"Roadless Rule" rescinded

[troutbert]

Trout Unlimited and most conservancies are in a non-profit category that prohibits them from political campaigning.

Frequently asked questions about the ban on political campaign intervention by 501(c)(3) organizations | Internal Revenue Service

Frequently asked questions about political campaign intervention by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations.

www.irs.gov

I've been to many TU meetings and a fair number of meetings put on by conservancies and they do follow this prohibition.

They are certainly allowed to advocate for keeping the remaining roadless areas roadless and state their scientific reasons why. That is not considered political campaigning, by the law.

It could be similar on here. State how you think streams and watersheds should be managed and give your reasons. And leave out any mention of political parties and candidates.

For example, advocating for ending of stocking over native brook in order to hopefully maintain and increase brook trout populations is not a political statement. It's a fisheries management statement.

In addition to the law, TU and conservancies have another very good reason to not campaign for one party over another. Their members and financial supporters are split between the parties.

Yet another reason is that conservation efforts are sometimes supported by members of both parties.

 

[trota]

It could be similar on here. State how you think streams and watersheds should be managed and give your reasons. And leave out any mention of political parties and candidates.

And this is what I mean. Stating the NAME of the politician leading the charge (and sponsoring the bill) to sell public lands or decrease/increase protections on streams and watersheds is NOT political. It’s factual.

But that’s deemed politics now. Because it’s all tribal. We can’t say “this specific guy did this specific thing”.

Yet another reason is that support for conservation efforts is sometimes supported by members of both parties.

This is the shame of it all. We can’t say “us fly anglers want to discuss these topics because it impacts us fly anglers”. We all now look at it via the lens of political parties. It’s just sad.

 

[DaveKile]

Trout Unlimited is not a fly fishing organization. Its mission is “To bring together diverse interests to care for and recover rivers and streams so our children can experience the joy of wild and native trout and salmon.” As such, it is absolutely “political” in that it funds causes in support of that mission.

The issue we have in the USA right now - and it is unfortunately supported by this forum - is to ban any scientific evidence, expertise, or Conservation discussion that does not align with a specific political narrative (right or left). Or even ban discussion about Conservation outright. That’s fine if the scope of this forum is specific to the techniques associated with fly fishing, gear, and trip reports. It’s not fine if the scope of this forum is also to discuss Conservation and the water these fish live.

I should have been more specific. When you said: "90% of the fishery scientists, water quality management professionals, and Conservationists who present at Trout Unlimited meetings would be banned on this forum." Not sure I would be banning 90% of those people.

I am still interested in the organization that is better than what TU is doing for fish and water conservation?

 

[sarce]

Trout Unlimited is not a fly fishing organization. Its mission is “To bring together diverse interests to care for and recover rivers and streams so our children can experience the joy of wild and native trout and salmon.” As such, it is absolutely “political” in that it funds causes in support of that mission.

Actually TU is staunchly non-political. That's because they have to work with politicians for major projects. Taking one party's side and drawing the ire of the other is a recipe for disaster. Those causes in the mission statement tend to be bipartisan. Imagine if they weren't? Entire states would be off limits for doing conservation work.

At the local level it is pretty easy to get some good projects done without having to work with any politicians.

Signed, a current chapter VP.

 

[trota]

I am still interested in the organization that is better than what TU is doing for fish and water conservation?

I’m not sure I’m following the question. Didn’t imply there was another better?

 

[trota]

Actually TU is staunchly non-political.

TU literally started a campaign against Senator Lee (I named a name, sorry) to remove his sale of public lands provision from the BBB. Backcountry Hunter and Anglers did the same.

In the old days, this would be considered a Conservation stance. Here it’s “political”.

You are proving my point.

I’ll stop out of respect for the site owner/admin.

 

[troutbert]

TU literally started a campaign against Senator Lee (I named a name, sorry) to remove his sale of public lands provision from the BBB. Backcountry Hunter and Anglers did the same.

In the old days, this would be considered a Conservation stance. Here it’s “political”.

Here is TU's statement on the proposed sale of public lands.

Trout Unlimited Statement On Senate Public Land Sales Proposal - Trout Unlimited

Washington, D.C. – Budget reconciliation text under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee includes a number of provisions that

www.tu.org

They gave TU's view on the proposed legislation.

There is no campaign against a Senator.

 

[dudemanspecial]

TU literally started a campaign against Senator Lee (I named a name, sorry) to remove his sale of public lands provision from the BBB.

Would love a source on this.

 

[DaveKile]

I’m not sure I’m following the question. Didn’t imply there was another better?

Correct you didn't, but clearly you implied you don't like TU and you seem like you are very knowledgeable of these issues. So do you know of another organization that aligns with your interests for fish and water conservation?

