"Roadless Rule" rescinded

[DaveKile]

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.

Seems okay: It comes from someone in a leadership position at Trout Unlimited. I trust TU, and I know what they do and what their mission is. The message and reasoning in the letter ask for a good outcome to a specific problem. The parts that talk about why TU didn’t support the land-sale rider and how it might hurt anglers are totally on-topic conservation. He doesn’t name a specific political party; he talks about the bigger issue, and he just mentions the House of Representatives.

On the other hand, there are conservation topics that are off-limits because they do become too political like climate change. We do kill posts that devolve into party blame-games, but dialogue on water quality, Brook Trout Restoration, Class A Streams, etc. is welcomed—just keep the partisan elbows out.

There’s no manual on how to run a Fly Fishing Forum, and the way we handle the guidelines is set up to help the general interests of the fly fishing community. After 30 years, I like to think we get more right than wrong.

I hope this helps clear up your questions.

Speaking of questions, you seem to know a lot about this forum. I’d love to hear your thoughts on your statement in Post #17. Do you think this forum bans scientific evidence or expertise? Which topics that are supported by scientific evidence or expertise have been banned?

 

[trota]

Speaking of questions, you seem to know a lot about this forum. I’d love to hear your thoughts on your statement in Post #17. Do you think this forum bans scientific evidence or expertise? Which topics that are supported by scientific evidence or expertise have been banned?

If you re-read your post #41 you spelled out an example and criteria.

I think we are mis-communicating and I’m not sure how to correct this.

I’ll try to say it another way. If one political party or a specific politician is continuously doing something that negatively impacts fly fishing, it’s a shame that specific something can’t be discussed on a fly fishing forum.

It’s your forum, so I respect the rules.

 

[DaveKile]

If you re-read your post #41 you spelled out an example and criteria.

I think we are mis-communicating and I’m not sure how to correct this.

I’ll try to say it another way. If one political party or a specific politician is continuously doing something that negatively impacts fly fishing, it’s a shame that specific something can’t be discussed on a fly fishing forum.

It’s your forum, so I respect the rules.

Understood, Trota. The offer stands: if you have an example of a post on water quality, hatchery science, brook trout restoration or any evidence-based conservation topic that was banned, please PM me the link or details.

Otherwise, let’s park this and move on.