# CO RIVERS Licence Plate



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

Would you like a Colorado 'Protect Our Rivers' License Plate as pictured below? Sign the petition!










From CO TU Website. To learn more about the plate and sign a petition to make it happen go here: Colorado Trout Unlimited > LinkPages > License Plate Landing Page ( DNN 4.0.2 )

*The Protect Our Rivers License Plate*


In the 2011 legislative session, Colorado Trout Unlimited is introducing a bill to create the Protect Our Rivers license plate. *To help ensure passage of the bill, we need to collect 3,000 signatures from Colorado residents that are interested in later purchasing the license plate.* _Note that signing the petition does not obligate you to purchase – at this time, you are merely expressing an interest._

Once the bill is passed, to obtain the Protect Our Rivers license plate, you must make a one-time, tax-deductible donation of $25 to Colorado Trout Unlimited. *This money will be used to help CTU fulfill its mission of protecting, conserving and restoring Colorado’s rivers – the money will remain local, 100% will be allocated within Colorado.* The design of the license plate has not been finalized yet, but it is likely to be very similar to the sample (above).


To learn more about the Protect Our Rivers license plate, read the *FAQ (frequently asked questions).*


To support it and help get to the necessary 3,000 CO signature SIGN THE PETITION HERE


----------



## nmalozzi (Jun 19, 2007)

fo sho.... would look great on the ol' taco. petition signed.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

I know trout unlimited does some good convservation work. I would also like to know where they stand on access though. I would hate to support a group that would get behind the likes of Shaw et al. Hi yeti.


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Me too. Crazy how many different looking plates exist. Seems like it must make it harder for the man to identify plates at at glance.

I share Glenn's concern as well.

Is the $25 fee a one time gig, or do you get hit for it every year?


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

I also wondered about where they stand on access and do not know. I will try to find out. As mentioned, they do good things for water quality, conservation, restoration etc.. Also, supporting the plates does not mean you'll have to buy one. If passed, the bill would just creates a revenue stream for river conservation via those who do purchase plates.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Three questions:

1. Can they add some fucking whitewater to the river?

2. Can they add a little fucking kayaker dude too?

3. Am I allowed to say fucking on Mountainbuzz?

I guess we'll see.


----------



## sbratt (May 10, 2006)

*TU's stance on private water*

TU's National board made a general ruling to stay out of access disputes. Now if you read the details to the decision carefully, they are saying that they are still open and will only get involved on a case by case basis and when it pertains directly to conservation. Colorado Trout Unlimited chose to stay out of the Shaw stuff. This stance has caused great strife internal for TU with many members wanting to fight for access, like in Utah, while some of the wealthy donors have argued against TU taking a stand. 

TU is at the forefront of the water debates and inter-basin transfers. An example is the work of trying to keep as much water in the Fraser as possible instead of sending it over to us greedy front rangers.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Flat out TU will not support any right to float cause ever due to the "richie rich" contingent (about 50% of TU) who does not want folks float fishin behind their mc mansions :--(... 

From what I have seen out of TU..... I would say that any money that goes to them will never be used to help out the "right to float" and could well be $ that is used against the right to float cause.

I saw this plate come through my inbox a few weeks ago and knew that the boating community would need to be educated to the goal of TU. I agree that this plate is a slick idea but each boater will have to decide if it is in the best interest of how they use the river. While I respect their angle it is a bit ingenuous to say that TU has ever wanted to support a right to float issue much less help us boaters out at all. 

While Tu has done some good for some rivers in certain areas they will say themselves that they will never support your "right to float" any river.........

Great idea I just wish we could get a plate for us boaters - one that would directly support and actually help the right to float issue.. This plate just supports the TU agenda that is often in direct conflict with what we want as boaters...

So come on TU reps why wont you guys support the right to float??? Also if you dont support the right to float why should boaters put more $ in the coffers of a group who have many members (50%ish) who oppose any right to float measure??

Too bad TU will never be on the boater side of the right to float issue and I would caution any boater to support this plate that is actually just putting more $ in the coffers of TU...