The issue we have in the USA right now - and it is unfortunately supported by this forum - is to ban any scientific evidence, expertise, or Conservation discussion that does not align with a specific political narrative (right or left). Or even ban discussion about Conservation outright. That’s fine if the scope of this forum is specific to the techniques associated with fly fishing, gear, and trip reports. It’s not fine if the scope of this forum is also to discuss Conservation and the water these fish live.

I'm not sure we ban scientific evidence or expertise? Which topics with scientific evidence or expertise has been banned? Do you have examples for me please.

Politics is banned, because I don't have time or interest in mopping up after gunfights.

 

[vern]

TU literally started a campaign against Senator Lee (I named a name, sorry) to remove his sale of public lands provision from the BBB. Backcountry Hunter and Anglers did the same.

In the old days, this would be considered a Conservation stance. Here it’s “political”.

You are proving my point.

I’ll stop out of respect for the site owner/admin.

That's not correct.
The statement - "In the old days, this would be considered a Conservation stance. Here it’s 'political'” - is not correct.
To reference Party battles over winning/control issues as "politics" is unfortunate.

It's not politics. Politics is the creation of policy.

Discussion. Propositions. Discoveries. Relationships sought and established.
Policies.

The "politics" of which you refer is not that.
The politics of which you speak is getting votes and getting money. Trade the influence of elected office for votes and money.

TU is a "policy making participant". A PMP (LOL).
Not a political thing, as per your reference.

Kind of like the "football" vs "soccer" definition.

"Politics", as defined by election Parties in the current battle/entertainment mayhem, is nothing substantial or beneficial. The Parties are electoral-focused organizations. They are associations involved in virtual battles that seek donations to purchase advertising and "gatherings" (?) for one-on-one talks about votes and donations.
Always carrying the core of association, win the election!!!


On the other hand, discussing goals and means and methods for dealing with issues of possible concern, with an open door and outreach is also a definition of "political".
This "political" seeks policies to make things better.
Inclusive.

It's not a game with either a winner or a loser.
It is through this filter that seems to best explain why churches - especially those that have contributed greatly to presidential and other elected officials - are still allowed to be tax-exempt.

Trout Unlimited is not a political organization. It does not go door-to-door getting signatures, nor does it qualify to submit candidates for public office.
It does not nor seek to qualify itself as an organization involved in the electoral process.
It is a participant in discussing mutual goals and how to help each other out and achieve the best for everyone and with an invitation and welcome to all who wish to conduct themselves in the practice of policy making.

It is an educational resource. It is a specific advocacy organization.

 

[vern]

Here is TU's statement on the proposed sale of public lands.

Trout Unlimited Statement On Senate Public Land Sales Proposal - Trout Unlimited

Washington, D.C. – Budget reconciliation text under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee includes a number of provisions that

www.tu.org

They gave TU's view on the proposed legislation.

There is no campaign against a Senator.

What can we do to stop all of this annihilation of resources and conservation and protection of resources?

Do we have to climb trees and use cables to have donated foods lifted up the tree to a platform tent in protest of cutting down the trees?

How is it possible using the current cloud of mixed realities to introduce Nature and the living planet to any human?

How can flyfishing help?

By introducing Nature to the rest of the world.

By sharing a way to peer into the mystic dynamic of Nature. And that way being flyfishing. Which is what this group is about.

I want to introduce Nature to someone who never left a residential area by taking them to a brook trout trickle and having them get down on their knees in the water and look under the rocks and look at the rocks, and the trees, and soil and all the life that God put there. A creator.

And then explain how there are basically three different salmonoid regions on the planet and they are related, but different. And maybe long term ice on the polar caps divided the salmonoids long enough for genetic changes to occur and differentiate the fish into three main genetic fields.

And then maybe introduce them to salamanders and snakes and cicada and grasshoppers and caddis flies, and the places on the earth they still survive and then show them the remaining places where they survive.

Man didn't create man.
But man can destroy man. Especially by not practicing conservation.
By pretending Nature doesn't exist.

The real world. The walls and foundation of the house of life. Something created by physics, chemistry, energy and time, in a way to create a catalyst within Nature that is called life.

What method of communication can attract public attention in order to introduce the general public to the function of life on the damn planet?
Anyone who understands basic conservation issues and can talk to those not aware and provide a good background for them to rely, those are the ones.
We can maybe explain how in the stream lives native brook trout. A cool, shaded stable flow of surface water after it seeps out of the bottom of an erosion pile of soil and stone.

It starts like this and many, many, many years later, out of it comes a creature we call humans.

All from a whole living thing - a dynamic water planet and its erosion fields and the flow of water it yields. And the magic of it all.

Conservation is working to keep it going.

 

[trota]

Here is TU's statement on the proposed sale of public lands.

