VFTU Trout Show -what do we stand for?

TU should not be affiliated with these types of people. It is not necessary. Last year they had Craig matthews there - he owns a fly tying business and shop - that is fine - it is a business that doesn't exclude the public from water. In fact, Craig Matthews is well known for his fight for stream access and improvement out west! That is great! I'm sure they raised a ton of $ last year.

My point - no need to have these jerk-offs promots a TU event. It looks bad. And they gave hima table there and gave him access to hundreds of SEPA yuppies that, some I'm sure, booked a trip to the "private waters".

I am not niave to the point that he is legally allowed to post his property and exclude people from the stream in NEPA, but I don't have to agree with it and I think TU should be as far away from that activity as possible.... - don't know how any of you in your right mind can argue with that!
 
SOOOOO....how does that help with either getting access or conserving habitat? What do we gain by taking that stance?
 
How would you feel if you knew that TU was investing money gathered from member contributions in the capital stock of Monsanto, Dow, USX, etc.? I think the point the original poster and TDB may be making is that if there is a choice of speakers, why not pick one who's business and philosophy matches the business and philosophy of the organization? I'm not saying it was the case with this speaker, but should the soul of an organization be placed at auction to the highest bidder?
 
I think that is a somewhat poor analogy. It seems to me that the ranch/guide service owner in this case was donating to TU and not TU donating to him. He also has a vested business interest in the conservation of the wild trout resource on his property. This is a direct alignment of values with the TU's "fish first" policy. Finally, while calling this owner a jerk-off and banning him from TU might be a true statement and make us all feel good, I fail to see how it accomplishes anything tangible and perhaps does some harm.

Now if you had a pool in your backyard, I don't think I have the right to swim in it just because I'm wearing a swimsuit and people have been swimming in pools in my family for generations. Now if I were part of an organization who offered to help clean your pool and pay for some of the upkeep of your pool, you might be inclined to let me swim in in every now and again and I would have a very clean pool. Now, if you just snuck in my pool and made a mess and then badmouthed the fact I owned a pool, I probably wouldn't let you swim there and would have dirtier pool. Since there isn't any Pool Easement Act that would force me to give you access, your chances of legally swimming in my pool would be zero to none.

Now I will not and will encourage all or my yuppie friends to not spend money on private waters like this and instead donate to CAP, WPC, or the Nature Conservency, because that will accomplish something tangable. Yuppies and private land owners don't have to be the enemy, they can be an opprotunity.....just take a look at how many sections of our national parks were formed from gifts from private individual donors. Who knows, maybe this is what Ted Turner is up to out west, if we don't **** him off first....
 
You seemed to focus on the part of my analogy that is dissimilar rather than the aspect that I offered as demonstrative of what may have been wrong about the choice of speaker. In addition, I re-read the posts and do not see any mention that this speaker donated anything to the event. Usually, guest speakers are paid for their appearance, but even if this one was not and his/her presentation was an in-kind contribution, I would think they also hoped to benefit by gaining exposure to the market of the attendees.

However, returning to my point, what I am suggesting is that TU often faces choices, both in who will speak at a banquet and with whom, for instance, they will invest funds. One would hope that rather than simply choose a speaker or an investment that offers a greater return, they would consider what their choice says about the philosophy they support. Again, not knowing all the details about this particular event speaker, I think TDB was justified in raising this issue and as I said initially, he should have addressed his concerns to the leadership and decide if their reasoning should cause him to reconsider his support.

Many others have pointed out the good works of this Chapter, so I would assume that even the worst possible explanation for the choice made would not be sufficient reson to abandone support for the organization. Yet, his raising his concerns might cause the leadership to reconsider their criterion for choosing event speakers.
 
I thought this little skirmish would die down over the weekend and it seems to have not. I think that bullsh@# potshots like this keep alot of people away from volunteering. TDB, do realize how hard it is to put this fundraiser together in this economy? Try walking into a flyshop and asking for a Winston Rod for free or any of the various other items that were donated.

TU has changed their national stance on the access issue I believe . One of the many things VFTU has accomplished with the help of other local organizations is to get easements along the stream to give access.

Either I'm getting old and cranky or thin skinned or both but when VOLUNTEER organizations get this kind of reaction I wonder not what do we stand for but is it worth the aggravation?

That being said, TDB, I believe you said in an earlier post that you would like to go to a VFTU meeting. I would encourage that and hope you find the time to do so.
 
Padraic wrote:
A bit of background... A while back... a guess it's getting to be quite a while back... Donny Beaver offered TU chapters some gift certificates to raffle off at their fundraisers. I was president of DFTU at the time and refused the offer, know as I did, that PATU was gearing up to be a part of the suit to open the Little J. I didn't feel it was right to a) promote an organization closing what I thought was public waters b) take a gift from someone my organization was about to sue.

