Greenback/Chris Anderson
In the spring issue, we drafted a conservation agenda for the new Congress and president. Our wish-list for the next few years includes:
- Serious action on climate change
- Roll backs on the oil and gas industry’s environmental exemptions
- Inclusion of watershed restoration in stimulus budgets
- Pacific salmon protections
- Limits for ORVs on public lands
- Curbing oil and natural gas development where it is dangerous for wildlife
- Keeping roads out of roadless areas
- Reforming the Water for America Initiative
- Stopping Pebble Mine
- Passing the Clean Water Restoration Act
- Reforming the 1872 Mining Law
What would your fish agenda look like?
By A.D. Marino March 30, 2009 - 7:37 pm
This is a Obama commercial. It fall into the color spectrum of Che whose sociopolitical ideology led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. The agenda starts out with the Global Warming HOAX. Meaningful evaluation of data disputes this junk science at all ends of the spectrum. The fear mongering is almost pathetic were it not for the fact it is so dangerous. Somewhat like the congressional leaders who idiotic musing passed a bill they did not read. How wonderful TU follows these morons into the darkness. I makes me sick. I shall not support TU any longer. I will not be part of the problem. I will support those who want a viable solution.
By Dave McKee April 1, 2009 - 9:46 pm
Your platform is good except you should add addressing population growth. Every issue is affected by it and you may win all those battles today, but you will not win the war until we realize it and take action on that.
Otherwise, I don’t understand all the rage about climate change. No matter what camp you’re in about it, every step we take towards thwarting climate change is a step we take for cleaner air, a healthier environment and populace.
By M.J. Eagles April 1, 2009 - 11:35 pm
To start out with “Get serious about climate change” (notice it’s no longer global warming) tells me a lot about those who run the organization and honestly makes it difficult for me to trust some of the other things I hear from TU. The information supporting man-made global warming is, at best, inconclusive, and, at worst, purposefully deceptive. I will allow my membership to expire. I cannot support an organization that feeds this insanity.
By J.M. Yankey April 2, 2009 - 1:05 am
I am a new member of TU and joined to help support your work improving trout habitat. I read your political agenda and cannot tell you how dissappointed I am in the agenda you have chosen to support and fund activities. My first reaction was to give you some facts on issues like global warming and energy conservation but while your staff must be made up of intelligent people anything I say will not change your mind set or agenda. I believe you should focus your efforts on specific projects that directly effect the improvement of trout and it’s habitat. Leave the “save the world from evil capitalist” to others that are elected (or removed) from political offices. If TU continues supporting this activist agenda I will choose to no longer be a member when my membership comes up for renewal. There are so many good worthwhile projects you can focus on it’s a shame you have chosen to go in this direction.
By bernard luskin jr April 2, 2009 - 4:55 pm
I will no longer be a member of tu. Climate change, roadless areas expansion, orv limits,restricting oil and gas exploration all these iniatives including the so called stimulus package are primarily liberal agendas to restrict and control more of our lives. scientists may agree on climate change but it is not scietifically proven to be man made. can we admit this may be a natural phenomonam? nothing is static in the natural world. good bye tu!
By Craig Deisenroth April 2, 2009 - 7:26 pm
Count me as another member who will not renew his membership due to the over-reaching political tone and content of TU and Trout magazine. TU should spend its money and political clout on its stated mission “to conserve, protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds” and leave global warming and alternative energy development to the Green idealogues.
By M. Mayfield April 2, 2009 - 10:46 pm
I would hope that those who are concerned about TU’s focus on climate change have read the portion of the website dedicated to detailing the organization’s focus on the issue:
http://www.tu.org/site/c.kkLRJ7MSKtH/b.3631729/k.818A/Climate_Change.htm
Even if you choose not believe the evidence supporting climate change, surely you recognize (as Dave McKee points out) that all action TU takes toward protecting trout and salmon against climate change is action toward promoting cleaner, healthier aquatic systems and watersheds, as well as more robust fish populations. What is so dangerous and insane about that? Climate change only accelerates the timeline that makes these efforts necessary.
By Gordon Phelps April 3, 2009 - 4:51 pm
I’m with Dave McKee. Why the fuss about whether climate change is anthropogenic? Why the fuss about whether it exists at all? That’s an argument for another place, anyway, and pretty far from the topic of this thread.
I’ll tell you an absolute certainty, though. There’s money out there for fixing problems that threaten the places we fish, and a lot of that money can be effectively accessed by using the language of climate change. Honestly, if TU was not doing this, I would think of them as ideological instead of pragmatic.