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

I agree, I think that the "protect our rivers" statement is inaccurate. It should say "protect the trout and our right to fish at any cost". I think they have also fought projects to establish more natural flows in dam controlled rivers that would effect the trout fisheries. They fought Grand Canyon when they started eradicating trout between Lee's Ferry and the Little Colorado in an attempt to strengthen the humpback chub population. That will be ongoing because Lee's Ferry upstream to the dam is managed by Glen Canyon National Rec. Area, and they continue to stock that section of river, therefore trout continue to head downstream, and the NPS and USGS continues to do eradication trips. 

I think TU is a self serving organization that will only "protect rivers" to the extent that they remain good trout fisheries at a cost to any number of other factors and interests.


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

Thanks to those above posting on what they know about TU/CTU!

Personally, as long as the organization stays out of the right to float issue and does not support the Shaw side of the debate I am fine with backing 'em.

River issues extend beyond access and there are organizations like AW that direct their focus there. Frankly, keeping goals focused in the NGO world allows more of an opportunity to accomplish those goals. You cant work on everything. I back the conservation, water quality and restoration component of their mission. It might not contribute to where I put in and takeout but it makes a good contribution to healthier river systems which benefits everyone.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

I would warn that TU could easily come out against boaters with the claim that boats and paddles harm the trout habitat. I'm not suggesting that boaters do any such thing. It is easy, however, for a group with an agenda and funding to see boaters as competition to fishing and use an attack scheme that I suggested above. Think Baptists & Bootleggers. Shaw could throw money and nonsense "research" at an organization like TU in an effort to "protect" a stretch of water.


----------



## cheifitj (Jun 25, 2008)

I signed it, I would like the plate, being a kayaker and fisher in the CO rivers.

-Jon


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Meng said:


> Thanks to those above posting on what they know about TU/CTU!
> 
> Personally, as long as the organization stays out of the right to float issue and does not support the Shaw side of the debate I am fine with backing 'em.
> 
> River issues extend beyond access and there are organizations like AW that direct their focus there. Frankly, keeping goals focused in the NGO world allows more of an opportunity to accomplish those goals. You cant work on everything. I back the conservation, water quality and restoration component of their mission. It might not contribute to where I put in and takeout but it makes a good contribution to healthier river systems which benefits everyone.



Chris - TU"s position on the "right to float" discussion is NOT on the side of boaters.. In reality TU is controlled by a good ol boy - shaw type of contingent that would like nothing more than to limit access to all private sections of water to who the landowner feels should be on/over it... If they change this position TU themselves say they will loose about 50% of their paying membership.... 

It it correct to say that TU does not support anyone's "right to float" and never will. More likely any money they gain will help the fisherfolks who own river front property (like shaw who is a TU member) exclude boaters from boating over their fishin property..

I would be careful what you wish for as I have seen first hand what TU is all about and TU does not support any type of boating access...

So if you want to support TU fine but dont think that this plate in any way helps us boaters gain any right to float and your money will most likely work against the next right to float push..


----------



## nmalozzi (Jun 19, 2007)

No offense, but a lot of what I'm reading here sounds like speculation. The only thing I am seeing is that they want to protect rivers and the ecosystems in and around them. Also, it seems to me like there are a number of fisherman who float while fishing. So the argument on right to float could go in that direction as well. 

Personally, if I loose my right to float because a riverway is being hurt by said floating (and can be scientifically proven) then I am fine with that. I would rather not float a river if it means that ecosystem will be destroyed because of it. Not saying floating does in fact the cause this harm. However, if it was presented to me that it does, and the facts were in order then I'd happily refrain. 

If anyone has some direct proof (more then he said she said) that TU has funneled money into efforts that prevent people from floating then I'll happily turn down the $25 fee to get the plate, and add that money to my yearly AW donation. Otherwise, it seems to me like they are just trying to conserve wildlife and rivers, and I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Osprey (May 26, 2006)

Where is Ole' river? Being a fly angler and someone at the forefront of access issues in CO it would be good to get his perspective.


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

Red - you know I would be on the frontlines of fighting threats to our right to float and I would never give anything to individuals, companies or organizations that opposed a right to float!

CTU is officially NEUTRAL on the issue. The plate funds will go to river restoration. From speaking with an individual who has been a professional river advocate in CO for decades, I feel comfortable saying that the access issue will remain a neutral one at the CTU board level. This does not mean individual members won't have personal opinions.

