A TU Sellout?

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...ebate/C41/L41/

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php


g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...y_archive.html

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:50:29 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...ebate/C41/L41/

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php




Here is a post on the Wisconsin Flyfishing Page message board from a
member of the National Leadership Council on this:

"Folks:

The volunteers of TU are its most important asset and a huge voice
that needs to be heard. This proposal would, in my opinion, gut a
policy and a process that we took 15 months to develop. The policy
and the process have worked. But those who oppose TU being involved in
ANY stream access dispute where a private landowner claims any rights
to control public access are pushing hard to prohibit the organization
from challenging that claim in any way. There are big landowners who
make noises like potential donors who are behind the push, and the
acting chair of the board has introduced a proposal that includes the
prohibition. He wants us board members to vote on it by 3/29, but no
sooner than 3/19. The National Leadership Council will meet 3/19 by
phone. It's made up of volunteer leaders from all states where we
have councils. A 15-month process to develop the policy, and 10 days
to gut it?

Nobody in the grassroots is advocating for taking away any rights of
private landowners, but it's a valid goal to work to protect and
maintain existing public access rights, and to develop programs for
purchase of public access rights from willing sellers.

There is room to work, and room to let the policy show its worth. If
you wish to express yourself on this, email tu.org; Tu PResident
Charles Gauvin ), or Acting Board Chairman Robert
Teufel ), and ask that your email be forwarded to all
board members."

Please let Mssrs. Gauvin and Teufel hear from you.


g.c.

George: Thanks for posting this. I've been getting posts almost every day
from New England TU people pushing for attendance at a regional meeting
real-soon-now (I'd have to look it up). I've been deleting them because my
schedule is so packed I didn't think I had time. I'll make time now that I
know this. My personal opinion is that we need to fight to keep the rights
that we have (and as far as I know, the info on the NORS web site has it
pretty clear: http://www.adventuresports.com/river...w-who-owns.htm)
but these folks point out how expensive that can be. My own little group
has decided to make our own efforts part of a larger lobby - we've had scary
lawyer threats already (a guy who would be happy to make things as expensive
for his client as for us). I suppose I'm on the side of avoiding the fights
under the aegis of TU because that would hurt the progress we're making
locally. We are more likely to influence local people by trying cooperation
and education. Stream access hasn't been tried in the Massachusetts courts,
so it would be a very expensive thing to get involved with. The law is on
our side, and we would ultimately win, but it would be a long, hard, and
expensive battle. I have heard very clueless responses from all levels of
State people when confronted about how to deal with a couple of access
issues... I know things in Montana and Wisconsin are different - you've won
some good ground already. That's the key to grassroots - every local
situation is different. I have come very close to quitting TU completely
over the past few years because of things I consider to be interference in
local issues by TU National - things they should at least know to contact
the locals about before stepping in, if you know what I mean.

--
Stan Gula


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:50:29 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...ebate/C41/L41/

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php




Here is a post on the Wisconsin Flyfishing Page message board from a
member of the National Leadership Council on this:

"Folks:

The volunteers of TU are its most important asset and a huge voice
that needs to be heard. This proposal would, in my opinion, gut a
policy and a process that we took 15 months to develop. The policy
and the process have worked. But those who oppose TU being involved in
ANY stream access dispute where a private landowner claims any rights
to control public access are pushing hard to prohibit the organization
from challenging that claim in any way. There are big landowners who
make noises like potential donors who are behind the push, and the
acting chair of the board has introduced a proposal that includes the
prohibition. He wants us board members to vote on it by 3/29, but no
sooner than 3/19. The National Leadership Council will meet 3/19 by
phone. It's made up of volunteer leaders from all states where we
have councils. A 15-month process to develop the policy, and 10 days
to gut it?

Nobody in the grassroots is advocating for taking away any rights of
private landowners, but it's a valid goal to work to protect and
maintain existing public access rights, and to develop programs for
purchase of public access rights from willing sellers.

There is room to work, and room to let the policy show its worth. If
you wish to express yourself on this, email tu.org; Tu PResident
Charles Gauvin ), or Acting Board Chairman Robert
Teufel ), and ask that your email be forwarded to all
board members."

Please let Mssrs. Gauvin and Teufel hear from you.


g.c.

On Mar 15, 11:50 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...limited_propos...

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php

A free press is the watchdog of democracy.....well, would be.....if
either existed.....but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Anyway, who watches the watchers? An informed public, that's who.

Ah, but we can do something about that!

The article at the above URL contains at least one grossly misleading
statement.....as well as some distressing lacunae.

As to the first: "...in Montana, unlike other states, access is
guaranteed by the law." the casual reader, unfamiliar with access laws
in other parts of the country, might well suppose from this that
Montana is unique in this regard. This is emphatically NOT the case
(I know, of course, that George and many others here most certainly
know better......this is not for their benefit). Wisconsin and
Michigan both have what may, for practical purposes, be described
(only somewhat wryly) as virtually unlimited public access to anything
that bears a close family resemblance to a wet spot. There are others
as well. As in Montana, though, this fundamental and eminently
sensible right is continually under attack. If Trout Unlimited (or
anyone else) decides to cede this war, the outcomes of the sundry
battles become moot.

