Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Whats the deal with TU?

  1. #1
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,176

    Angry Whats the deal with TU?

    Why is Trout Unlimited all butt hurt over Pebble, but they have nothing to say about gillnetting in the Kenai River watershed?

  2. #2
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default Redundant





    TU AND the Kenai Gillnets are BOTH already being discussed. Why the need for further hair splitting?

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ead.php?t=7496 <- Kenai Gillnets


    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ead.php?t=7463 <- Trout Unlimited

    Unless of course you're hoping for a better outcome here than you got there?

    <grin>
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up

    Hippie. . . good hippie. . .

  4. #4
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    I was actually asking a different question, thank you for your off topic posts.

  5. #5
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tyrex13 View Post
    I was actually asking a different question, thank you for your off topic posts.
    No, you weren't. You were merely creating a new thread to bash TU further...And as I said:

    REDUNDANT
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Hippie - Although I agree with a number of your stances, I don't agree that this thread is redundant. It does seem odd that TU is speaking up in one case but not in the other. If gillnets are actually used in the Kenai, it is possible that the incredible trout population would be decimated. Seems like a pretty good time for TU to speak up, no? I think that's what he was trying to point out here.

    That being said, I can see why they would focus on Pebble if they only have the resources to fight one major battle at a time. Pebble has the potential to wipe out the fishery in multiple streams and lakes - an entire watershed - whereas the Kenai gillnets would be a localized disturbance. Still, the thread isn't as redundant as you might think. Let the man post in peace.

    -Brian

  7. #7
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Hey Brian

    Brian,

    ABHA is continually being asked to comment on numerous issues. We simply can't, and while that's sad, it's just the way it is. If any org tries to do too much, they get bogged down and can't do as good a job on other things. The research and such it takes to provide (intelligent) comments often requires weeks of reading, research, talking with people, with various agency representatives etc. No org can do everything or comment on everything. To imply that TU should comment on the Kenai gillnet issue, or a thousand other important localized issues in Alaska that affects our fisheries, is nothing other than a misrepresentation of the real world.

    I find it a bit odd that you find it odd that TU would comment on Pebble but not on the Kenai gillnet issue <grin>. There are a lot of proposals right now before the Board of Fisheries. Would you deem it odd that they don't comment on each and every one of those? I haven't got a list of all of them: Proposal 228 wants to remove the sustainable salmon fishery policy from regulations; Proposal 234 wants to legalize sockeye salmon snagging; Proposal 245 wants to restrict the bag limit for dipnetters in streams where sport-fishing takes place...I could go on and on.

    I could start a hundred threads here asking why various orgs comment on one thing, yet not on another, and attempt to imply something negative by doing so. I hope no one in future infers something negative about us because we don't comment on everything, or asks why we're so "butt hurt" about one thing, but failed to comment on the Northwest Region BLM Resource Managment Plan (or some such).

    -39 here, but warming. Tyrex, I hope this answers the question you asked and you can leave it at that.
    Best,

  8. #8
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B_M View Post
    Hippie - Although I agree with a number of your stances, I don't agree that this thread is redundant. It does seem odd that TU is speaking up in one case but not in the other. If gillnets are actually used in the Kenai, it is possible that the incredible trout population would be decimated. Seems like a pretty good time for TU to speak up, no? I think that's what he was trying to point out here.

    That being said, I can see why they would focus on Pebble if they only have the resources to fight one major battle at a time. Pebble has the potential to wipe out the fishery in multiple streams and lakes - an entire watershed - whereas the Kenai gillnets would be a localized disturbance. Still, the thread isn't as redundant as you might think. Let the man post in peace.

    -Brian
    Brian, I certainly respect your opinion and stance on this. I do however feel it is redundant. As I stated threads on BOTH these topics already exist. tyrex's statement of "FTU" on the OTHER Trout Unlimited thread speaks of his true feelings about the org. and their programs. To then start ANOTHER thread about the SAME org. to continue an agenda is well...redundant....

    But in keeping with you're request I'll digress on that point & offer that perhaps, as you alluded to, TU has decided to pick the greater of 2 evils and focused their campaign accordingly. Or maybe they feel (all speculation on my part here BTW) that the local guide associations on the Kenai have enough resources at their disposal to champion the cause without TU digging into their budget to do so. Or maybe, and this may be a stretch, TU has decided this is a Native Rights issue, and have decided to sit it out in the name of PC maneuvering.

