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!

What is up with TU leadership?

tomfly

The only thing left should be foot prints.
Chris Wood’s editorial in the latest issue of Trout Magazine

Be heard on clean water

“The Clean Water Act an The Clean Water Act and its use to protect small streams, is under attack 60% of all of the stream miles in this country are intermittent or ephemeral – meaning they may only flow seasonally. My sons and I fish, swim and play in one of these in West Virginia , the Little Capcapon River. As rivers go, there’s not much to it. Sections dry up in the summer. But it holds bass and blugill, and crawdads. It has a fully intact and active riparian floodplain that floods and sours in the spring. We have snapping turtles, and green snakes galore.
In short, it is a kids dream.

Until 10 years ago, The Little Cacapon was protected. By Protected The Clean Water Act by protected, I mean that my neighbor want to build a road bridge, ditch or dredge the river, he would have to get a permit. That seems reasonable given that the Little Cacapon drains into the Potomac River, which provides drinking water For Washington D.C. and the sounding region.
Ten years ago to political-charged Supreme Court rulings changed that. The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency needed to prove a “significant nexus” to navigable waterways in order for protections of the Clean Water Act to apply to seasonal streams like the Little Cacapon. Any angler knows that ground water is connected to surface water and intermittent streams influence perennial streams. Regardless to satisfy the court, the EPA concluded an exhaustive scientific review, and proposed a rule to re-establish the protection of the Clean Water Act. To seasonal streams
Trout Unlimited works diligently all over the country to protect head waters streams. In West Virginia, we installed over 236 miles of fence to expand brook trout habitat and keep cattle out of the upper reaches of the Potomac. In Pennsylvania, we worked with landowners to establish conservation easements that reduce runoff and protect habitats. In Wyoming, we worked with ranchers to reconnect headwater streams for trout spawning and rearing habitat. In California, we work with vintners to implement innovative frost protection measures that keep flows in small streams when fish need it most.

The Clean Water Act is the fundamental tool that makes work possible . And the United States Congress is trying to prohibit the EPA from finalizing rules that will protect head water streams. Multiple bills before Congress that would strip the federal government’s authority to re-establish the protection of the Clean Water Act to small streams . Nobody wants to regulate a farmer’s ditch or farm pond. We simply want restore the application of The Clean Water Act to waters that were protected for the first 30 years of the law’s existence TU scientists recently wrote a report entitled “Rising to Challenge; How Anglers Can Respond to Threats to Fishing in America” that document the relationship of small streams to quality of fishing.
The report makes clear that no one stands to lose mort the anglers, if the Congress succeeds in preventing thee EPA from re-establishing protections for headwaters streams.
Please call your member of Congress and tell them to you support protecting intermittent and ephemeral streams for the clean water, quality fishing they provide”.

Chris Wood


Are you kidding me? Am I the only one that sees this epic load of B.S

60% of all of the stream miles in this country are intermittent or ephemeral – meaning they may only flow seasonally.

(Drainage ditches)

TU wants to waste resources to protect drainage ditches that can be used to fix big problems. Why not put an effort on trying to establish legation that prohibits container ships into the Great lakes system that have not denominated their bilges before entering the waterway? That is a fight I would be behind.

the Little Capcapon River. As rivers go, there’s not much to it. Sections dry up in the summer.”

This sounds like a drayage ditch to me.


I mean that my neighbor want to build a road bridge, ditch or dredge the river, he would have to get a permit. That seems reasonable given that the little Cacapon drains into the Potomac River, which provides drinking water For Washington D.C. and the Sounding region.”


So let me get this straight; building a bridge over a drainage ditch without a permit will contaminate drinking water for thousands. What is the phone number of my Congressmen? In Alaska it is ok to drive mining equipment through a Salmon stream. But don’t build a bridge to do it. That would require a permit.

it is a kids dream.

Using you kids to push your BS agenda is pathetic.

Ten years ago to political-charged Supreme Court rulings changed that. The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency needed to prove a “significant nexus” to navigable waterways in order for protections of the Clean Water Act to apply to seasonal streams like the Little Cacapon.

Maybe just maybe the court sees the idiocy in this argument.

Any angler knows that ground water is connected to surface water and intermittent streams influence perennial streams.

What does this line have to do with anything? Ground water is affected by a drainage ditch? Ok


Trout Unlimited works diligently all over the country to protect head waters streams. In West Virginia, we installed over 236 miles of fence to expand brook trout habitat and keep cattle out of the upper reaches of the Potomac. In Pennsylvania, we worked with landowners to establish conservation easements that reduce runoff and protect habitats. In Wyoming, we worked with ranchers to reconnect headwater streams for trout spawning and rearing habitat. In California, we work with vintners to implement innovative frost protection measures that keep flows in small streams when fish need it most.

