Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Since the ramblings in the WW forum have gotten way off topic, which i agree, i have decided to start this here for people to discuss.

Do conservation groups as a whole do more damage than good? Consider them all. Trout Unlimited, watershed groups, conservation districts, the PGC (who buy up large parcels of woods, PFBC, US Fish and Wildlife, Save the Bay groups, National Parks Service, DCNR etc etc... all of them

As a whole should they just all disband and let nature take its course? Should they in an era of every growing population and less and less people that care, just give up? Should we stop teaching our children to try and fix what we have destroyed?

I have also included a special, do you think water conservation groups in PA destroy your fishing segment?
Think hard about this.

I cant even believe this is a topic....

I'm taking my kids to the beach in a few hours, Ill be back Sunday night. Enjoy!

 

[NewSal]

The local organizations that I know of are fantastic! Plenty of good things.. Spring Creek, and the Little J would not be what they are today without the help of organizations, (and INDIVIDUALS!)

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Bill Anderson is awesome for sure.

No rebuttal!!!

 

[icyguides]

I think conservation groups do a great job preserving access and enhancing/preserving habitat. I wish I had more time to volunteer to help.

To me, the reality of the present and future of the outdoors is that wilderness is shrinking drastically. To survive it needs help to preserve and protect what is left and reclaim and enhance what we've already screwed up. The more people that care about a place, the better chance there is for it's preservation. There are lots of recent examples of this.

 

[rrt]

AGREE! Bill Anderson and the LJRA are awesome.

When John I. Kennedy and Fred Sherlock were alive, they spearheaded the John Kennedy Chapter of TU (then Blair County TU), and that group was also awesome, especially when rehabilitating damaged trout waters. That group still does some good things.

The Juniata Valley Audubon Society is a great group, too. Its leaders and members work hard to protect the great outdoors. Its present president, Laura Jackson, is intelligent and conveys ideas well. She and her group work to ensure that present laws are enforced.

I imagine the list of groups goes on and on. Without them, as the Eagles sang, "the rich men [would come] and rape the land" with impunity.

 

[troutbert]

"We should just let nature fix our mistakes because it can."

Much of what conservation groups do (and should do) is creating conditions where nature can "fix our mistakes" i.e. self-restore.

But whatever it causing the problem must be dealt with.

If cows are in the creek, nature won't take them out. You have to work with the landowner and others to get that done, build fencing to exclude the cows from the riparian buffer.

THEN nature can rebuild things. But not as long as the cows are in there.

And there are so many other examples. In Monongahela National Forest, they are taking out roads that are crowding the streams. That will allow natural habitat-forming processes to occur.

But those cannot occur until the roads in the floodplain, constraining the stream are removed. It takes peoples' actions to get those roads out of the floodplain, to allow the stream to interact with the vegetation and floodplain substrates in the normal way.

Or take the case where the riparian areas are mowed lawns right to the water's edge. If you end mowing, riparian vegetation will come in. And nature will restore things.

BUT, nature won't stop people from maintaining lawns to the water's edge. People have to be active to create that change.

If there is a pollutant flowing into a stream, such as mine drainage, or an industrial discharge, and that is ended, nature will begin to restore the water quality and aquatic life.

BUT, nature won't stop the pollution. People have to get that done. Then, and only then, can "nature fix our mistakes."

 

[poopdeck]

Your question is so incredibly slanted that there can only be one answer. Im not even sure what started this question but I do know it's a pretty ridiculous question. "Should we stop teaching our children to try and fix what we have destroyed." No bias there.

 

[Dave_W]

All things considered, they do far more good. It's not even close.

I'm a believer that careful structural modifications and stream improvment projects can be very effective, and I try to do my share by pounding some rebar every year.

To be sure, the legacy of such efforts has proven complicated and some structures built in the past have not always held up well or achieved their objectives. Conceptions of best practices have evolved a bit, which is to be expected. Nevertheless, most have proven an asset to the stream. I still fish today around some wooden and shot rock structures I helped build in the 1980s and early 90s and these structures are still working and providing fish cover and erosion control.

Other efforts by local conservation groups to educate landowners, keep their property open to public access, and raise funds for clean-up efforts and conservation easements...are immensly valuable (see Bill A. above ^).

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Poopdeck,

The question is the title of the thread. It isn't biased.

My commentary is my opinion and last I checked I can be biased, because it's an opinion.

As far as everyone else, yes 100 percent.

 

[724flyfishing]

There's two different mindsets here.

-The realist who realizes all the good these groups do and the positive benefits of active conservation efforts. Educating the masses, and getting more people involved ultimately being best way to increase conservation efforts.

-The purist (maybe?) who thinks these groups do more harm than good. Not sure if purist is the right word here but we all know the type. This is the person who fishes strictly for wild fish in unstocked creeks, maintains a top secret list of locations, gets extremely upset when stream info gets published, makes comments about how great things were before (enter some event that drew attention to said location).

I understand the different viewpoints and I'm not a fan of data publishing, but in the big picture conservation groups do way more good than harm. A lot more good than social media pictures of a wild fish with anonymous locations and some clever title ever will.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

724- makes sense. i am perhaps of the second group...if you can call it a group since most are #1.

I have many examples where groups got a hold of areas that were very nice and open to public. They decided to improve things for more access and spend tons of$ doing so. Many rules and restrictions were put in place and the spots were truly degraded in every way.