I support AW through direct membership donations. I am not a CTU member and wont become one. However, I appreciate much of the good work they do for river protection and yes, I do endorse a license plate effort that will generate funds to work on river restoration in Colorado. Good for the economy, good for rivers, no increased threat to access.


----------



## Kendrick (Jul 8, 2010)

I had already signed the petition early on. After reading this thread now, I decided to look for Trout Unlimited's stances on various issues, and could not find anything that conflicts with CWA. To the contrary, here is Colorado Whitewater Association supporting the signing of this petition, through Facebook:

CWA on Facebook
_"Please sign the Colorado Trout Unlimited petition for a "Protect Our Rivers" license plate - it will help support CTU's work with rivers, and Colorado Whitewater too! They need signatures ASAP!"_-CWA


----------



## sbratt (May 10, 2006)

Here's a link to the Colorado Council of TU (CTU), they are the ones pushing for the plate.
CTU - Home

To give a couple examples of CTU's work
-Defeating Two Forks
-Mitigation to "use it or lose it" water rights, basically makes it easier for a water owner to leave the water in the river.
-Abandoned mine clean up liability, now volunteer groups can work to clean up mine sites, previously prevented by liability.

Make no mistake, they are trout/salmon conservation group with most members being fly fisherman. Not class V boaters. If you want a boater plate, get your butt involved with CWWA or AW and lobby for that plate.


----------



## teletoes (Apr 16, 2005)

FWIW... Paul Tudor Jones II - owner of the Blue River Ranch between Spring Creek and Gore putin -AKA Jurassic Park - is a regular $10K plus donor to TU.

And Texas developer Lewis W. Shaw II is a Life Member.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

There's fifty different plates in Colorado. All you need are the requisite signatures and a legislator to sponsor the bill (or they might have to put it in the general file with a certain number of signatures, I'm not sure about Colorado law) and it gets voted on just like the rest of them were, yes, yes, yes. If it supports a charitable contribution and can fund itself they all vote yes in Colorado. 

If the signatures for a "Whitewater" Colorado license plate were collected, I bet lots of people would vote for it, including legislators that voted against the Shaw-inspired House bill last year. It's an easy way to show that they support whitewater recreation without having to turn on their rich constituents and their riverside mansions. 

The money could go to Colorado Whitewater, or something general enough to not conflict in the right to float issue. Either way, I'd love to see a raft or kayak running a waterfall on a Colorado license plate! 

Anyone interested in putting this together with me send me a PM. I've worked in an out-of-state state legislature and am sure I can navigate the process. I'd just love to have anyone who knows a legislator who supports this kind of thing, or just someone committed to some grassroots signature gettin' to team up with so it can happen sooner than later. 

Let Shaw keep his "Protect Our Rivers" plate. I want a plate that says "Whitewater" or "Paddling Rivers" or "Huck That Shit". The picture could be a play park in a Colorado town with people drinking beer on the river bank....


----------



## Kendrick (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm not sure about organizing one, but I would certainly sign a petition for a whitewater plate. 

I still think TU for the most part, doesn't harm the WW community, from what little I've researched. I think they've done more good than bad, at least.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

nmalozzi said:


> Personally, if I loose my right to float because a riverway is being hurt by said floating (and can be scientifically proven) then I am fine with that.


Ok.... I am sure that shaw thinks you are hurting his fish and has the $ to pay for a study that will confirm this - so please dont float that section ever again..



teletoes said:


> FWIW... Paul Tudor Jones II - owner of the Blue River Ranch between Spring Creek and Gore putin -AKA Jurassic Park - is a regular $10K plus donor to TU.
> 
> And Texas developer Lewis W. Shaw II is a Life Member.


Believe what you want but when push comes top shove TU will support guys like Shaw or Jones II who are writin the 10k checks way before us boaters.. Follow the $ and you will be able to quickly find out who is in control of TU... 

This exact subject is getting more press in the internal workings of tu but they continue say that they are going to stay "neutral" in the landowner arena (so that they continue to get them 10k checks) then put out a plate that says they protect rivers and in turn gain the support of boaters who they are not willing to support... Smart and very good politics by tu imo... 

