"on the QT" wrote in
:

Scott Seidman wrote in message:

Ron's [Urban] right - the meeting was open to all chapters, at least
according to
the mailing I got.

Scott
---------------------------

So...Ron Urban -NYS TU Council Chairman is right... and Rocky Aguirre
- the Trout Unlimited appointed Catskill Coordinator is wrong?

Is that it Scott?

Take a look at the article online.

Please advise.
--------------------------
[from River Reporter article about NYS Trout Unlimited]


“There were only a **few** [NYS Trout Unlimited] chapters
invited—only
chapters that have a direct interest in the Delaware system,” [Trout
Unlimited Catskill Coordinator, Rocky] Aguirre explained.

But this contradicts a conversation I had with Ron Urban, TU’s NYS
Council chair, who said the meeting was **open** to all state
chapters."

Here's a lesson in logic. The article offers two opposing facts. One guy
says that the meeting was open to all state chapters, and one guy says it
was open to "a few" chapters that have interest in the Delaware system.
One must be right, and the other must be mistaken.

To the best of my recollection, I received an email from Ron Urban,
addressed to the entire Chapter list, letting us know about the meeting and
inviting us to attend. I suspect Rocky Aguirre either did not remember
this, or did not know about this. In any case, I'm sure those chapters who
are most interested in the area appropriately attended the meeting. I,
trusting the NYS Council TU to reach an appropriate consensus, opted not to
attend, and to catch up with the matter at the next scheduled meeting of
the Council, which is taking place in the very near future.

A responsible journalist, as opposed to somebody just trying to catch Mr.
Urban in a lie, probably would have contacted some Chapters to find out
which statement was true, because thats what journalists do. In fact, the
point is so trivial that the two paragraphs about who was invited to the
meeting could easily have been left out.

I don't care whether the emails I've received from FUDR are spam or not,
but they are annoying because they are largely incoherent, and don't really
encapsulate either the FUDR plan or the current plan that seems to be in
the process of enactment. They just simply write about some of the
differences without context or history. That goes for the emails I've
received, the link you posted, and the recent letter to the Editor of the
MidAtlantic Fly Fishing Guide. The stuff in incomprehensible. I wouldn't
be surprised if Urban didn't respond to FUDR letters because he couldn't
understand them! Perhaps FUDR can scrape up enough resources to get a good
communicator doing the communications.

I can't find Fullerton's original column of May 20 online. To offer an
opposing view to the diatribe you've posted a link to, the Delaware issue
needs to be resolved through agreement of 4 states involved in the
watershed. This isn't an easy consensus to reach. Further, some believe
that the FUDR plan is too provincial, and motivated by the fishing
conditions on the West Branch, which is only one part of the watershed as a
whole. My understanding is that this new plan getting under way--oddly
enough, *not* the FUDR proposal-- is a step in the right direction, and not
an endpoint.

Scott
(Speaking for myself, not State Council)