I recently finished reading two books by Paul Schullery. Both were great reads, and both historical in nature. Schullery is one of the most prolific writers on fly fishing history, and he was once director of the recently much-maligned American Museum of Fly Fishing (AMFF). Cowboy Trout covers the history of fly fishing in the Western US. Schullery has an interesting writing style. Each chapter is like a self-contained essay as opposed to a straight this-happened-then-that type of narrative. The book’s focus is really about how fly fishing has become a cultural phenomenon in the West, even a part of the West’s identity. Most of the stories take place in the Yellowstone area. I learned a lot and connected many dots of knowledge that had been floating around on their own in the vague recesses of my mind. Schullery’s style carries over somewhat in his American Fly Fishing (actually I suppose it carried over to Cowboy Trout as American Fly Fishing was published first), an overall history of the sport in North America. I found both books fascinating. Schullery’s easy prose and quick wit ensure the histories are never boring. He devotes a sizable section near the end of American Fly Fishing to the start-up of the AMFF in Manchester, Vermont.

I’m about to go on a rant. Stop here if political rants don’t interest you. I understand I don’t have a 100% complete picture of the incidents I talk about below (who does? – no one from what I’ve seen), but I have enough sense to make a few general statements about how these things are handled.

For those of you not familiar with the controversy surrounding the museum, you can read about it on Midcurrent and TroutUnderground: here, here, and here. If you notice my comments attending that first link, you’ll see how I feel about the whole thing. I just have real trouble understanding the level of anger on this issue. Looking at it with what common sense I can muster, the choice of Cheney to speak at the fundraising dinner was an incredibly poor one given the feelings of many of the most vocal members of the fly fishing community, assuming you wanted to avoid a ridiculous uproar such as we’ve seen. Many claim that their inviting him is the same as endorsing his political views. I just don’t buy it. He is/was simply an important politician who happens to fly fish and who therefore fits in with the museum’s other exhibits which, incidentally, feature several other unpopular politicians. His decisions in office, while they severely hampered conservation efforts for coldwater species, were not targeted specifically at fly fishers. There were other sides to the issues. You don’t have to disagree with Cheney to enjoy fly fishing. The museum is for all those who fly fish, not only those who fly fish and hate Cheney. The museum is about fly fishing history, not politics. I’m not saying I agree with Cheney’s decisions by any stretch, I’m just saying Cheney isn’t out to kill fly fishing as an end in itself. In fact, I’d see Cheney’s enjoying fly fishing as a possible way for environmentally conscious fly fishers to perhaps change the man’s views. Laugh at the prospect if you wish, but one thing is certain: You’ll never change his views (or those of others like him) by screaming at him and calling him vile names. There is common ground here on which we might open a discourse with an important man, explain our concerns, try to understand his, and engage in meaningful discussion as to how best to work on the problems. Think of how valuable a man like Cheney could be to us if we could convert him to our cause! Certainly, I find the prospect unlikely, but one way to ensure its impossibility is to continue with name-calling. I would think the goal is to convince others of our “rightness,” not win the upper hand in a childish game of taunting. I’ve seen all sorts of posturing on fly fishing sites, all sorts of threats to no longer donate to the museum. All that just seems silly. How many of you have donated a dime to the museum anyway? Visited it? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe lots of you have, but I doubt it. I certainly haven’t. I’ve never received even an email or postcard from them asking for a donation. If they’re like most museums, they struggle just to get by. To read many fly fishing sites, you’d think the museum positively overflows with money direct from rich Republican salmon-killing fatcats. Heck, maybe they do. But I doubt it. I’m not sure how Paul Schullery stands, but I imagine if nothing else he’d be distressed at the mess in which the museum finds itself, because he understands its value to us fly fishers. Go to the museum’s website and look at the stuff they’ve preserved. There’s a lot of really cool stuff there. Lots that would either not be preserved at all or not available to the public if not for the museum. Do we really want to throw that away?