Unless us normal angling schlubs want to shell out every dollar of the money that TU needs to accomplish its mission, we need them out there in competition to get government and foundation grants. And those well funded powers that be will be moved to reach for their checkbooks by mitigation of climate change.
Think of it this way. If there’s no climate change and we take these actions, we win better fishing conditions, cleaner air and water. If there is climate change and we take action, we mitigate some of its worst effects, winning better fishing conditions, cleaner air and water. If there is no climate change, and we take no action, we break even (on the BIG IF that other threats aren’t also at work destroying habitat). If there is climate change and we don’t take action, we lose in a very big way.
So that’s it. TU takes action on climate change: win/win. TU studiously ignores that issue to please a few of you: we can, at best, break even. With the possibility of a big loss.
Stop being such ideologues. Listen to pragmatic sense and let TU use the tools it has available to further its very worthy mission.
By Brian Stanley April 3, 2009 - 8:51 pm
I would like to applaud TU’s aggressive agenda. Regardless of your political affiliation, an opportunity awaits this organization. Rather than sit back and worry about stepping on a few toes, TU has chosen to press forward and make the most of this huge opportunity.
TU does not exist to serve one political party or another, it exists to protect and restore trout habitat in this country…plain and simple. A few members seem to be ignoring that part of the equation. And don’t forget all the benefits that go hand-and-hand with improving trout habitat: clean water, ample vegetation, healthy ecosystems. These issues resonate far beyond the world of trout fisherman.
Ignore oil, gas, and hard rock mining industry practices that can potentially obliterate trout habitat? Ignore the development of roadless areas that exsist as native trout strongholds? Ignore the availability of funding that, if received, could greatly benefit TU’s mission? The day TU ignores those things is the day I’d let my membership expire.
Judging by this agenda, I’ll be a TU member for a long time.
Keep fighting the good fight.
By Jim KIdd April 4, 2009 - 12:59 am
A conservation agenda for the new congress? I applaud the list of items, some more than others, but they all hold importance for cold water fisheries and the essential habitat that is needed to support them. However, once again, one of the most important issues or opportunities has gone over the head of the leadership in DC. It is essential that TU make a strong effort to work with congress to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund for agencies – USFS and NP to purchase vulnerable inholdings within procted lands. To conserve and protect land takes money and this is one of the most important funding sources appropriated by congress for agencies to protect land with coldwater habitat. It is not a small issue, but continues to be ignored by TU leadership. TU should put unrelenting pressure on congress to fully fund LWCF projects that protect and conserve coldwater habitat. This clearly deserves to be on your list ofs priotities. Perhaps some research on the LWCF funding process and some of its pasts successes would be in order.
By Zubb April 4, 2009 - 1:04 pm
When you consider the fact that climate change is the number one threat to trout/salmon and the habitat they depend upon, TU should make doing something about it one of its priorities. If they didn’t they would not be doing their job. I joined TU because it’s a smart organization that fights for trout and salmon and my opportunities to fish for them. I’m getting my money’s worth!
By Jerry Taylor April 6, 2009 - 1:14 pm
Research any pseudo-science that denies the existence of global warming, and you’ll find that the vast majority of the studies are funded by the coal and oil industries. It’s not a far stretch to understand why they would want to keep the status quo for as long as it’s profitable.
In the meantime, waters are warming for trout and salmon, floods and drought are rampant and chapter restoration projects are more crucial than ever. Of course global warming needs to be addressed. Of course TU should take advantage of conservation money where it’s available. Of course we need to keep up our clean up days, tree plantings and habitat work. All of this seems like a no-brainer to me.
By cleve.whitener April 7, 2009 - 12:36 pm
Your opening statement “Climate change is the single greatest threat to the survival of trout and salmon in the United States is dishonest and unsubstantiated. First the scientific community is divided about the cause and effect of global warming. Second there is absolutely no evidence that trout and salmon populations have been or will be effected by manmade production of greenhouse gases. Third water uses and ground water pollution have already had far greater impact on our trout waters than “climate change” will ever likely have. There are real issues for TU to address. I am disappointed that you have drunk the Al Gore “cool-ade”. Like others I will focus my dollars on real issues that face sportsmen. Wake up and think!
By Tim Armstrong April 8, 2009 - 12:59 am
George W. Bush was given a “F minus” by the Sierra Club. 95% of the Republicans, including Bush-Cheney, fail to acknowledge global warming as a problem. Republicans care about supporting big busniness and big money with little regard for our precious enviroment. If you don’t believe me, check their voting records. Obama will do better for enviromental issues and trout.