That said... lodges with private water are not the same thing as SRC. SRC was closing what should be open water. A resource that belongs to the commonwealth.

If this other organization is buying/leasing access to non-navigable water, they aren't doing anything illegal. You may not LIKE what they are doing, but they aren't doing anything "wrong". And by extension, your chapter isn't doing anything "wrong" by including a lodge in your fundraiser. The same year, I refused the offer from Donny Beaver, I accepted others from guides and such. I don't recall if any of them were "lodges" or if they had private water. I don't think they did, as we are a small potatoes chapter and don't get the high end of the fly fishing industry... but... I would have accepted them.

Now if that stand offended any of my members, I would hope they'd come to me and complain. If you just quit, you aren't going to changed anything. No one will know why you quit and so they'll just keep doing the same things over and over.
Click to expand...

When does something being legal make it right or wrong? We can all point out examples where people/groups/companies do things that are within the law, but not right. I personally disagree with the people who favor private landowner rights over public use in the case of moving water. If someone is littering on your land while using the water then fine them, but if they are in the water fishing that should be legal. I know this is not the case, but it should be the fight that TU is helping to fight. Personally protecting or maintaining cold water fisheries that are not open to me means nothing to me. I am not going to donate money so my neighbors wife can get a boob job if I am not benefitting from it, why would I give money to fix a stream I cannot fish. The fact of the matter is that streams that hold wild fish or can hold them often do so because society as a whole is making sacrifices to keep them clean and healthy, or made sacrifices to make them clean and healthy again. While these sacrifices are not being made solely to help the fishing this is a side benefit and we all should reap those benefits. Moving water is affected by the how the entire watershed is managed, and even larger areas, why should only the landowner who owns the stream bank benefit. Lastly, this mans company will benefit from the VFTU members who pay to use his waters and then he can go buy and post more land. That is what is wrong with bringing him to your meeting and having him speak. With all of that said it should be obvious that I do not agree with TU's stance on not getting involved in water use and privatization matters and I hope that they understand that they are hurting themselves by staying out of this matter or supporting people who do this. They may need funds, but disenchanting the average layman who has contributed in the past, like myself, to avoid pissing someone off or to raise funds will hurt them more in the long run than it helped the local chapter by inviting this speaker.
 
Reds,

First let me stress again, that I don't speak for VFTU. I am not a member. I belong to another chapter, so I can't answer to why the chapter chose anyone.

Perhaps a new thread should be started to discuss whether or not chapters in general should work with the flyfishing industry to raise money for conservation. That would clear up who's talking about what chapter.
 
At the risk of prolonging this "skirmish," to the consternation of volunteers who may be offended by having their judgment questioned by others, I think it is unfair to characterize any of the objections or concerns as an issue of TU be involved with members of the "flyfishing industry" in trying to raise funds. At least as far as I can recall, the concern raised was with regard to particular members of the industry that to some greater or lesser extent participate in or encourage the trend of limiting access to streams to the general fishing public. At least that is the only issue I feel deserves to be contemplated, perhaps, more carefully, based upon TDB's initial post.
 
First off I would like to point out Padraic that my response was based on your statement that "If this other organization is buying/leasing access to non-navigable water, they aren't doing anything illegal. You may not LIKE what they are doing, but they aren't doing anything "wrong". And by extension, your chapter isn't doing anything "wrong" by including a lodge in your fundraiser."

What the organization leasing that land is doing is wrong on the moral standpoint of restricting access to a public good that is in the shape it is in because of the management of greater area than that which the organization leases, the management of the entire watershed. Legality has no place in a discussion of what is wrong or right. The chapter is doing something wrong because by inviting that speaker it is implied that they support this operation and its actions. So on that standpoint, I agree with Jack M. if they want to invite a guide who guides on public waters more power to them.
 
I am just trying to respect AndyP's position, that a thread that started out about VFTU shouldn't be broadened. Other TU chapters can't speak to VFTU's actions, VFTU shouldn't be answerable to every chapter across the country. I can only speak to what my actions and positions were at a particular point in time for one chapter.
 
I don't think this is a nationwide TU problem, but it is a problem and I have a problem with it. Andy, why would I attend the meeting? To stand up for myself after your threats? What is anyone going to tell me at the meeting that will alleviate my concerns?

Last year's speaker was great. He owned a private business, but it didn't exclude anglers, and he helped protect and gain stream access in western states - that is what a TU speaker should be about! Not, come and fish at our 4,000 acre private club for $300 per 1/2 day....
 
If someone has a concern about the choice of speaker at a VFTU function, the best way to handle that would be to speak to the leaders of chapter about it, not put it on a message board. And do so in a moderate, polite way, taking into consideration all that VFTU has done for stream conservation, that it is a volunteer group, and that anyone can make a minor mistake. Putting it out on a message board was not a good idea.

