Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Is TU going the same way as the Sierra Club?

Catskill Mountain Man

Explore, and implore to explore
We know the Sierra club was hijacked by the far left some time ago; but it TU taking the same course?

Don't get me wrong I love TU and all its wonderful work; but after almost 10 years of reading the articles and following the organization I can't help but feel like there's something/someone at work in that organization.

Also don't get me wrong that all because TU might be getting more and more liberal ran doesn't mean that I'll turn my nose at it. But it does seem a little off putting, I dont want the wonderful organization going the same way the sierra club did.
 
Could you perhaps provide some examples? TU's grassroots members span the political spectrum but if boiled down, we'd be right of center. That's our membership. Staff tends to be a step toward the middle with exceptions on either side. I don't see our organization making any changes in that regard.
 
For one this spear heading the pebble mine protest. I'm all for stopping that project from going through but isn't stopping free enterprise a little leftist?

Once again I completely agree the mine's plans shouldn't come to fruition.

I mean look at this. It's like they're starting to demonize anything energy producing/mining orientated.

Albeit I do like the stance they took on fracking. They didn't get too mixed in with the leftist and their protests, if they got too involved with that I would have taken another look at the organization.

I feel there might come a time when TU goes the way of the sierra club and there will have to be a new organization.

http://www.tu.org/blog-posts/pebble-hasnt-given-up-neither-will-we
 
For one this spear heading the pebble mine protest. I'm all for stopping that project from going through but isn't stopping free enterprise a little leftist?

Once again I completely agree the mine's plans shouldn't come to fruition.

I mean look at this. It's like they're starting to demonize anything energy producing/mining orientated.

Albeit I do like the stance they took on fracking. They didn't get too mixed in with the leftist and their protests, if they got too involved with that I would have taken another look at the organization.

I feel there might come a time when TU goes the way of the sierra club and there will have to be a new organization.

Pebble hasn't given up. Neither will we. | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

You've contradicted yourself on each issue:crap:

Protesting a proposed mine that would wipe out some of the last, best remaining Pacific salmon runs crosses all political spectrums if you value wild trout and salmon. It's not a liberal, conservative or moderate idea. If Pebble Mine is allowed to be built to the scale the originators want, it will in time destroy a significant amount of native, wild salmon and their habitats.

Again, you say TU is "starting to demonize anything energy producing/mining oriented". Yet you acknowledge they did not do that at all with fracking. When we worked to restore Atlantic salmon in Maine in the Penobscot River, we actually worked with stakeholders to increase hydro electric power production from the remaining dams while removing 2 dams and bypassing a 3rd and taking them out of hydro power production. That's a win-win for all. More power for the region, and over 1,000 miles of native Atlantic salmon spawning access for our endangered salmon. And working to stop one single mine on the planet is not exactly stopping "anything mining oriented" is it?
 
I just typed a long complicated answer, and realized I was babbling, so I didn't post it.

I'll oversimplify....
Sportsmen sometimes find themselves conflicted....
At the extremes:

The left's love of regulation, can be environmentally friendly, but sportsman unfriendly.

The right's dislike of regulation, is sportsman friendly, and environmentally unfriendly.​
 
I just typed a long complicated answer, and realized I was babbling, so I didn't post it.

I'll oversimplify....
Sportsmen sometimes find themselves conflicted....
At the extremes:
The left's love of regulation, can be environmentally friendly, but sportsman unfriendly.

The right's dislike of regulation, is sportsman friendly, and environmentally unfriendly.​

Wonderfully put pete.

Do you mind me asking your age? I hope you're doing well, you add amazing input to this site.
 
Maybe I'm biased in my views, but my right/desire to fish is superceded by a population/species' right to exist.

Regulation always leads to less opportunity to fish in favor of species preservation, but a lack of regulation often leads to species extinction. Ever wondered what it was like for adk bookies when the aluminum deposits built up and frayed their gills to worthless pieces of fleshy sandpaper? I bet over the next years, fisherman really appreciated the lack of regulation.

I'm not a crazy hippy, I like having power as much as the next guy...but regulations aren't a bad thing for sportsmen.
 
.....Do you mind me asking your age? ......
I'll be 71 next month.

Bioguy:
I was referring to the extremes from both sides. Unfortunately, the extremes seem to get the most attention.
Most sportsmen of my acquaintance, seem to be to the right of center, except on environmental issues, where they sometimes find themselves allied with those who would love to take away their right to hunt and fish.
It's complicated... I'll stop now, before I start babbling...
 
I'll be 71 next month.