Do not try to put fluff in your editorial. None of this has anything to do with protecting a drainage ditch .

Multiple bills before Congress that would strip the federal government’s authority to re-establish the protection of the Clean Water Act to small streams .

Last I heard Congress is the Federal Government.

Nobody wants to regulate a farmer’s ditch or farm pond.

So if the farmer owns the Ditch TU or the EPA will not intervene.

I could tear this apart forever. I am a member of TU. TU does many good things. I would never think that the leadership of TU would do this. I am no brain surgeon but I see what is going on here. There is a fundamental difference between headwaters and ditches that can not maintain their flow annually. TU members are not like Green peace or PETA where the member will follow the leadership over a cliff like lemmings. I do not know what Chris Wood’s agenda is with this but I have an idea. Maybe it is time for new leadership.
 
Tom, I try not to shamelessly promote GB mag, but I think you should read this article.

A good comment on the stripers | GB Magazine

Conservatives are the problem. Admittedly, there is a difference between Dick Cheney, perhaps the greatest enemy of wild fish in the US today, and Christine Todd Whitman, who he allegedly drove out of the EPA.

Both are republicans, but you guys need to know who is good and who isnt, and the TU article there is spot on correct about big money conservative efforts to gut the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
 
One more thing...

You conservatives vote for these clowns that gut the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

I just dont get it.
 
How is the Little Cacapon river a drainage ditch?

I can not maintain it's flow. It can not have any viability as a fishery. It only flows seasonally. When the melt and rain cease the system collapses. It will never support a breading population of tout. The same argument can be made for a catch basin system on any road. My argument is not with The Clean Water Act. My argument is the stretching of the ACT to push a weak agenda. There are better things to fight for. He also uses examples that are inconsonant with fact . It makes his position weak. I could agree with him if there is any continuity to his argument and there was any example of a entity using the drainage system to illegally contaminate it. He gives nothing, but he does suggest that a bridge will commentate drinking water. And dried up stream has a direct conduit to the ground the water supply is a bit far fetched. Isn't all land linked to the ground water supply?

I watch it every Friday night. Alaska is being abused by gold miners. Equipment is being driven through rivers that you know have runs on them. The land is striped bare and left in that condition allowing silt to leach into the streams. Not a good situation for Salmon eggs. Where is TU while this go's on year after year. I guess fighting for dried up systems is more important then actually protecting a viable fishery. What angers me is; this is a battle that TU can wage with every member onboard. But no, Wood's fight is to protect none existing fisheries. The TU leadership needs to fight battles that are not political motivated and protect what the origination was formed to do. Like I said it is time for a change. My vote is for Brian AKA Rusty spinner.
 
I don't see why you disagree here. But for me, I think Chris Wood did a great job in his short editorial.

It isnt the kind of investigative reporting and high quality writing that you get from GB mag, but I liked it.
 
I thought trout unlimited was primarily involved in protecting cold water fisheries? Bass, sunfish, and wait for it.....crawdads? I will be waiting for the trigger word that I always get as a defense to this. You guessed it- NATIVE species. I understand the theory behind the process though- you use other species native to the area as part of your argument to obtain funding and then make the argument to your organization's constituents that "Everyone wins including trout fisherman" when you try to restore the ecosystem as a whole. Just doesn't always play out that way and opens the door to swaying away from the organization's original purpose.
 
I thought trout unlimited was primarily involved in protecting cold water fisheries? Bass, sunfish, and wait for it.....crawdads? I will be waiting for the trigger word that I always get as a defense to this. You guessed it- NATIVE species. I understand the theory behind the process though- you use other species native to the area as part of your argument to obtain funding and then make the argument to your organization's constituents that "Everyone wins including trout fisherman" when you try to restore the ecosystem as a whole. Just doesn't always play out that way and opens the door to swaying away from the organization's original purpose.

These are good ideas, JC.

Here's an article you might like, about wild steelies in the Cattaraugus, from the TU blog.

Cattaraugus Creek Has Wild Steelhead | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries
 
Nobody wants to regulate a farmer’s ditch or farm pond.


There is a fundamental difference between headwaters and ditches that can not maintain their flow annually.

This is the main issue with EPA's current plans. The proposed rule changes are broad and overreaching. They serve to expand (or preserve a defacto expansion of) jurisdiction beyond the authorization of the CWA. They also potentially place an onerous burden on landowners and project sponsors when it comes to small, inconsequential, isolated and/or man-made features.

Obviously, headwaters and influential features deserve protection (hence the "significant nexus" ruling), and TU should have an advocacy role there, but as TomFly notes, the proposed rules have a potential to go far beyond that.

ETA: I am sure the intent is not "to regulate a farmer's ditch or farm pond" but the proposed rules are written such that that could very well happen, and it doesn't stop there.
 
Back
Top