By Rick Simpson April 9, 2009 - 1:37 am
I’m a newbie and it probably shows
Reforming the 1872 mining act seems long over due…gut it and start over with a 2009 perspective…and a long view…
Global warming is an “is”…like it or not
Rebuilding pacific salmon stocks…something I’ve been actively involve with since 1981 (steelhead; coho; pinks; sockeye; chinook; chum; sea – run cutthroat trout…now Kokanee)…sea lice infestations around fish farms seems like an issue…open ocean drift netting…draggers…and a number of other issues that make this an important area….habitat restoration being the most important overall restoration component.
Re-assess Oil & Gas companies environmental exemptions…noble…looking at the Mississippi delta and the Gulf of Mexico dead zones…or… the Athabaska Oil sands impacts…seems to indicate there’s a lot to be done
FWIW
Yours in conservation for my children’s children’s children for seven generations.
Rick Simpson
TU Member # 411557507
volunteer chair Oceola Fish & Game Club fisheries committee
volunteer co-chair BCWF Region 8 (Okanagan/Okanogan – Similkameen basins) fisheries committee
Kelowna British Columbia Canada
By Cress Bohnn April 9, 2009 - 4:10 am
Its amazing to me the denial and I hate to say it, ignorance of some of the comments above. I support each and everyone of your legislative priorities, and have for most of my adult life. Global warming is a harsh fact, the empirical evidence all but proving the unprecedented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are a result of our modern industrialism. This is the consensus of the best scientist the world over. The excitement for me of the new Presidency is that finally, we have an intelligent leader who values science, logic and reason over the politics of emotion, pseudo-science and resultant myths. I am no commie pinko, and believe capitalism is the best economic model for growth and prosperity, but it has to be guided and regulated by sound logic and science. This is not about idiology. It is about cold hard facts. This planet and all the life it supports, including our own are facing immense pressures to survive, of our very making. To not see that as obvious or ignore it, is in my opinion, furthering the problem. Now while some are waiting for the Rapture that will take them away, (see you, buy), I will remain and fight the good fight. The only fight. Now, I’m goin’ fishing. And to that Truth, I think we all agree.
By Rick Simpson April 9, 2009 - 3:07 pm
From this morninngs edition of Environmental Health News (EHN)
FWIW
U.S. to ban commercial salmon season. The National Marine Fisheries Service plans to ban the commercial catching of salmon off California and much of Oregon. The fewest chinook salmon ever recorded made their way up the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers last fall. San Francisco Chronicle, California.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/09/MNDI16V7LG.DTL
Seems to reinforce the TU focus on Pacific Northwest Salmon issues
RLS
By Jack Williams April 9, 2009 - 5:38 pm
I realize that the effects of climate change are complex and often act synergistically with other stressors in our stream systems. For these reasons, it can be difficult to find the signals from climate change in amongst the existing “noise” of natural systems. Nonetheless, we are already seeing clear signs of a rapidly changing climate on our streams and watersheds. I give you two quick examples. Studies have documented earlier mayfly emergence in Rocky Mountain streams as a result of less snowpack and earlier spring runoff (“Emergence cues of a mayfly in a high-altitude stream: potential response to climate change” published in the journal Ecological Applications in 2006). Also, we see clear signs of increasing wildfire activity in the west as a result of warming and drying of our forests that appears attributable to climate change (“Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity” published in the journal Science in 2006).
I recently published a paper with a colleague at Arizona Game and Fish regarding climate change impacts on Apache trout populations (“Managing native trout past peak water” published in the journal Southwest Hydrology in 2009). Many of the remaining Apache trout populations are isolated in small headwater streams that are especially vulnerable to drought, wildfire, and other disturbances that are increasing as a result of climate change. For example, by the summer of 2007, Home Creek, which had historically provided habitat for Apache trout, went completely dry. That population and its genetic contribution to the species was completely lost. To save Apache trout in the face of climate change, we need to expand existing populations and make sure habitat is in top condition. It is all about restoring resistance and resilience to climate change impacts.
I am in agreement with the vast majority of scientists in believing not only that climate change will cause major disruptions to hydrology and coldwater fish populations, but that we are already seeing clear evidence to that effect. It simply is too big a problem to ignore.
–Jack E. Williams, Senior Scientist, TU
By J.R. Marvin April 11, 2009 - 10:03 pm
Some folks call it Climate Change, I like to refer to it as Freedom to Pollute Globally.
