Trout Unlimited

[phiendWMD]

How do you feel about TU? I see a lot of the good things they participate in like protecting water, cleaning up trash, and improving habitat. I admire that and would like to contribute to efforts such as that. The thing I find myself coming back to ultimately is their stocking over native populations. I'm unable to convince myself all the great things they do isn't negated by stocking over natives. I could probably add stocking over wild fish too.

Apparently the parent organization is against this but allows the chapters freedom to decide for themselves if they will stock over native fish?

I want to get more involved. TU seems like a logical choice. I'm just not sure I can overlook that one thing. I can't decide if I'm being too critical. I'm also curious if maybe another organization exists that I'm unaware of that more closely lines up with my beliefs.

 

[Acristickid]

Why don't you attend a meeting and make some new friends.

I admire ideals- but in my own personal scale this "national vibe" is an excuse. Like politics , it's all local.

 

[tomitrout]

"All politics is local."

Get involved with your local chapter and see what they're up to. If they are one of the few chapters that do stock, work to affect a change of policy within that chapter and be prepared to be in it for the long haul, change doesn't happen overnight.

Personally, our local chapter does tons of good work and whether or not a chapter in another part of the state does something I don't agree with, well that's their prerogative and based upon their local needs/politics. I don't let it affect my involvement locally.

 

[phiendWMD]

acristickid wrote:
Why don't you attend a meeting and make some new friends.

I admire ideals- but in my own personal scale this "national vibe" is an excuse. Like politics , it's all local.

I have attended a meeting. I've helped my local TU on several occasions. The people all seem great. Most likely I will continue to assist them with efforts I completely agree with like clean ups.

The local chapter here does stock over natives. I'm not convinced my money is best spent helping them buy fish. Even if it is just a fraction. I guess I'm looking for views that could sway me or more information to make a decision.

 

[duckfoot]

I stopped short joining TU for the same reason, just a small clash in ideals. I pick up trash whenever I'm out anyway, so I can't justify a membership to do what I do for free.

Ducks Unlimited? I'll probably be a member until I die. 85% of my fees goes to purchasing wetlands for conservation. They also release their financial records too, so it's a transparent organization.

 

[CVangler]

I am all for TU. I think that they do great things for the streams and the fish that are in them. But I pick up excess litter when I'm on the stream too. Which sadly seems like it is every outing.

 

[franklin]

Mixed feelings.

On the local level I see TU doing some great work. The meetings also include informative speakers, chances to meet PFBC people, etc. I've learned a lot about fly fishing and fly tying from local members.

On the national level I don't align with some of their policies. Some of that is the work they do on private waters. Some is that I don't agree with some of their environmental stands.

I left TU a few years ago partially due to disenchantment with the national level. I recently re-joined as I now value the local aspects more than the negatives at the national level.

 

[geebee]

franklin wrote:
Mixed feelings.

On the local level I see TU doing some great work. The meetings also include informative speakers, chances to meet PFBC people, etc. I've learned a lot about fly fishing and fly tying from local members.

On the national level I don't align with some of their policies. Some of that is the work they do on private waters. Some is that I don't agree with some of their environmental stands.

I left TU a few years ago partially due to disenchantment with the national level.

+1.

I also like duckfoot, don't understand why a national trout protection group doesn't use its financial power to purchase and preserve streams - even if its temporary, until another conservancy can take over.

so often we see property for sale on trout streams that sits out there until a private developer or individual picks it up and posts it.

TU needs to widen their mission to include 'protecting public water access" imho - if they had that then the James river in VA would still have public access, so would Paradise in PA and the Delaware in NY.

its great to have clean cold water and wild trout, but no use if you can't access it !

 

[wjkosmer]

I'm active with a couple local Chapters here in PA. They do a ton of good work. I don't always agree with National's policies on stuff, but I think you will be hard pressed to find an organization that you agree with everything they do. Bottom line is, especially at the local level, they do more good than anything.

