TU, WSC, FFF, WA Trout etc-What do you think

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by scottr, Dec 13, 2001.

  1. scottr Active Member

    Posts: 446
    Chasing trout and birds
    Ratings: +104 / 0
    I am wondering if any of you belong to organizations like Trout Unlimited, Wild Steelhead Coalition, WA Trout or the Federation of Fly Fishers?

    I belong to TU. I wonder what you think of these groups and if there are other ones out there doing a better job at protecting our fisheries and right to fish.

    If yes which ones?

    If no, why?

    Thanks in advance.

    Scott
  2. ChrisW AKA Beadhead

    Posts: 493
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I have been a TU member for the last two years. Their magazine and calendars are nice. Although membership dues go to national issues, I think that the Wash. Council of TU has done some very good work lately to help set steelhead policy in our state, They just released an 8 page document about the necessary changes that need to come in order to protect wild SH stocks. As for the other orgs. - I know them in reputation only and they are all good from what I've seen.

    I am also a member of another org. which protects the waters (esp. salt) in our state. The Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (PSA). They do a lot of good work toward the elimination of pollution in our water systems. :THUMBSUP

    Join up with any of these orgs. (and volunteer if you have time) Its a great feeling to help out and make a difference.

    Chris
  3. ray helaers New Member

    Posts: 1,088
    .
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    It depends on which is more important to you: fish or fishing.

    That sounds like a paradox and I guess it is, but as a user group we have to acknowledge that the "right to fish" and the biological needs of fish are sometimes in conflict. Sometimes the conflict is simply unresolvable and most groups tend to come down on one side or the other.

    For instance, Washington Trout does pretty much impeccable work on the science of fish recovery and preservation, but they often take positions that might seem anti-fishing. When they think a fishery needs to be closed, they say so; when they see hatchery operations as a threat to the wild fish, they say so. My own view has always been that the long term needs of fish and the long term interests of anglers ARE the same. In other words, some short term sacrafice may be necessary and will pay off in the long run. Besides that, WT is never afraid of controversy, or to bloody themselves going after the big guys. They're suing Puget Sound Energy over dewatering issues on the Skagit and NMFS over Commercial harvest in the Sound. I've got no problem with WT.

    I see TU at the other end, working hard for anglers, but often allowing that to cloud their judgement on the science (at least the WA council). For instance, I find most of their positions on hatchery issues unsupportable. Maybe that's not all bad, but it's how I see it. Some very good friends of mine, good conservationists all, belong to TU.

    The WSC so far seems to be striking a pretty good balance, looking out for anglers while keeping their eye on the ball biologically. Their focus is pretty narrow, but they seem to be off to a good start. They'e pretty new and can certainly use all the support they can get.

    FFF is good to great, depending on the chapter, and some individual clubs can be good. Clark/Skamania Flyfishers in the Camas/Vancouver area is great; so are the Northwest Women Flyfishers in the Seattle area.

    Also local Audubon and Sierra Club chapters do some good work and could definitely use some anglers' perspectives on fish issues.