Bioguy:
I was referring to the extremes from both sides. Unfortunately, the extremes seem to get the most attention.
Most sportsmen of my acquaintance, seem to be to the right of center, except on environmental issues, where they sometimes find themselves allied with those who would love to take away their right to hunt and fish.
It's complicated... I'll stop now, before I start babbling...

It's very complicated, and I myself am in that category of angler. And this recent argument of "The federal government owns too much land out West." http://i.imgur.com/LkIX9.jpg?1 makes me question a lot of things.

In this community's opinion which park is better; County, State, Federal?

In my skewed view, my opinion is county. The largest, most underused county park used to be right across the street from where I used to live. Wonderful fishing and hiking were to be had back there. Even the old remnants of a settler's house.
 
How is the Penobscot looking for Atlantic Salmon?

A great question and one I don't have a current answer for, but I'll ask and get back to you. The two dams are out, but I'm not sure if the 3rd was bypassed yet or not. If anyone knows, please post. Otherwise, I'll email my buddy Jeff Reardon who led TU's efforts to buy the dams and decommission them. Jeff's the man in Maine!
 
Pete - you make some good points. Most here know I'm a pretty staunch Conservative in life and being a conservationist isn't a far cry since the two words share a commonality. That said, I've been called a liberal tree hugger, a Communist, a Conservation Nazi, and have been assumed to be highly liberal since I care about conservation. Part of that problem is that the left has hijacked the environmental issues and forced conservationists to differentiate themselves from the preservationist tree huggers. We all care about the environment, but conservationists believe there is room for judicious use of our natural resources while the left thinks they should be left alone. Sometimes our missions cross and sometimes they don't.
 
Maybe I'm biased in my views, but my right/desire to fish is superceded by a population/species' right to exist.

.

I don't find my existence a right...I find it to be the most amazing privilege......especially when I am fishing.
 
In one sense Conservatism and Conservation have the same root - the desire for things to stay the way they are, or maybe go to a better past state. The other Conservative basis of letting the Market/nature take its course is where things get complicated. Most people will agree nature needs a little help to overcome past degradation, but how and how much people can interfere is the controversial part. The same fight happens about wilderness areas and virgin forests. The first question is there any place on Earth that isn't affected by man, and then if even remote places have been impacted by a million years of humans or drifting air pollution, then what do you do about it. A Conservative purist may say we know nothing so leave things alone, but the practical approaches in the middle draw some Conservative and Liberal bedfellows together.
 
Being a member of TU. I have not seen this alleged hijacking of the organization. Most of the members that I have encountered are typically to the center right. Humans are most intelligent species. With that comes responsibility for the stewardship of this planet. I think that is one of TUs underlying doctrines. When an entity wants to propose a plan that can vastly impact a segment of the environment, if the proposal doesn’t address the underlying environmental consequences. That needs to be rectified before the plan is initiated. That is TUs argument on a lot of the issues they take on. I believe TU understands there are issues that you can’t argue because it would vastly impact the quality of life for a large amount of the population. They are necessary evils that placing a stand against it would do more harm the good. As for the far left environmentalist everything is fair game.

The far left environmentalist are against all the necessary evils. One example: The environmental left would argue that the oil and gas industry are not necessary. I would argue that fossil fuels are a necessary evil; with one point. There are 7 billion people on the planet. The reason they are fed is because fossil fuels are transformed into food. (Farming equipment, transportation , irrigation, fertilizer ) All because of fossil fuels. You can make that single point, and the environmental left still won’t agree with you. TU is not like that in its most aggressive stance.
 
Being a member of TU. I have not seen this alleged hijacking of the organization. Most of the members that I have encountered are typically to the center right. Humans are most intelligent species. With that comes responsibility for the stewardship of this planet. I think that is one of TUs underlying doctrines. When an entity wants to propose a plan that can vastly impact a segment of the environment, if the proposal doesn’t address the underlying environmental consequences. That needs to be rectified before the plan is initiated. That is TUs argument on a lot of the issues they take on. I believe TU understands there are issues that you can’t argue because it would vastly impact the quality of life for a large amount of the population. They are necessary evils that placing a stand against it would do more harm the good. As for the far left environmentalist everything is fair game.

The far left environmentalist are against all the necessary evils. One example: The environmental left would argue that the oil and gas industry are not necessary. I would argue that fossil fuels are a necessary evil; with one point. There are 7 billion people on the planet. The reason they are fed is because fossil fuels are transformed into food. (Farming equipment, transportation , irrigation, fertilizer ) All because of fossil fuels. You can make that single point, and the environmental left still won’t agree with you. TU is not like that in its most aggressive stance.