Like I said believe who you want and I would jump on the TU bandwagon as soon as they support all of our right to float over private property.. Again I will buy a lifetime membership as soon as they support the right to float. I would bet a case of PBR that I die a non-member... 

Until they either promise not to support any Shaw type of landowner or jump on the "right to float" train - I will not give them my support.. Maybe my push here is to get tu to actually support boater rights - wow news flash!! As I know the reps will read this then give me shit at the next policy meeting and I will give it right back.. If they can get the support of boaters without giving any support our way - well perfectly played by TU!!

Also I have float fished my share (18 yrs commercial float fishing guide on the Ark and over 30 years float and fly fishing from Canada to Mexico). I am also a river front landowner here on the ark and believe in my soul that anyone should have the right to float over my property - a view that many TU members disagree with. I also have known the local TU reps for over 30 years (as I was a float fishing guide for one for 9 years and had a great 2 hr conversation with them last weekend).. My major beef (if you could not tell) is that they could do so much good for the right to float but choose not to so I choose not to give any money to TU.. 

This will be my last post on this thread and I have to say that TU has done some good things in some places - but if you think TU is in any way going to support any boating right on any river you are wrong... I would trust tu just about as much as I would trust many of their most powerful and influential members like Shaw and Jones II..


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

Randaddy - 

Look into the process of getting a floater/access/conservation plate. If develloped, I could get the idea in front of Gail Schwartz and Kathleen Curry (assuming she gets reelected, still waiting on a recount. Kathleen introduced the river outfitter bill that was killed last session). If given the option I would purchase, yes actually purchase the boater plate if, say, funds went to CO AW's work. Not sure I will purchase the TU plate but still like the idea of a funding stream for restoration in CO. Of course, for the money to go to CO AW, I believe they would have to in some way sponsor the process. I'm sure we could easily get the 3,000 signatures needed to get the 'boater plate' introduced as a bill. Not sure what this process would take, but if as you said you are willing to look into it, I'd be keen to help.


----------



## td (Apr 7, 2005)

I'll say again that the best chance Colorado has for adopting a comprehensive river access law is for the whitewater community to work with the fishing community. The Montana law, which is one of the best models for river access in the country, was driven by the fishing community, not the whitewater community. I'm pretty sure there are a lot more fishermen than boaters in this state, and the vast majority of them do not have the funds to buy riverfront ranches or buy access to those ranches. As long as it's us vs. them on the river access issue nothing is going to get done, but we might have a chance if we work together as both groups would be happy with basically the same thing (access to rivers from high water mark to high water mark). TU might not be the group to work with, but it's a mistake to drive a wedge between fishermen and boaters on this issue, and exactly what folks like Shaw want to happen.


----------



## nmalozzi (Jun 19, 2007)

RDNEK said:


> Ok.... I am sure that shaw thinks you are hurting his fish and has the $ to pay for a study that will confirm this - so please dont float that section ever again...


let him dump the money into that research, i'd love to see him prove or disprove that theory once and for all. i'd prefer that over listening to two parties, that in the end have similar interests/goals, bicker over semantics. 

td nailed it with the first sentence in his post above. the lehigh river in pa is another perfect case study. without both parties working together, that meager river would be nothing in terms of fishing OR boating.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

nmalozzi said:


> let him dump the money into that research, i'd love to see him prove or disprove that theory once and for all. i'd prefer that over listening to two parties, that in the end have similar interests/goals, bicker over semantics.
> 
> td nailed it with the first sentence in his post above. the lehigh river in pa is another perfect case study. without both parties working together, that meager river would be nothing in terms of fishing OR boating.


That's what I thought too. Turns out the fisherman on the Lehigh hate the scheduled releases and want the river brought to a constant low flow. The rafting companies no doubt pay in big money to get the weekend releases.

The fisherman love the dam because they can fish the tailwaters at all times because it provides cold temperatures, but don't want high flows ever because it kills off the bug populations, and the fish don't have as much food. It's a classic case of they want whats best for the fishing, and the WW folks want the best flows for boating. Unlike in most situations, the Lehigh has more money in the WW corner.

Back on topic... if TU has a neutrality stance on access, in order that they better serve their main goal of conservation, then it's hard to argue.