    And just so's the "Greenie" flag doesn't get run up the pole here, I am not decided on how I personally feel about the personal use, native, in river gill netting.....But I am leaning towards favoring it if it is STRICTLY enforced and managed. The land was here first...But the Alaska Native was the first stewards here, and I think they should be allowed access to resources that our presence and laws has denied them....crap....*walks over and raises the greenie flag himself*....Did it again, eh?

    <grin>
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  9. #9
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Brian,

    I find it a bit odd that you find it odd that TU would comment on Pebble but not on the Kenai gillnet issue <grin>.
    Mark - I guess I need to clarify. I don't find it odd that they wouldn't comment on the Kenai issue. When I wrote that it does seem odd, I meant that I can see where the original poster was coming from. My next paragraph about choosing your battles was more my opinion, whereas the first paragraph was attempting to show the intent of the thread (a poor attempt, apparently!).

    Anyhow, I see your point - neither TU, ABHA, or any other advocacy organization can get embroiled in every little skirmish. I don't fault TU at all for not engaging on this one.

    -Brian

  10. #10
    Member Jimw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    452

    Default

    AlaskaHippie—it must be tough to be you!!! Always being right and having no respect for anyone else’s thoughts other than your sacred opinion. Does it really matter if some asks a question that has already come up? If you want to walk on water please do it some where else, and take your TU buddies with you. Its people like your self that make forums less than what they are and turn people away.

  11. #11
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw View Post
    AlaskaHippie—it must be tough to be you!!!
    Not too tough at all, but I appreciate your concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw
    Always being right


    Never made such a claim, but if you feel that I am, well thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw
    and having no respect for anyone else’s thoughts other than your sacred opinion.


    Here's where I disagree, I fully respect well thought out, logical, cordially presented points of view contrary to my own. Rants, tirades, and blathering with no basis in fact or intellect however..well it's not so much a lack of respect as it is an eye rolling wonderment. And while I do believe in my beliefs, I would never go as far as to consider them sacred....


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw
    Does it really matter if some asks a question that has already come up?


    Not at all, just don't be surprised when myself, or someone else points out that this question HAS already been asked, and for the sake of conversational continuity, would it be too much of a strain to keep said question in the thread, and context in which it is currently being discussed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw
    If you want to walk on water


    No thanks, it'd be too foreign trying to roll cast from that high up, and it'd be a waste of a good pair of Simms waders...Interesting idea however.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw
    please do it some where else, and take your TU buddies with you.


    Now who's not showing respect to others opinions? Diversity of ideals is what allows for intellectual and social growth...Perhaps you aren't interested in these principles, but most of the rest of us are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimw
    Its people like your self that make forums less than what they are and turn people away.



    Oh, you prefer forums where EVERYone agrees, and pats each other on the back over how it's so nice to live in an echo chamber? Thanks but no thanks. You claim "People like me turn people away" in almost the same breath you ask for "Me and my TU buddie's to leave." Do I need to post the definition of hypocrisy for ya? Or can you look it up on your own?
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  12. #12
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    I do not hate TU as you have stated, you don't get the point if you only read half of the sentence. I have thought about joining TU, and DU, Safari Club and others but I have a problem with my dues being spent the way that they are sometimes. It's my money, and I vote with it. I have even let my NRA membership lapse because I disagree with some things that they have done recently. All of that being said, I was wondering why TU took up a $20k fight with a mining proposal that is years away from anything even happening there when there is a direct and immediate threat to sport trout fishing in the worlds most famous fishing water system. I was wondering that because it may be possible that TU, like other organizations, is becoming more of a environmentalist special interest group than a trout fishing organization.

  13. #13
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Tyrex - Well, apart from picking their battles based on financial resources, think of it this way: If something goes wrong with the gillnetting in the Kenai and the trout populations are harmed, the nets can be pulled and the population can rebound. Seems to be easy to fix with little long-term threat. On the other hand, if something goes wrong with Pebble and their cyanide-leaching/toxic wate held back by dams/slurry pipelines/etc, the trout fishery could be wiped out...period. No chance for a recovery when you chemically contaminate those streams with massive amounts of toxic waste.

    Yes, I realize that the above scenario is a big if - I'm just pointing out that the long-term threat to the fishery is much greater in the Pebble situation. It therefore makes sense for TU to focus on that one, in my opinion. (By the way, by their very nature fishing and hunting organizations should be environmental interest groups. Wild trout, caribou, bears, etc. can only thrive in harvestable numbers in healthy, in-tact ecosystems. Not sure when basic ecology became an us-vs-them political issue, but it shouldn't be that way.)

    -Brian

  14. #14
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    Point take Brian, thanks.

  15. #15

    Default

    You're OK to ask that tyrex - I think it's got more to do with political correctness then interest in the resource

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •