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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3)


Re: Western PA Conservacy

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6114
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
I agree with troutbert's last post. Also, the conservacies have more money to work with, generally having been funded by wealthy trusts that can afford to use some part of their vast wealth to gain partial tax relief through donations. TU has a bit less of this kind of financial support and so your $25 donation may be more important to TU than the WPC.


I agree. If I had 5 million dollars to donate, I would donate it to a land conservancy, not TU. And I would probably try to work with them to see that that money was spent to conserve land through which a quality trout stream flowed.

Because that much money is the type of money that could really benefit streams by protecting the land they flow through, and the conservancies are involved in that type of activity.

Conervancies do that real estate type work. But do not (typically) do advocacy work.

TU does not have the money to buy and manage land to any great extent. But, unlike the land conservancies, they do advocacy work. And in advocacy work, the numbers of members of your group makes a big difference.

If you go to state agencies and express your concern about bulldozers gouging out streams, having 12,000 members (PATU's approximate membership) will probably get you a better hearing than if you have 800 members.

If you had 80,000 members (the approx. numbers of flyfishers in PA) you would probably be taken even more seriously than if you have 12,000 members.

With issues like channelization, pollution, etc. numbers of members matter a lot when talking to agencies and politicians.

When buying land, the number of members is less important. When a tract of land comes up for sale, you either have enough money to buy it or you don't. And annual $25 membership fees aren't going to buy tracts of land. That's barely enough to cover costs of mailings, website, etc. They get money to buy real estate from large trusts from seriously wealthy people.

So, the main roles played by conservancies and TU are typically different. But they are not in opposition, they are complementary.

There are some things, such as riparian buffers, tree plantings, stream cleanups, etc. where the groups commonly work together.

Another example would be the habitat work at the site of the McCoy Dam removal on Spring Creek. TU, Clearwater Conservancy, and the PFBC were all involved in that.

Posted on: 2010/12/31 12:39


Re: Western PA Conservacy

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 10290
Offline
As with all non-profits, be sure to do your due diligence and check out their administrative expenses and their permitted utilization of properties. Some conservancies have full time staff that eat up a huge percentage of grant funding (to a gross and exaggerated level). Also some conservancies limit hunting and/or fishing on their properties.

Posted on: 2011/1/1 15:49


Re: Western PA Conservacy

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6114
Offline
It would be great if more flyfishers joined the conservancies, and if they have the money, to donate to them. And try to influence them in the direction of more stream conservation oriented land purchases.

The Western PA Conservancy's purchases have been very beneficial to stream conservation. Partly because they have the money to buy LARGE chunks of land.

Many other conservancies have far more limited budgets and usually buy smaller parcels. And often they seem to be not particularly stream focused.

I know of a conservancy in PA (I won't name names) that has purchased and acquired conservation easements on various properties, but very little of these lands are stream corridor lands. They seem focused on upland properties, up on the ridges.

I'm not sure why that is so. It may be that those properties are just less expensive. Or it may fit the interests of their leadership, membership and contributors. There are surely more hikers than fishermen among their ranks. So, understandably, they focus on the lands most closely associated to their interests.

But from a biological conservation perspective, stream corridor lands support a far higher number of species than uplands.

Posted on: 2011/1/1 17:02


Re: Western PA Conservacy

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6114
Offline
In the latest edition of the PA Angler, the writer Ben Moyer has an article about Chestnut Hill Trout Unlimited, which is in the area around the Yough, Dunbar, Laurel HIll Creek drainages. It includes some quotes by a Western PA Conservancy member.

If you search "PA Angler Chestnut Hill Trout Unlimited" you can find the article in pdf format.

I'm not sure how to link a pdf file.

Posted on: 2011/1/4 16:54


Re: Western PA Conservacy
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22223
Offline

Posted on: 2011/1/4 16:57
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: Western PA Conservacy

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6114
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Just paste the PDF url as follows:

http://fishandboat.com/anglerboater/2 ... um1_janfeb/07chestnut.pdf


Thanks, Jack.

Posted on: 2011/1/4 17:58



« 1 2 (3)



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
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com