Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



(1) 2 3 4 »


Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 993
Offline
Since the ramblings in the WW forum have gotten way off topic, which i agree, i have decided to start this here for people to discuss.

Do conservation groups as a whole do more damage than good? Consider them all. Trout Unlimited, watershed groups, conservation districts, the PGC (who buy up large parcels of woods, PFBC, US Fish and Wildlife, Save the Bay groups, National Parks Service, DCNR etc etc... all of them

As a whole should they just all disband and let nature take its course? Should they in an era of every growing population and less and less people that care, just give up? Should we stop teaching our children to try and fix what we have destroyed?

I have also included a special, do you think water conservation groups in PA destroy your fishing segment?
Think hard about this.

I cant even believe this is a topic....

I'm taking my kids to the beach in a few hours, Ill be back Sunday night. Enjoy!

Posted on: 8/25 12:48
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2016/2/26 9:10
Posts: 772
Offline
The local organizations that I know of are fantastic! Plenty of good things.. Spring Creek, and the Little J would not be what they are today without the help of organizations, (and INDIVIDUALS!)

Posted on: 8/25 13:22


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 993
Offline
Bill Anderson is awesome for sure.

No rebuttal!!!

Posted on: 8/25 13:36
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2013/3/1 8:29
From West Chester
Posts: 67
Offline
I think conservation groups do a great job preserving access and enhancing/preserving habitat. I wish I had more time to volunteer to help.

To me, the reality of the present and future of the outdoors is that wilderness is shrinking drastically. To survive it needs help to preserve and protect what is left and reclaim and enhance what we've already screwed up. The more people that care about a place, the better chance there is for it's preservation. There are lots of recent examples of this.


Posted on: 8/25 14:01


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2006/11/20 10:08
Posts: 275
Offline
AGREE! Bill Anderson and the LJRA are awesome.

When John I. Kennedy and Fred Sherlock were alive, they spearheaded the John Kennedy Chapter of TU (then Blair County TU), and that group was also awesome, especially when rehabilitating damaged trout waters. That group still does some good things.

The Juniata Valley Audubon Society is a great group, too. Its leaders and members work hard to protect the great outdoors. Its present president, Laura Jackson, is intelligent and conveys ideas well. She and her group work to ensure that present laws are enforced.

I imagine the list of groups goes on and on. Without them, as the Eagles sang, "the rich men [would come] and rape the land" with impunity.

Posted on: 8/25 15:04


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1427
Offline
"We should just let nature fix our mistakes because it can."

Much of what conservation groups do (and should do) is creating conditions where nature can "fix our mistakes" i.e. self-restore.

But whatever it causing the problem must be dealt with.

If cows are in the creek, nature won't take them out. You have to work with the landowner and others to get that done, build fencing to exclude the cows from the riparian buffer.

THEN nature can rebuild things. But not as long as the cows are in there.

And there are so many other examples. In Monongahela National Forest, they are taking out roads that are crowding the streams. That will allow natural habitat-forming processes to occur.

But those cannot occur until the roads in the floodplain, constraining the stream are removed. It takes peoples' actions to get those roads out of the floodplain, to allow the stream to interact with the vegetation and floodplain substrates in the normal way.

Or take the case where the riparian areas are mowed lawns right to the water's edge. If you end mowing, riparian vegetation will come in. And nature will restore things.

BUT, nature won't stop people from maintaining lawns to the water's edge. People have to be active to create that change.

If there is a pollutant flowing into a stream, such as mine drainage, or an industrial discharge, and that is ended, nature will begin to restore the water quality and aquatic life.

BUT, nature won't stop the pollution. People have to get that done. Then, and only then, can "nature fix our mistakes."



Posted on: 8/25 17:34


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2013/12/7 0:10
From SE Pa
Posts: 314
Offline
Your question is so incredibly slanted that there can only be one answer. Im not even sure what started this question but I do know it's a pretty ridiculous question. "Should we stop teaching our children to try and fix what we have destroyed." No bias there.

Posted on: 8/25 20:41


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???
Moderator
Joined:
2016/1/24 14:30
From Gettysburg
Posts: 1927
Offline
All things considered, they do far more good. It's not even close.

I'm a believer that careful structural modifications and stream improvment projects can be very effective, and I try to do my share by pounding some rebar every year.