As to purchasing land/stream access. Cumberland Valley TU is currently helping to lead the charge in purchasing land along the Letort, so these things do happen.

My experience has been that most chapters have many members, but few that are actually active and willing to help. So be one of those active members and you can help to mold what gets accomplished, be it stream access, cleanups, or limiting stocking over wild fish. I know a lot of Chapters help PFBC stock, but I'm not sure how many actually pay for trout to stock themselves. I'm sure there are probably some, but don't think it is the majority.

 

[salmonoid]

geebee wrote:

franklin wrote:
Mixed feelings.

On the local level I see TU doing some great work. The meetings also include informative speakers, chances to meet PFBC people, etc. I've learned a lot about fly fishing and fly tying from local members.

On the national level I don't align with some of their policies. Some of that is the work they do on private waters. Some is that I don't agree with some of their environmental stands.

I left TU a few years ago partially due to disenchantment with the national level.

+1.

I also like duckfoot, don't understand why a national trout protection group doesn't use its financial power to purchase and preserve streams - even if its temporary, until another conservancy can take over.

so often we see property for sale on trout streams that sits out there until a private developer or individual picks it up and posts it.

TU needs to widen their mission to include 'protecting public water access" imho - if they had that then the James river in VA would still have public access, so would Paradise in PA and the Delaware in NY.

its great to have clean cold water and wild trout, but no use if you can't access it !

That depends if you look at it from the trout's perspective or the angler's perspective.. As long as that cold water with wild trout is connected to other water, those trout can move. I often wonder if peoples' definition of conservation is "Do what is needed so I can gain access to a stream to catch more trout".

Property for sale on prime trout waters isn't cheap and that's one of the reasons why I'd speculate TU doesn't buy it and instead puts their dollars in stream projects. I'm not sure TU wants to be in the business of being a land steward. There might be a possibility that TU would spearhead fundraising efforts and then work to get land purchases and stream easements transferred to local entities, as you note. Basically serving as a land purchase bank and cheerleader..

 

[duckfoot]

salmonoid wrote:
Property for sale on prime trout waters isn't cheap and that's one of the reasons why I'd speculate TU doesn't buy it and instead puts their dollars in stream projects. I'm not sure TU wants to be in the business of being a land steward. There might be a possibility that TU would spearhead fundraising efforts and then work to get land purchases and stream easements transferred to local entities, as you note. Basically serving as a land purchase bank and cheerleader..

DU seems to be able to control thousands of acres a year in various programs. They'll buy, sell, lease, and improve as best they can.

It's been argued in some circles that DU single-handedly restored waterfowl populations to numbers before the "dirty '30s".

http://www.ducks.org/conservation/land-protection/land-protection-programs
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/land-protection/conservation
http://prairie.ducks.org/index.cfm?&page=/cld/introduction.html
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/land-protection/conservation-easements
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/land-protection/land-acquisition

 

[wjkosmer]

Lets not be so quick to put DU up on a pedestal, especially as it relates to stream access. Not saying they don't do good work, but prime example of differences in National vs Local chapter philosophy.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/quack-attack-ducks-unlimited-fires-writer-over-stream-access-fracas

 

[RyanR]

PhienWMD, not sure where you get the idea that TU stocks over native populations but the fact is TU is one of the main conservation organizations at the forefront of supporting & restoring native trout populations and in general has a policy against stocking trout over sustainable native trout populations. Their policy and information on their programs and partnerships specific to restoring native populations can be found by contacting TU national and their website at www.tu.org. TU has initiatives like Back the Brookie which support protecting & restoring wild brook trout populations. TU is involved in restoring salter brook trout populations on Cape Cod, coaster brook trout in the Great Lakes and the southern Appalachian brook trout as well. Out West they are involved in various efforts to restore native western trout and steelhead populations.

The policy was enacted only within the last 5yrs or so and there has been some conflict or resistance from a small fraction of chapters but on the whole the majority of chapters both nationally and within PA abide by and support it. There has also been confusion over what the policy actually supports and doesn't support. Some of the issue has been with a few chapters that have long been invved with cooperative nurseries. Naturally these chapters have been resistant but not all of them and in some cases there is no actual conflict with the policy as they do not actually stock over sustainable native trout populations.