Well said. Many of TU's friends in the environmental world were shocked we didn't come out bashing any and all fracking. It shows that we have a practical side to our organization that recognizes our need to use fossil fuels but to do so with some basic environmental protections for clean, cold water. My friends on the left want to ban all natural energy extraction, yet would be the first to complain that their homes have no heat, their cars won't go, and their precious computers no longer work.....
 
Here is the problem with the pebble mine. This is the state of Alaska's issue, not Federal. The land in question BELONGS to the State of Alaska. NO ONE who resides in the state of Alaska wants the pebble mine to happen, unless of course they directly bennefit from the pebble mine. The companies who wanted to open up the pebble mine are all foreign companies and could care less the damage they cause.

The EPA is a criminal organization, just like many of the three letter agencies have become. They seem to make up their own rules and do what they want.

The people of Alaska would never have let this happen to begin with.
 
I'll be 71 next month.

Bioguy:
I was referring to the extremes from both sides. Unfortunately, the extremes seem to get the most attention.
Most sportsmen of my acquaintance, seem to be to the right of center, except on environmental issues, where they sometimes find themselves allied with those who would love to take away their right to hunt and fish.
It's complicated... I'll stop now, before I start babbling...


Pete: I want to apologize if you felt I was attacking you personally.

I agree, it's complicated and often we only see the extremes. I just wanted to highlight the difference between the short-term benefits of less regulation and the often dramatic cost of the same lack of regulation over the long term. Fisheries all over the country are good examples of this sort of problem.
 
The far left environmentalist are against all the necessary evils. One example: The environmental left would argue that the oil and gas industry are not necessary. I would argue that fossil fuels are a necessary evil; with one point. There are 7 billion people on the planet. The reason they are fed is because fossil fuels are transformed into food. (Farming equipment, transportation , irrigation, fertilizer ) All because of fossil fuels. You can make that single point, and the environmental left still won’t agree with you. TU is not like that in its most aggressive stance.

You mean the same people like Al Gore who fly around in their fuel guzzling jets and live in houses that eat up more energy in a month than most normal families use in a year?
 
Just remember mother nature does not need to be protected from us. We fuck it all up bad enough, she'll sneeze us off the planet and nobody will ever know or care that we were here. All these intentions, conservation, conservation, or tree hugging are all someone's idea of benefiting our/their personal interest.
 
Just remember mother nature does not need to be protected from us. We fuck it all up bad enough, she'll sneeze us off the planet and nobody will ever know or care that we were here. All these intentions, conservation, conservation, or tree hugging are all someone's idea of benefiting our/their personal interest.

So true which is part of the reason I laugh at the global warming alarmists. I suggest everyone read The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. He touches on this throughout the entire book. Humans were late to arrive on the planet, yet we are naive enough to think we'll somehow be the only species to live forever. We won't, yet the planet will go on without us and heal itself. In the meantime, I'll stick to sound conservation and feel good that I'm doing a small part in my perceived world. And hopefully some others will agree. If not, please feel free to call me a Conservation Nazi, my personal favorite to date. :)
 
Pete: I want to apologize if you felt I was attacking you personally.....
No offense was taken, just making sure I wasn't misunderstood.

I recall a DEP hearing in 2008, when in the absence of more moderate voices, the "owl kissers" presented more relevant, and more articulate testimony, than the NIMBYs.
 
You mean the same people like Al Gore who fly around in their fuel guzzling jets and live in houses that eat up more energy in a month than most normal families use in a year?

yea those types.
 
You mean the same people like Al Gore who fly around in their fuel guzzling jets and live in houses that eat up more energy in a month than most normal families use in a year?

You forgot to add: all while lecturing you why flying around in private jets and owning multiple large houses is a horrible thing and that you should never do it yourself. :bang::bang::bang:
 
You mean the same people like Al Gore who fly around in their fuel guzzling jets and live in houses that eat up more energy in a month than most normal families use in a year?

Or the centerpin clown in Alaska who rolls around in a 5.7 3500 partaking in the subculture of rollin' coal HAI CHRIS


-Neff's resident troll
 
Or the centerpin clown in Alaska who rolls around in a 5.7 3500 partaking in the subculture of rollin' coal HAI CHRIS


-Neff's resident troll

It's a 5.9, and it's only a 2500. I don't "roll coal". My truck is just so bad ass it spews black smoke from unburnt diesel.

You need to get out and fish. Between all those funky light shows, weird trance music, and interwebs, I think your brain is starting to rot.
 
I'm just trolling lol

Work is busier than Beetle on free bread day, so my fishing time has been non existent. It should settle down soon.
 
Back
Top