While I’m on this topic, let me say that I’m alarmed at the form political discourse has taken in this country. It seems that instead of carefully and respectfully reasoning with our fellow countrymen, we much prefer to swear at them, curse them, and if possible bully them to our point of view. In fact, I’m sure I’ll see some of that as a result of my writing this article. The internet appears to exacerbate the problem. This doesn’t apply to everyone, certainly, but it is distressingly widespread. Both sides of every argument are guilty. For the fly fisher, anger, frustration and desperation are all understandable given all we’ve lost and all we’re on the cusp of losing. But I sincerely doubt you’ll convince others to join your side, which once again I’m assuming is the ultimate goal, if all you do is rant, name-call and toss out blind irrational arguments. We must do better. We must understand that there are two sides to every argument. This isn’t a game, and childish tactics will not suffice. For virtually every river we protect, dam we bust, bit of land we preserve, or farming or mining practice we change for the better, we either directly or indirectly cause someone to lose their job, substantial income or way of life, and not all of these people are your “rich fatcats.” It never ceases to amaze me how often these “rich fatcats” make appearances in arguments. I see environmentalists toss out the term in reference to their enemies, and I see those enemies toss it right back, except they usually add to it so that it becomes “rich enviro-wacko fatcats.” Environmentalists pick up the game and toss back “rich neo-con nazi-fascist nature-plundering fatcats” and so on. Your “enemy” on these issues is rarely someone bent on evil purely for evil’s sake. Heck, even rich fatcats have employees to see after. We who believe enough is not being done to protect the environment in general and coldwater fisheries specifically need to understand that we’re often asking people to sacrifice. We need to help make that sacrifice as slight as possible, or at least do a good job of convincing folks that it’s necessary, even beneficial to them in the long run. We also need to understand that in many cases, although something needs to be done, getting that something done is simply not immediately possible/feasible given other concerns (for example, although it’s possible, it’s simply not feasible to discard a dam when doing so would leave half a million folks without power). We must understand that we will not convince everyone or even most, but we must still conduct ourselves respectably, working toward the long-range goal of changing the overall cultural setting. You can toss out ridiculous arguments like “Republicans only care about the rich” all day long, but that’s not going to convince distinctly not-rich conservatives like nearly everyone I know here in North Alabama who often vote, not on the environment, but on economic, social, moral and military issues*. You will only make them angry and entrench them further in their current position. It is our job as environmentally conscious fly fishers to convince these folks that the things important to us are worth fighting for, for everyone’s sake, not just ours. Show them how making changes to protect the environment will benefit them and their children directly. We need to understand that sometimes folks just disagree on what is more important, and it doesn’t always mean that one side is clearly in the wrong. There are gray areas. Certainly, there are issues and actions which are blatantly immoral, evil and just outright wrong-headed, but even in these cases, perhaps most especially in these, we must be careful in our approach. Some things are worth being angry about, many are worth fighting for, but we must choose our fights and methods wisely. Whenever possible look at it from the other side’s point of view, argue from a point on which they can agree with you. I urge anyone reading this to please treat your fellow man with courtesy and respect, even when he doesn’t return the favor. We’re not going to win by bullying. We’re not strong enough, the nation is too divided. Always be cognizant of the possibility that you may not be 100% right. One rarely stands as firmly on solid ground as one supposes. Sometimes it’s clear cut, sometimes the ground is a little shakier. Sometimes there’s simply no good solution acceptable to both sides, you’re going to get screwed, and there’s no way around it. Only use blind, vocalized anger as a last resort. It’s okay to pitch a fit when you’ve done your best and it’s still not enough. But, trust me, hitting a punching bag is much less damaging in the long run than spewing hatred online.