I once knew a nice meadow trout stream that had a decent amount of wild Brown trout. It was stocked in lower end but not in several miles at the top. It was fairly brushy and hard to get into and fish near the roads but once up in it was nice and open. I only went there occasionally. It held some beautiful and big fish. I caught some nice 18-20" regularly.

Eventually it was put on class a list. then conservation group (TU) and others got wind of it and things changed very fast. First the stream improvement devices were installed. Then more people showed up to fish. And eventually landowners became tired of constant activity and closed down sections.

This is a trend in society. we all want to "do something", "take action", make big plans" and I think sometimes just to stand and be in awe of nature without feeling any real need to change it is a good thing. I'm not a fan of the club mentality as it usually omits the finer points and perspectives and the masses just come up with something sort of vulgar and clumsy and dumb.

 

[troutbert]

"Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???"

Has someone asserted that conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good?

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:
"Do conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good???"

Has someone asserted that conservation groups as a whole do more harm than good?

Yes

 

[tomitrout]

And eventually landowners became tired of constant activity and closed down sections.

And is this necessarily a bad thing where the health of the stream is concerned?

Conservation of the stream itself vs conservation of your fishing access? Guess it probably depends on your view of the 'big picture.'

 

[foxtrapper1972]

tomi- Part of the overall picture is realizing that the small stream I mentioned is probably not responsible for polluting the bay or any other terrible thing and was perfectly fine as it was until it was "discovered" and became some groups "project". In other words there were/are certainly much bigger fish to fry when it comes to OVERALL health of watersheds and the planet.

The "feel good" missions of these groups are not always in the publics best interest.

 

[afishinado]

tomitrout wrote:

And eventually landowners became tired of constant activity and closed down sections.

And is this necessarily a bad thing where the health of the stream is concerned?

Conservation of the stream itself vs conservation of your fishing access? Guess it probably depends on your view of the 'big picture.'

^Agree with TT.

There's conservation and there's protecting your fishin' hole. Sometimes the conservation effort helps your fishin'...and sometimes it doesn't.

But the fact remains, conserving a stream....conserves a stream.

There is a myriad of challenges to nearly every stream or river that conservation organizations try to keep in check > housing or commercial development of a crucial watershed, industrial or agricultural pollution, privatization of open areas, etc.

While all conservations efforts do not always end up "helping" from our own personal perspective, overall their role is essential, and most times their cause is admirable.

Join one....be part of the solution....make the organization better.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Great.
How about we restore the Letort and close it down since it is one block from tomi. I'm sure he will be in favor.

hows that battle against development going for these groups? Any big wins here in the southeast part of state?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Actually conservation groups have done a lot to keep devolpment in check, as far as storm water management and to ensure best practices can are being used. The Letort is a prime example of that in the past and even present day, however it is taking its toll there. I'd imagine it would've been worse off presently had they not. Moreover how many conservation groups have bought large acres of land to make sure devolpment has not destroyed the forests? That number of acres is staggering in PA alone.

Your example stream, which I'm fairly certain which one you are discussing, is in really bad shape as far as sedimentary deposits go, which in turn is a huge factor on the bay. It's land use is wooded / agricultural and the agriculture is hurting it and the bay. As far as the access, that stretch was already private. Yes the attention it got had signs get put up.
Though I had no issues garnering access the 4 times I fished it since the project simply by talking to the landowner and his son. Really nice people and they don't like Sunday fishing and I'm fine with that.
Not sure what your point was here.
Just because it wasn't posted didn't mean it wasn't private. No public access was effected here.

 

[poopdeck]

Sorry sal, but go back and read your first post. The question is in the title but your opinion is a continuation and in depth explanation of the question.

You have successfully worded the question that the only way to answer is to answer the same way you would. Why would anybody discuss the other side of this just to be attacked and belittled by the Environmentally correct side. Personally I think there are bad groups out there but when you lump every group into the same group you take that stance away. I also think anglers need to be real careful in what they are supporting since some of these groups are nothing more than useful idiots to powerful people.

Your question about teaching, or not teaching, kids to fix what we broke is disturbing. Personally I'm not breaking the environment so nobody has to fix anything caused by me and I have never taught my kids they need to fix the environment because daddy drives a car, heats and cools the house and pays a lawn service to keep the weeds at bay.

I've said this a thousand times, but until you toss away all modern conveinances you cannot act as if your Doing more to save the environment than anybody else. All the environmental preaching without the action is nothing more than talk to fuel a higher feeling of purpose over those who have no intention of driving a smart car.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Don't be sorry, your entitled to your opinion too. ;-)

I lumped them together because foxtrapper lumped them together in another thread.
Read the question how ever you wish and I guess feel free to use MY expansion and thoughts but the question is right in the title.
That said we are now discussing it with the one who prompted the thread, debating the question is pointless.

To expand , and I know because I chart it, my family has dropped its carbon imprint, trash, electricity use, we grow our own food etc etc.
I think your comment is laughable if you think these things have no effect.
Certainly we can teach our kids and should but some are implying these actions are pointless, including yourself just now.

So do nothing? Yeah that will help

Edit: "Personally I'm not breaking the environment so nobody has to fix anything caused by me and I have never taught my kids they need to fix the environment because daddy drives a car, heats and cools the house and pays a lawn service to keep the weeds at bay."

Wait. Behold everyone. See the only person in the world that isn't homeless in a 3rd world country who doesn't drive, doesn't heat his house, make any trash, use electricity, use a computer or phone made from petroleum products. Erm wait.... :lol:
Telepathic post.

Do you have a worm farm growing your own fly lines too?