I don't know any organization that does things that all members will always agree with 100% and if that's the ultimate criteria some have for joining or supporting an organization I don't think they'll ever find one to be satisfied with. Others I think just use that as a convenient excuse to not get involved at all. For me, I weigh an organization on the totality of its accomplishments and conservation efforts and its overall dedication to its mission. It's exactly why I am a member of, volunteer for and fully support Trout Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society and the American Woodcock Society.

 

[phiendWMD]

RyanR wrote:
PhienWMD, not sure where you get the idea that TU stocks over native populations but the fact is TU is one of the main conservation organizations at the forefront of supporting & restoring native trout populations and in general has a policy against stocking trout over sustainable native trout populations. Their policy and information on their programs and partnerships specific to restoring native populations can be found by contacting TU national and their website at www.tu.org. TU has initiatives like Back the Brookie which support protecting & restoring wild brook trout populations. TU is involved in restoring salter brook trout populations on Cape Cod, coaster brook trout in the Great Lakes and the southern Appalachian brook trout as well. Out West they are involved in various efforts to restore native western trout and steelhead populations.

I got that idea from them. I overhead they bought the fish, how much they paid, and where they came from. I saw the truck they came in and it didn't say PFBC or anything like that. I've caught brookies that appear to be wild in the same water the above mentioned fish were stocked. The disputable part may be defining sustainable. If what that means is enough natives to satisfy demand for fish legal to harvest, it may fall short.

 

[RyanR]

All I can tell you is the intent of the policy is for TU chapters not to be involved in stocking hatchery trout over native populations. Most chapters do their best to follow this policy. I'm not saying you didn't catch a wild brookie but I think you'll agree that catching some fish that appear to be wild is different from catching wild brook trout from a stream with verified wild brookie populations (ie. verified by official surveys or other proven methods.)

If you're interested in TU, I encourage you to get involved and volunteer. If your local chapter is indeed not aligned with the stocking policy find out why and work within the organization to move it into the direction of supporting the policy.

 

[troutbert]

What TU chapter in PA do you think is stocking over native trout, and on which stream?

 

[tomitrout]

I got that idea from them. I overhead they bought the fish, how much they paid, and where they came from. I saw the truck they came in and it didn't say PFBC or anything like that. I've caught brookies that appear to be wild in the same water the above mentioned fish were stocked. The disputable part may be defining sustainable. If what that means is enough natives to satisfy demand for fish legal to harvest, it may fall short.

Curious, did all of this happen to occur when you helped them stock and you then gained your new appreciation for said stocked trout?

New Appreciation for Stocked Trout

 

[PALongbow]

I am not sure I completely buy the issue with stocking over wild or native trout. I have more wild browns and native trout on my property (Fishing Creek - Columbia County) than I have ever seen before and there are also a lot of stocked trout there as well. Maybe its because Fishing Creek has more habitat and area for all to survive???

Ron

 

[DGC]

To the OP. TU does fine work. Nature Conservancy does as well. Excuses to not participate are very easy to find. Anything involving organizations of any type will have aspects that are not to our liking, but they are usually not deal breakers.

 

[Chaz]

The policy of T.U. is to not stock over wild or native trout. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but the policy is just that. Chapters are discouraged from stocking at all, some do in their local watershed because they are Approved Trout Waters, but when wild population do occur the Chapter will be asked to stop stocking that water.
If for instance trout were stocked in Pine Creek, one could say that it is being stocked in spite of a wild population, however small it might be. I can assure that even though people may catch wild trout in Pine Creek they probably are resident except in the cool water months, unless they find refuge, where they should not be fished over anyway.
Fewer than 6 chapters in PA currently stock trout in their local streams, if they do it's because the stream stocked are marginal.
I just wish people would educate themselves before Dissing T.U.