----------



## nmalozzi (Jun 19, 2007)

glenn said:


> That's what I thought too. Turns out the fisherman on the Lehigh hate the scheduled releases and want the river brought to a constant low flow. The rafting companies no doubt pay in big money to get the weekend releases.
> 
> The fisherman love the dam because they can fish the tailwaters at all times because it provides cold temperatures, but don't want high flows ever because it kills off the bug populations, and the fish don't have as much food. It's a classic case of they want whats best for the fishing, and the WW folks want the best flows for boating. Unlike in most situations, the Lehigh has more money in the WW corner.
> 
> Back on topic... if TU has a neutrality stance on access, in order that they better serve their main goal of conservation, then it's hard to argue.


Interesting... I always thought the ww companies and fishing guides worked together to structure the dam releases as opposed to a constant low flow. Your explanation makes total sense though. So I'm not really sure where I got my info. 

At any rate it seems like a decent enough compromise has been made in that case. Water out here in CO is just way more touchy, and everybody thinks what they want is at stake. I bet if everyone just worked together a little more it would be a lot easier. I think most "floaters" favor conservation as well. I sure know I do.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

$25 goes to TU, and $50 goes to the state in the form of special plate fees. Kinda weak that you pay more in fees than you give to "protect our rivers". 

But, if there was an AW / kayak plate, and I could get "Yak Bro" on my plates, that might be more tempting.


----------



## whatever2010 (Nov 13, 2010)

This is the very group is stopping river access for boaters and trashing out the river....anybody that supports this group..supports shutting down river access to "all" boaters..


----------



## whatever2010 (Nov 13, 2010)

trout unlimited has done more to stop river access than any other group..


----------



## whatever2010 (Nov 13, 2010)

you will serve yourselfs better to sign a petion stopping trout unminited...


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

whatever2010 said:


> trout unlimited has done more to stop river access than any other group..


Quantify or otherwise support these claims please


----------



## nmalozzi (Jun 19, 2007)

oh what's up dude with 4 total posts on this forum (3 of which are in this thread). glad you've got such an opinion and no facts to back it up. it's cool, you're clearly right. you got my support.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thats bullshit. Rejecting the plate because they feared the funds would provide Trout Unlimited with additional resources to defend our state's waterways against development...

Sounds like an awesome way to raise money to protect our rivers, I would have bought one.


----------



## CoBoater (Jan 27, 2007)

This is the ideal Colorado river for Republicans:










Get used to it. They've gotten our government into such a predicament with the notion you can have a first-world nation with a third world tax structure, that the next move will be selling off our nation's treasures at firesale prices to... you guessed it, rich and well connected Republicans. 

Just like what happened to Russia's assets when they converted to capitalism. And Argentina after their financial crisis, and lots of other places. But hey, its good for business, that is, if you're a multi-national corporation.


----------



## OleMissBoater (May 22, 2007)

Lawmakers reject specialty tag for rivers - The Denver Post

Plate didn't make it out of committee.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

I wonder if all the conservative TU members are having internal struggles right about now?


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

From the Meng post:
"Quantify or otherwise support these claims please" 

Boater access to the upper Chatooga River in Georgia is a long time battle with Trout Unlimited area chapters leading the way to prevent boaters from access.

I have personal knowledge of another regional river where boaters wanted access and the local TU members were able to prevent the boaters from even a scheduled number of floats.

I used to be a trout fisherman and supporter of TU and think they do a great job for trout fisherman. But, like the Sierra Club, if you are not a member of their group, my experience has been they do not want you trespassing on their areas. This is not to take away from the good works both groups do. Just what I have observed.

I will not say TU has done more to prevent boater access than any other group, but I know of these two instances where they did.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Here is another example of how Tu is pushing to limit boating access in our backyard here on the ark...

TU has stated that any more than 30 private boaters per day in water around the salida is too many. They are going to push this agenda in the next management plan review - to reduce the current 50 private boat per day limit to 30 bpd and thus introducing private rationing to anyone who wants to run this section...

Yep... Tu wants to ration - kayaks, duckies, and other private craft to "protect the expirence" for their fishing members.

Again careful who you support...........