I want to use the Klamath salmon catastrophe as an example here. According to the oft-quoted Washington Post article, there were at least 10,000 farmers who stood to suffer if the water for irrigation was cut off. I understand why environmentalists were angry with how Cheney handled this deal (it was crooked, likely illegal, and just plain wrong as I see it), but you do understand that he didn’t do what he did specifically to target the salmon, don’t you? He was concerned with those 10,000 farmers and their families (and their votes, obviously, but what politician wouldn’t be – don’t fool yourself into thinking only Republicans pander to voters). Did conservation organizations try to work with these farmers to help directly support them if the water was cut off? I would put money into a cause like that. The farmers might not have been so insistent if they didn’t think their livelihoods were at stake. How many of these farmers could have been taken care of with the donations of just one of those supposedly environmentally-conscious movie stars who, by the way, I constantly see on television asking me to donate to some worthy green cause, while they live it up in their $10M mansion and private jet? How much good could just one of them do, if only they’d live a little more simply? But if they won’t, how much good could a hundred of us do? A thousand? Purchasing the water rights of as many farmers as possible for that year could have made a huge difference. Did we do enough? Did we do anything? I really don’t know. What about trying to buy up some of that land for conservation or investigating other ways to successfully farm it that require less water from the river? I know conservation groups aren’t flush with cash, but direct and helpful causes like this would be a great use of our donations. That’s why I’ve begun to strongly support the Nature Conservancy’s work here in North Alabama. Donations have directly resulted in the purchase of thousands of acres of land now available for public use, lands that were previously owned by lumber companies. It would be such an inspiring thing to see that, hey, if I give a dollar to this fellow in Oregon to help him get through tough times, then he’ll be glad to step aside and let the salmon have the water during this drought. A direct result from my donation. And such a thing would have helped in the long run, too, because the average disinterested US tax payer wouldn’t be currently subsidizing both the salmon fishermen and the farmers (this really ticks my dad off, lol). I’d like to see some of my conservation donations used in cases like this instead of getting burned up in behind-the-scenes lobbying. Are you giving financially to support the causes important to you? Why not? If you aren’t giving financially, are you devoting your time to finding solutions, or are you just complaining? And when something like this works, we should publicize it as much as possible. I know this is a simplistic view of the problem, but come on, we can’t just complain when things don’t go our way, even when we’re in the right. We need to work to ensure things do go our way, not just hope they do. Certainly, you can stand on your pedestal and tell those farmers that the Endangered Species Act says they have no choice but to comply, or you can climb down, help them, and accomplish something. If the wrong people are in power, you’re going to lose unless you do something to make certain their concerns are taken care of, and don’t be so stupid as to not share the glory when things actually do work out (remember those votes; people like Cheney do).

To be fair, I am aware that several conservation organizations have begun trying to work with the other side. The Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited happen to be two that have at least tried and sometimes succeeded. However I see little of this spirit of cooperation and willingness to find real-world solutions in the magazines I read or on many of the websites I frequent. In fact, I’ve seen both of those organizations attacked for having anything at all to do with those they’ve traditionally fought against. It’s all “Satan Bush” and “Devil Cheney” and “Wacko left-wing socialist nazis” and I’m really sick of it.

All this leads me to another contentious topic: Offroad riding near the Tellico River. The Tellico OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) Area in North Carolina’s Nantahala National Forest is home to some of the best 4×4 trails in the nation. Recently some environmental groups including Trout Unlimited petitioned the Forest Service to close or drastically change the management of this area on account of excessive sedimentation in the headwaters of the Tellico, sedimentation which is harming the few remaining native brook trout in those streams. The latest release from the Forest Service suggests the OHV area will likely be closed. I have mixed feelings about offroading. I’ve done it some myself, and enjoyed it. Many of my friends love to trail ride, including Insane. Some enjoy trail-riding more than fishing. The problem offroaders must face is that their sport possesses, if not the reality, at least the appearance of being inherently destructive. The erosion caused by heavy offroading can be ugly, and even the noise can ruin a wilderness experience for others. Given this, offroaders need to go out of their way to ensure they do as little damage as possible, and they need to choose the locations for their riding wisely. The best way offroaders can keep places like the Tellico OHV area open, I believe, is to proactively figure out how to reduce their impact on the land, whether that means moving trails away from streams or beefing up regular maintenance on the roads (probably on their own dime) or installing special erosion/silt control measures. I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s certainly not the approach of many offroaders in the forums I’ve read. In fact, their approach is almost comically similar to that of some environmentalist websites I read. There’s lots of cursing, ranting, finger-pointing, fatcat accusations, etc. Fly fishers would be amused to see Trout Unlimited referred to as “a huge, well funded anti access group” with “very high powered and expensive lawyers,” given how many of the local TU chapters fight for public access and how rarely we get our way in big political fights. The heart of TU is the small local chapters, not the large national organization. I don’t want to see offroaders lose their sport any more than I want to lose mine, but they need to address the problems much as fly fishers are their own, for example, with the introduction of non-felt wading shoes to help prevent the spread of aggressive non-native species**. Offroaders are on the right track with a study they paid for themselves which can be found here. The study was commissioned by SFWDA (Southern Four Wheel Drive Association). Their study reaches conclusions drastically different from those utilized by the Forest Service, and this difference deserves further attention. Simply put, if the offroaders aren’t causing a problem (as their study claims), then they should be left alone. After reading the Forest Service studies and the SFWDA study, I feel like I’m being yanked around, and I don’t like being yanked around. I’m sure no one else involved does either. Some real, honest conclusions must be reached here, and the issues raised by both sides need to be addressed. These studies stink with the same rotten odor as the ones in the Klamath story. Someone, maybe even from both sides, is fudging data. I don’t like it, and I wish it would stop. If the offroading is causing excessive damage, offroaders need to face it, and figure out how to correct the problems.