As I look down the road a bit – maybe mid-century – I can easily forsee about nine billion humanoids living off the fat of the earth. Here, within the Good Old USofA, we can expect to be blessed with an additional 150,000,000 or so folks . This is all great for Business as Usual, Capitalism and the God Blessed American Way of Life. We really do thrive on expodential Growth & Development. It takes a great and expanding reservoir of people to maintain a worldwide, economic environment based upon Chain Letter dynamics. Now, I don’t know about you but, it seems to me the future world may not be able to provide and sustain enough aquatic juice, fish, and associated elements for everyone to enjoy. Thank goodness this country carries a Big Stick. What we need, I’m sure we’ll take. Nevertheless, I can only forsee our country’s remaining fisheries and riparian habitats mutating into something rather unnatural during the next 100 years – perhaps we can place a nice granite headstone along the site of a former, notable, free-flowing stream. As Mr. E. Abby once said, “Enjoy it while you can, while it’s still there.”
By the way, I support T.U. and their list of legislative priorities. It’s really quite appropriate to try to forstall the future for as long as possible.
By Scott Foulke April 17, 2009 - 2:08 pm
It is clear that TU is now pushing a political agenda that I can no longer support. My dues will not be used for the “serious action on climate change” and political nonsense. I have been a member for 20 years and will not be renewing. While I didn’t always agree with all of their positions over the years, I felt in general TU was a great cause. Trout Unlimited can now be put in the politically hijacked category and that is a shame.
By Tav April 23, 2009 - 11:30 pm
Hey TU!!! Spend our money on real projects, leave the politics to the politicians. I’m on a trial membership and every time I pick up the magazine I see awesome stuff TU is doing, and then I read the equivalent to liberal talking points. I watch the show and see awesome projects that are going on, then I see/hear elitist-attitude fly fisherman and environmentalists. Then I go on a blog to see there ARE actually people like me who disagree with the liberal agenda, only to scroll down to find out we are ignorant and want to destroy the earth and we caused global warming and that only liberals should be allowed to walk the earth??????????? I don’t know if I’m going to renew or not. I doubt it. We are all on the same team. Fish enthusiasts. Striving to protect this resource and the land and the air and the water around it.
Humans don’t have control over the climate. Humans do have control over pollution. You know of a better and cleaner country move there. ORV’s should stay on the road and out of the water-there are laws already on the books to punish the ORV MISusers; enforce them. Industry should clean up after themselves, and please remember they fuel the world’s economy and lives. Republicans don’t want to destroy the earth. Democrats are not the environmentalist they claim to be. Who was/is against clean nuclear power generation? Timber harvest is better than mass beetle kill. Please close the roads behind you when you’re done. We all should conserve water. If you have a problem with pollution do your part and turn your lights off, stop heating your house, stop driving your car, stop exhaling, stop eating beef and corn products, make your own clothes.
By Joseph Palucka April 24, 2009 - 3:44 am
Leave politics to the politicians???? That’s the biggest mistake anyone who cares about trout and trout streams could make. And since when is standing up for the environment and fish “a liberal agenda”? It’s about doing what’s right for the fish we all love, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. Keep doing what you’re doing TU and ignore those who spew the mindless chatter of Rush and his friends.
By Rick Simpson April 29, 2009 - 12:15 am
Once Again…seems to focus on the importance of Pacific Northwest Salmon issues
Biologists say 3 pesticides harm salmon By PHUONG LE: Three pesticides used on agricultural crops jeopardize the survival of many Pacific salmon and steelhead listed as threatened or endangered in the West, federal biologists said Tuesday.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009097653_webpesticides21.html
FWIW
Rick Simpson
By KD October 19, 2010 - 2:17 pm
I was seriously considering becoming a member until I delved more closely at the political agenda behind TU. While I can’t argue global warming may not be occurring now (global warming and cooling has existed for milenia- without the aid of mankind), what I can argue is supporting a political agenda that adheres to theories that cannot be proven. So, although I think preserving our natural resources is of uptmost importance and part of being a good “steward”, I can’t justify aligning myself to this organization’s liberal ideologies.
Conservatives, by nature, are good “stewards”… One look at the aftermath of debris left behind after two recent Washington rallies between two opposing political parties should plainly reflect that.
By Spencer Hendron March 31, 2012 - 4:14 pm
Once I discovered TU’s disgusting global warming position, I canceled my membership. Just last week I got a letter asking me to reconsider. Nay,nay as long as they are nothing more than a far left quasessi political front group. Send me an email when they clear out the loser staff and hire some REAL conservationists.
Than you