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

RDNEK said:


> Here is another example of how Tu is pushing to limit boating access in our backyard here on the ark...
> 
> TU has stated that any more than 30 private boaters per day in water around the salida is too many. They are going to push this agenda in the next management plan review - to reduce the current 50 private boat per day limit to 30 bpd and thus introducing private rationing to anyone who wants to run this section...
> 
> ...


That's kinda ironic, because that stretch is used more heavily by float-fishermen then by whitewater recreationalists by far.

Just say no to private rationing, ANYWHERE ON THE ARK!


----------



## jimr (Sep 8, 2007)

TU in some ways does help with opening more water to the public, ( correct me if im wrong but i have heard they are trying to open up land to the public just below pump house.?) but they also seem to love keeping water private, and definitely have hidden agendas. I'm a fly fishing guide and would never support this org! Does the money actually go to supporting our rivers? Doubt it, from what my girlfriend says who works for a non profit cancer company, the money from those cute pink breast cancer plates doesn't actually get donated to help find the cure. Down with TU they are all a bunch of rich old farts who want more money for private water. And if they are trying to control boat #s on the ark that is pathetic, fish love hiding under boats, as a guide I would say that traffic has little to no effect on quantity of fish caught, get up earlier if you want your favorite "hole"


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

lmyers said:


> That's kinda ironic, because that stretch is used more heavily by float-fishermen then by whitewater recreationalists by far.
> 
> Just say no to private rationing, ANYWHERE ON THE ARK!


Yea this is why tu does not want any kayaks or duckies in that section messin up their fishing! The Tu reps will say just that if you ask them. They want as few as boats as possible around salider to "keep the fishing experience intact".. Tu feels that kayaks and duckies harm the experience so much that they should not be in that section even if they are not fishing. 

I wish someone would get it together so that we could have a boater license plate that would actually support the right to float. Now that is a band wagon I would jump on!!


----------



## BarryDingle (Mar 13, 2008)

Rabble rabble rabble!


----------



## sbratt (May 10, 2006)

*TU structure*

It seems that a little explanation about TU would help this here.
TU is very grassroots based. They have about 20 chapters in the state and then a state council. If their is a push to limit private boats near Salida it's likely a push by the local chapter. I'll do some asking to see if the state level has had any input to this but I doubt it.
Collegiate Peaks Anglers Home Page
If you don't like what they are pushing, you should contact the head of the local chapter and ask to get some time at the next board meeting they have (not general meeting). Ask for some explanation for the limited stance. Hopefully the board is open to listening. I would suggest that whatever boaters that do go, be prepared and polite.

TU does suffer sometimes from an identity issue. Local chapters can have a fishing focus and less trout/salmon conservation view. Sometimes this comes up as a conflict to boaters. Some chapters stick to conservation. 
TU has done a ton in terms of cleaning up rivers. They are really the only major force in removing damns in the PacNW for anadromous fish. They've played a big part in keeping water in the Fraiser and Colorado, as well as protecting native fish species.
I've been involved with the Boulder FlyCasters chapter for 14 year and a rafter/kayaker just as long.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

sbratt said:


> I'll do some asking to see if the state level has had any input to this but I doubt it.


Thanks for checking on this and posting the link to the Collegiate Peaks Anglers website. I notice TU's involved with environmental restoration as well as habitat restoration in their projects page. I notice they also have a page on river etiquette that is very reasonable and promotes mutual understanding between boaters and anglers as well as steering anglers away from different stretches of the river when more boaters are likely to be there. 

Looking forward to what you find out.

-AH


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

sbratt why dont you just ask Fred directly?? If you dont know fred he is the one pictured on the local chapter's web site..... I have his phone and email contact if you cant get a hold of him.

The information I posted came directly from his (fred's) mouth and is documented....

I am not saying that tu has never done any good but as a hole tu is very good at passing the buck and does not support the right to float. They are also pushing the 30 boat per day limit (that will = private boat rationing) in the water around salider. So please call up fred and ask him his opinion on kayaks/duckies and also what tu wants in section 3 of the arkansas. Then please post it here. While you are at it ask f they will support our right to float colorado rivers.. 

I know that I will catch heat from the local tu chaper for even posting this as they would like to keep it hush hush but I feel that the that private boaters that like to boat around salida should know what tu is asking for here on the ark.