Trout Unlimited Statement On Senate Public Land Sales Proposal - Trout Unlimited

Washington, D.C. – Budget reconciliation text under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee includes a number of provisions that

www.tu.org

They gave TU's view on the proposed legislation.

There is no campaign against a Senator.

[td]

Friends,

Thanks to your support and vocal advocacy, we won an important victory this week: the House of Representatives decided against including the sale of hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Utah and Nevada in a budget bill.

Every 15 years or so, this boneheaded notion of selling our public lands re-emerges. It requires continual attention and diligence to beat them back.

To be certain, there is a time and place to sell or trade small parcels of public land for local economic development and other reasons. But that requires a transparent, open process and public involvement—not provisions snuck into an unrelated budget bill literally moments before midnight.

Our collective efforts to push back on this were classic Trout Unlimited. Our grassroots sent thousands of messages to their members of Congress opposing the measure. National staff worked with Congressmen Zinke (R-Montana), Vasquez (D-New Mexico), Simpson (R-ID) and other members of the newly formed Public Lands Caucus to oppose the proposal. They came through for us.

We also had good news about the proposed Ambler Road project in Alaska. A provision to green light that industrial road, which would cross 200 miles of remote hunting and fishing habitat in the Brooks Range, was pulled from the bill.

Public lands should always remain the backyard of the little guy. Thanks to our collective efforts, they remain so today.​

[/td]​

[td]

Chris Wood
President and CEO
Trout Unlimited​

[/td]​

 

[trota]

Correct you didn't, but clearly you implied you don't like TU and you seem like you are very knowledgeable of these issues.

Sorry I really miscommunicated then. I’ve been a member for years. Attend events regularly. Support TU whenever I can. I have no issue with TU at all.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I am still interested in the organization that is better than what TU is doing for fish and water conservation?

In Pennsylvania, how about the Pennsylvania Game Commission.
Who is better at both conservation and as a by product, access.

The buying up of huge swaths of forests with many of our wild trout streams has preserved them and is a better model of conservation.

This isn't a knock on TU. They do wonderful work.

 

[DaveKile]

I'll try this again as you didn't imply anything, but made it pretty clear that "this forum" ... "is to ban any scientific evidence, expertise, or Conservation discussion ..."

The issue we have in the USA right now - and it is unfortunately supported by this forum - is to ban any scientific evidence, expertise, or Conservation discussion that does not align with a specific political narrative (right or left). Or even ban discussion about Conservation outright. That’s fine if the scope of this forum is specific to the techniques associated with fly fishing, gear, and trip reports. It’s not fine if the scope of this forum is also to discuss Conservation and the water these fish live.

I'm not sure of the ban on scientific evidence or expertise? Which topics with scientific evidence or expertise has been banned? Do you have examples for me please. Can you elaborate on the banning of Conservation "outright". Clearly you must be able to point to some posts or topic area you feel to be true.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I'll try this again as you didn't imply anything, but made it pretty clear that "this forum" ... "is to ban any scientific evidence, expertise, or Conservation discussion ..."



I'm not sure of the ban on scientific evidence or expertise? Which topics with scientific evidence or expertise has been banned? Do you have examples for me please. Can you elaborate on the banning of Conservation "outright". Clearly you must be able to point to some posts or topic area you feel to be true.

I have one, but I can't say it 🤣
But I understand why you did it

 

[ChuckofWagon]

Politics is banned, because I don't have time or interest in mopping up after gunfights.

How do you feel about Nerf gun gunfights?

 

[dudemanspecial]

How do you feel about Nerf gun gunfights?

My kids haven't played with them in 2 years and I still find the bullets in my yard.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

My kids haven't played with them in 2 years and I still find the bullets in my yard.

They are probably stuck under your deck and are helping clog the grass 😆

 

[trota]

I'll try this again as you didn't imply anything, but made it pretty clear that "this forum" ... "is to ban any scientific evidence, expertise, or Conservation discussion ..."



I'm not sure of the ban on scientific evidence or expertise? Which topics with scientific evidence or expertise has been banned? Do you have examples for me please. Can you elaborate on the banning of Conservation "outright". Clearly you must be able to point to some posts or topic area you feel to be true.

For clarity, if I came on and posted the same message that the the CEO of TU sent out in post #32 would that be acceptable on the forum? Is that considered political on this forum?

TU as an organization is taking funds and advocating/lobbying against a GOP (Senator Lee) provision in the BBB. I happen to think that’s a good position for TU to take and have no issue with them doing so (or calling such a thing boneheaded). But how the heck can anyone say they didn’t take a political position? There is a fair amount of doublespeak (not from you) in posts on this thread around this.

I don’t post much, but read the forum a lot. Maybe I’m misinterpreting some of the moderation and directives around political posts. Thanks for the clarification.