The article also fails to explain why it is that a law guaranteeing
open access to the public fails to be enforced. Are the police the
only folks in Montana prohibited from carrying guns?

g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...dwhitey_archiv...

Well, not that I disagree with the sentiment, but anybody wants my
share of that bootie action is welcome to it.

Wolfgang

On Mar 16, 3:00 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:

...Teufel....

Teufel??!!

Might'a known it. Should'a guessed it.

Wolfgang
crunch time, boys and girls......whose work do ya wanna do?

On Mar 15, 10:50 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...limited_propos...

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php

g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...dwhitey_archiv...

What's funny is that some people thing TU is a conservation
organization. That one still cracks me up.

TBone
A cash flow runs through it.

On Mar 17, 9:36 am, "Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
On Mar 15, 10:50 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...limited_propos...

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php

g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...dwhitey_archiv...

What's funny is that some people thing TU is a conservation
organization.

No, that's not funny. They ARE a conservation organization. That
everything they do is not to my liking or supportive of your demented
fantasies is to expected from any and every organization whatsoever,
regardless of the issues they deal with or the positions they take.

That one still cracks me up.

One is tempted to say that this is because you don't understand the
organization, the issue, or why people take the stances they do, and
this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say were it not for the
simple fact that your statement can be more easily explained.

You're a liar.

Wolfgang

On Mar 17, 3:54 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:36 am, "Halfordian Golfer" wrote:



On Mar 15, 10:50 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...limited_propos...

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php

g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...dwhitey_archiv...

What's funny is that some people thing TU is a conservation
organization.

No, that's not funny. They ARE a conservation organization. That
everything they do is not to my liking or supportive of your demented
fantasies is to expected from any and every organization whatsoever,
regardless of the issues they deal with or the positions they take.

That one still cracks me up.

One is tempted to say that this is because you don't understand the
organization, the issue, or why people take the stances they do, and
this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say were it not for the
simple fact that your statement can be more easily explained.

You're a liar.

Wolfgang

Conservation organizations do NOT promote releasing non-indiginous
species nor do they promote the spread of zebra snails on the boots of
competitive trout fishermen, regardless of the rhetoric. As soon as I
see a flier from TU that says "Kill every rainbow trout in Colorado
that you catch" I will believe that they are a conservation group.
Otherwise STFU.

TBone

On Mar 17, 3:54 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:36 am, "Halfordian Golfer" wrote:



On Mar 15, 10:50 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...limited_propos...

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php

g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...dwhitey_archiv...

What's funny is that some people thing TU is a conservation
organization.

No, that's not funny. They ARE a conservation organization. That
everything they do is not to my liking or supportive of your demented
fantasies is to expected from any and every organization whatsoever,
regardless of the issues they deal with or the positions they take.

That one still cracks me up.

One is tempted to say that this is because you don't understand the
organization, the issue, or why people take the stances they do, and
this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say were it not for the
simple fact that your statement can be more easily explained.

You're a liar.

Wolfgang

Oh and, while you're at it, tell me 'conservation for what'? If they
aren't conserving the resource so that I can catch and eat a few than
what are they conserving it for? So that people can hook them in the
face for the pure hell of it? Ask them why they don't conserve
lizards...

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

On Mar 19, 4:48 pm, "Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:54 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:





On Mar 17, 9:36 am, "Halfordian Golfer" wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:50 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/top...limited_propos...

The NLC is meeting in the very near future concerning this. Send the
folks at National an emaill and tell them what you think.

http://tu.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tu.cf...duser/home.php

g.c.

Oh and **** Lefty Kreh and Don (Dan?) Beaver too.

http://asshookedwhitey.blogspot.com/...dwhitey_archiv...

What's funny is that some people thing TU is a conservation
organization.

No, that's not funny. They ARE a conservation organization. That
everything they do is not to my liking or supportive of your demented
fantasies is to expected from any and every organization whatsoever,
regardless of the issues they deal with or the positions they take.

That one still cracks me up.

One is tempted to say that this is because you don't understand the
organization, the issue, or why people take the stances they do, and
this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say were it not for the
simple fact that your statement can be more easily explained.

You're a liar.

Wolfgang

Conservation organizations do NOT promote releasing non-indiginous
species nor do they promote the spread of zebra snails on the boots of
competitive trout fishermen, regardless of the rhetoric. As soon as I
see a flier from TU that says "Kill every rainbow trout in Colorado
that you catch" I will believe that they are a conservation group.

O.k., let's see if we can work together here and try to figure out
whether I give a **** what you do, don't, will, and/or won't believe.
Can we do that?

Otherwise STFU.

Yeah, that's gonna happen.

Wolfgang