly, comparing bait fisherman to fly fishermen is just ridiculous and requires no further comment. A little respect goes a long way, no matter what your age.
Randall Vallee
Las Cruces, New Mexico

Just wanted to put in my two cents about the Generation Gap. I've been a professional guide for the past eight years. Working in Arizona, Colorado, Utah, California, Alaska, Washington and Florida I've had a lot of exposure to lots of water. It really irks me to read someone passing judgment on another because they're not wearing a thousand dollars worth of gear. The bottom line is if we want fly-fishing to have a future, as an industry we have to be accepting of young people who show an interest. They have just as much right to fly-fish as the retired doctor or lawyer who feels he somehow paid his dues. If you want water to yourself join a club where there are beats or hike your behind into a mountain stream for solitude.

One doesn't have to drink cognac and smoke cigars to be a proper fly fisherman. The Bud-drinking crowd has just as much of a right to be there. Chances are you're looking at a guide enjoying a day off. You might actually learn something from them.
Dave Dunn
Beer drinking, wet-wading fly-fisherman