NYS Trout Unlimited

http://tinyurl.com/293y4

"on the QT" wrote in news:40b7b4d7
@news.greennet.net:

http://tinyurl.com/293y4

FWIW, I was invited to that meeting, and I'm not from a chapter immediately
effected. Ron was certainly right that the invite went out to all
chapters.

Personally, I think you guys are blowing this way out of proportion.

Scott

Scott Seidman" wrote in message:

Personally, I think you guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
Scott
---------------------------------

“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."

[from River Reporter article about NYS Trout Unlimited]

----------------------
More at:
http://tinyurl.com/293y4

"on the QT" wrote in
:

Scott Seidman" wrote in message:

Personally, I think you guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
Scott
---------------------------------

“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."

[from River Reporter article about NYS Trout Unlimited]

----------------------
More at:
http://tinyurl.com/293y4







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

Scott

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."

More at:
http://tinyurl.com/293y4

"on the QT" wrote in message
...
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.

Oh Lordy. Afraid to use your name, eh?

If you know anything at all about how TU works, you will know that the TU
Coordinator have no day-to-day interaction with things at the Chapter level.
The job of contacting the chapter officers for meeting announcements goes to
the Council Chair. It doesn't surprise me at all that a TU pro doesn't know
details of what's going on at the Council or Chapter level. Scott had no
reason to lie to you. He would know if the letter was addressed to all NY
Council chapters.

By the way, we have to my knowledge, 3 or maybe 4 active posters from
anywhere in NY and two of them are from the Great Lakes area. Why do you
think everybody here is interested in your regional political crap?

Stan Gula

Stan Gulag wrote:
Why do you
think everybody here is interested in your regional political crap?
..........
Stan,
Please chill.

The URL posted pointed to an on-line article in a newpaper published
yesterday.
It had to do with flyfishing and Upper Delaware River.
This is a flyfishing newsgroup.

Thank you.

"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)

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

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

I can't find Fullerton's original column of May 20 online


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."