To be sure, the legacy of such efforts has proven complicated and some structures built in the past have not always held up well or achieved their objectives. Conceptions of best practices have evolved a bit, which is to be expected. Nevertheless, most have proven an asset to the stream. I still fish today around some wooden and shot rock structures I helped build in the 1980s and early 90s and these structures are still working and providing fish cover and erosion control.

Other efforts by local conservation groups to educate landowners, keep their property open to public access, and raise funds for clean-up efforts and conservation easements...are immensly valuable (see Bill A. above ^).

Posted on: 8/25 21:22


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 993
Offline
Poopdeck,

The question is the title of the thread. It isn't biased.

My commentary is my opinion and last I checked I can be biased, because it's an opinion.

As far as everyone else, yes 100 percent.

Posted on: 8/25 21:48
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2015/8/28 14:48
From Swpa
Posts: 238
Offline
There's two different mindsets here.

-The realist who realizes all the good these groups do and the positive benefits of active conservation efforts. Educating the masses, and getting more people involved ultimately being best way to increase conservation efforts.

-The purist (maybe?) who thinks these groups do more harm than good. Not sure if purist is the right word here but we all know the type. This is the person who fishes strictly for wild fish in unstocked creeks, maintains a top secret list of locations, gets extremely upset when stream info gets published, makes comments about how great things were before (enter some event that drew attention to said location).

I understand the different viewpoints and I'm not a fan of data publishing, but in the big picture conservation groups do way more good than harm. A lot more good than social media pictures of a wild fish with anonymous locations and some clever title ever will.

Posted on: 8/25 23:17


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2012/2/16 18:55
From Nowheresville, PA
Posts: 1330
Offline
724- makes sense. i am perhaps of the second group...if you can call it a group since most are #1.

I have many examples where groups got a hold of areas that were very nice and open to public. They decided to improve things for more access and spend tons of$ doing so. Many rules and restrictions were put in place and the spots were truly degraded in every way.

I once knew a nice meadow trout stream that had a decent amount of wild Brown trout. It was stocked in lower end but not in several miles at the top. It was fairly brushy and hard to get into and fish near the roads but once up in it was nice and open. I only went there occasionally. It held some beautiful and big fish. I caught some nice 18-20" regularly.

Eventually it was put on class a list. then conservation group (TU) and others got wind of it and things changed very fast. First the stream improvement devices were installed. Then more people showed up to fish. And eventually landowners became tired of constant activity and closed down sections.

This is a trend in society. we all want to "do something", "take action", make big plans" and I think sometimes just to stand and be in awe of nature without feeling any real need to change it is a good thing. I'm not a fan of the club mentality as it usually omits the finer points and perspectives and the masses just come up with something sort of vulgar and clumsy and dumb.

Posted on: 8/26 11:27
_________________
“USED TROUT STREAM FOR SALE.
MUST BE SEEN TO BE APPRECIATED.”


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1427
Offline
"Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???"

Has someone asserted that conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good?




Posted on: 8/26 20:08


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2015/6/1 16:22
From Burke VA
Posts: 1223
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
"Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???"

Has someone asserted that conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good?





Yes

Posted on: 8/26 22:07


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 353
Offline
Quote:
And eventually landowners became tired of constant activity and closed down sections.


And is this necessarily a bad thing where the health of the stream is concerned?

Conservation of the stream itself vs conservation of your fishing access? Guess it probably depends on your view of the 'big picture.'

Posted on: 8/27 7:32


Re: Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

Joined:
2012/2/16 18:55
From Nowheresville, PA
Posts: 1330
Offline
tomi- Part of the overall picture is realizing that the small stream I mentioned is probably not responsible for polluting the bay or any other terrible thing and was perfectly fine as it was until it was "discovered" and became some groups "project". In other words there were/are certainly much bigger fish to fry when it comes to OVERALL health of watersheds and the planet.

The "feel good" missions of these groups are not always in the publics best interest.



Posted on: 8/27 8:04
_________________
“USED TROUT STREAM FOR SALE.
MUST BE SEEN TO BE APPRECIATED.”



(1) 2 3 4 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Sponsors
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
Polls
Angling Trade E-Survey: How Many Outdoor Print Magazines Do You Subscribe To?
None. Nada. Zip. 50% (46)
One or two. 32% (30)
Three or four. 13% (12)
More than four. 3% (3)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2017/10/27 11:42
Comments?





Copyright 2017 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com