Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

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.

In reply to myself, I find Fullerton's rather thoughtful article at
http://www.upperdelaware.com/visitor...angler04-05-20

This paragraph says it all
"No one believes this is the absolutely perfect agreement for the
Delaware—not the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Trout Unlimited, nor the Nature Conservancy. It is the best agreement that
could be negotiated at this time, with the science now available."

As far as I can see, this is the only time in the article where Fullerton
lists anything that can be interpreted as a TU position.

Scott