The sad thing is, lots of fly rodders would be willing to help the offroaders figure out some way to compromise or correct the problems (in fact many fly fishers enjoy offroading on occasion, too, and don’t won’t to lose the Tellico OHV area either), but there’s so much hatred being spewed that it’ll probably never happen. I urge both TU and the offroaders groups to work together to find some sort of compromise solution. Fly fishers like me aren’t the enemy of offroaders and don’t want them to lose their sport. We just feel that, in this case, something needs to be done to protect the native brook trout, at least according to the studies we’ve seen (who knows which study is correct…). That something doesn’t have to mean closing the Tellico OHV for good. This fish is the South’s only native trout (actually it’s a char), and the upper Tellico is one of its last strongholds. The fish is part of our Southern heritage, and it really is worth saving. I think you offroaders would agree if you read up on it and haunted some of its last remaining streams, with or without a rod. These are beautiful places, and there aren’t that many of them left in our part of the world. It’s important to us, and we’ve fought as long and as hard to protect the brookie as you have to protect the use of your trails. I urge both sides to work together if possible to find a solution. That might not be possible, but it’s worth a shot as opposed to blindly attacking each other. Maybe take some time out from the whole deal and spend some time together. How about folks from both sides go fishing together and then go trail-riding somewhere to see what each side is all about? We need some cool heads here. One possible solution I can think of right off the top of my head is to move the OHV area to a lower elevation away from brookie streams. I know the offroaders wouldn’t like the idea because they’re sentimentally attached to some particularly sweet climbs and trails in the current area, but it seems that solution would be better than losing the riding area altogether, and there would be some adventure in breaking new trails. Here’s another: if it is determined that improvements and/or maintenance could be achieved that would control the sedimentation, but that the Forest Service couldn’t afford, how about TU and the offroaders team up to pay for it? I know I’d be happy for some of my TU money to go that way, and I’d donate especially for that cause since I enjoy fishing the Tellico area. From what I’ve read, TU can probably get its way without working with the offroaders at all in this case, but wouldn’t it be worth it if we could gain the offroaders as allies? It’s worth reading about the case from both sides:

Southern Environmental Law Center

Smoky Mountain News

Trout Unlimited Page

Pirate 4×4 Tellico Forum

Tellico4×4.com

SFWDA Study

Take care,
Nathan

*In case you’re curious about my own political affiliation, I have none. I don’t particularly like either major party, but I do usually vote for one or the other. I do care deeply about environmental issues, but I care deeply about many other important issues as well, all of which figure into how I vote.

**I noticed an offroader picked up on this, and good for him/her as it could be useful in their argument. For example, instead of the Forest Service closing all streams to fly fishers, they have been given the chance to improve their equipment. Couldn’t the same courtesy be extended to offroaders?

Tags: American Museum of Fly Fishing, Dick Cheney, fly fishing, history, Paul Schullery, Tellico OHV

This entry was posted on Monday, March 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm and is filed under Commentary, Fly Fishing, Random Musings, Reviews. The author is Nathan Kennedy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.