Regarding speakers at TU banquets, the best choice is simply to not have a speaker. That's what our chapter has done for the last 20 years or so, and it works fine. People go to the banquet to eat and drink and socialize and have fun talking to other people. Then they do the raffles, which are also a lot of fun and a bit part of the evening. Having a speaker is just an interruption in the festivities. No one at our chapter seems to miss having a speaker.
 
TDB- the invitation still stands. I don't feel that you have been threatened in any way by my words. That being said I'm done with this chatter it appears that your opinion is firmly set and I've wasted enough time defending a verygood organization. There's alot to be learned at our meetings about the struggles facing Valley Creek, I'd welcome any new faces at the next meeting.
 
Jack,

I stand corrected. I thought I had read that he had made signifigant donations to the TU raffle. If he had made signifigant donations/contributions to TU or their efforts, I wholeheartedly support the decision of people like him to speak. If he got paid for his experience and contributed nothing, well, I agree that is wrong to publicize someone who has contributed nothing to TU's efforts.

I just think its very shortsighted and impractical to exclude people from getting recognition for conservation efforts just because they have money or excert their private property rights. For example, orvis got criticized by some for threatening to close access to a stream they own when the state DNR wanted to start stocking over a wild population.
 
The speaker may have contributed and may be a staunch conservationist. None of that was explained and this is what I thought TDB would have liked to learn before deciding finally that the choice of speaker was a bad decision or reflected negatively on the organization. Nonetheless, the opportunity to defend the decision is being squandered by the effort to defend the organization, which I never really thought was being indicted as a whole by TDB. There may have been that implication, but speaking for myself, I tried to avoid blurring the distinction between the value of the organization and the wisdom of the speaker choice.
 
Jack makes a good point. I never said that I thought TU was a bust as a national organization - I think VFTU is one of the best chapter's in the state as far as I know. I just thought that having this guy speak at the show wasn't right. I can slightly understand that they wanted to have him their for the good of the show to raise $. But, if they would have thought about it, there would be tons of better choices - or nobody at all...

I guess another angle I had was - I am afraid that some leaders in that organization, along with other influential fly-fishermen in the eastern US are loosing focus that this stream privatization is heading down the wrong path. I understand that if it is non-navigable it is legal to privatize - but something has to give.
 
If you have a concern with the choice of speakers, the thing to do is contact the chapter leaders. Privately, and politely. Chances are good they would take your views into consideration for future meetings.

I don't think splashing this stuff out on a message board, where many (perhaps most?) of the readers are not TU members, is the best approach.

A lot of people, including me, are frustrated about the loss of access to privitization. But don't take your frustrations out on the wrong target. TU is not the cause of stream privatization.
 
TDB,

I see your point and agree. VFTU and it's members are great and have volunteered a lot of their time to help Valley Creek. I am sure if they knew that the speaker would have jolted this much anger they wouldn't have had him.

I think we need to be vigilant and keep our eyes open for Donny Beaver's. I also think that a lot of these responses that have upset some are good at the same time. If we turn our heads and allow privatization to occur then our children won't have the streams we had b/c they'll have to pay thirty thousand a year to fish them.
 
Evening, All~

Being from outside PA, I don't know the players involved, so I won't comment on that piece of the issue, other than to say that TU national seems to be working to address the access issues; lots of members think access is important, and I think the organization is trying to find a balance between it and conservation. Personally, I agree that the two goals aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Having read this thread a few times now, I find myself right in line with Troutbert; I hope I'm welcome there ;-)

I'm a director in my local chapter, on the banquet committee, and I'm one of the small(ish) group of people that steps up to do things that need doing. I'm not tooting my own horn -lots of people step up and do things- just establishing my position. I like doing the things I do. It's fun, most of the time.

We have a banquet much like Troutbert's- a nice meal, a few drinks, and lots of items to bid on and raffle. No speakers, but it's fun. We do have speakers at our monthly meetings, and they vary quite a lot in their presentations- something for everyone, so to speak.

We're always on the lookout for "new blood" to come in and help out. I can't and won't speak for them, but I'm sure VFTU is in the same boat. My chapter has about 350 members; a good meeting will bring 30 people out. The truly "active" group is smaller. We're ALWAYS looking for people to step up.

Maybe, TDB, you're exactly the person that should attend a meeting. It sounds like you feel pretty strongly about the situation; that's great. Now use it constructively. Don't like the speaker? Suggest someone else. Bring some action along with your opinions. Like I said, I'm sure the tent is big enough for everyone, and I'm equally sure that there's plenty of work to go around.

I'm not trying to sound preachy or rude, but the reality of the situation is that if you don't like something, you should try to change it. You've started some conversation here, and that's great- now's your chance to follow up on it. Good luck.

Respectfully~

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top