----------



## sbratt (May 10, 2006)

RDNEK,
If you don't like the chapter's stance or Fred's what are you doing to organize boaters against it? You've been quite clear about your opinion of TU and that you don't have a license plate for a right to float but I don't see you doing anything about it. TU didn't make you sign the petition.
If ark valley boaters don't like the local chapters stance, they should organize and push against it. Educate angling friends that their TU chapter is pushing this, push them to go to board meetings and determine if the chapter is representing them. Local chapter boards are often small and mostly retirees. The chapters have a hard time getting feedback from the members for this stuff and they go with who is on the board.


----------



## wheretheriverflows (Mar 4, 2010)

Ok, I am going to bring this back to reality...
Other states have license plates like this, no doubt, but I would think if there is a protect our rivers license plate, that the benefitting organization would be...dun, dun, dun...the Colorado state funds that are replenished by the purchase of state parks passes, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, etc. Idaho and Illinois both have plates like this, and this is what the revenue benefits. 

With this economy, these funds are the first to go out of the state budget, and to be honest, as a licensed fisherman, hunter and state parks pass holder, this $ is far more effective than the private interests of trout unlimited or even American whitewater. I for one will never complain about paying access fees at AHRA, paying for a hunting license, etc, since I know that my $ is well spent on access rights for everyone, in a manner that allows all stakeholders comment, forum and transparent access to see where the $ is spent. I am no pro government guy, but when I see the rangers, I am happy to know they see me using the river and respecting the place that we all call home.


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

I agree with most of you that TU was the wrong organization to sponsor with these funds. As has been mentioned TU stays out of access disputes, thanks in no small part to a few very wealthy individuals who've basically bought em off. I used to be a card carying member of TU until I realized that all TU was doing for me was collecting my membership dues. 

I still think the plate is a good idea, and would likely pass if the right group were sponsored. Towards that end I have sent an email to Colorado Water Trust asking them to take up the cause. CWT is all about one thing - keeping water in rivers where it belongs. 

Here's a link to their site:

Colorado Water Trust

I really hope they decide to take up the cause as I feel they could put the funds generated to excellent use.


----------



## ch678 (May 6, 2007)

*I gave, but....*

I gave $25 a few months ago but haven't heard anything of getting the license plate. A courtesy reply would have been nice.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

I know this is gettin a bit off topic so if anyone has questions about private rationing on the Arkansas feel free to start your own thread and I am sure it will get some good responses.

The reason I am even going to post again - is to raise the eyebrows of private boaters that may or may not want to ration private boats at the level of 30 boats per day in all the water around salida. Well except for the river park... 

Tu's stated agenda is that they want to limit boats at the 30 bpd level down from the 50bpd that will be allowed this summer. This fact is backed by notes from the ctf meetings (the ctf is a citizen advisory board that advises the ahra as per the wishes of the citizens). 

The water around salida was historically rationed at such a low level so to "protect the fishing experience". Over the past 4-5 years the popularity of the section had resulted in more than 30 private (rafts, kayaks, or duckies) boats going down the river on quite a few days... About a year ago the AHRA did a expirement and increased the boats from 30bpd to 50bpd and thus avoiding private rationing for the near future. With this increase there were very few conflicts reported so the section will be rationed at 50bpd until the management plan review that is coming up. If the level were dropped back down to 30 bpd a private rationing system would be required by the current management plan and 5-6 days would likely be rationed the next summer. 

When meng and others asked for specific sections of river where TU's agenda may or may not be in the conflict of boaters - well I felt that this was a good example of where some boaters may disagree with a stance taken by tu. 




sbratt said:


> RDNEK,
> If ark valley boaters don't like the local chapters stance, they should organize and push against it.


I am in 100% agreement with you on this one. 

The two private boater and CW reps to the ctf are Craig and Leslie. Leslie put up the thread here on the buzz so as to get a feel of what private boaters want and it has gotten some good responses. So I would advise any other boaters who either feel comfortable with or disagrees with the river around salida rationed at the level of 30 boats per day (again the current is 50bpd) to let your CTF reps know how you feel. 

Here is the link to that thread http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/...area-management-plan-review-by-ctf-34400.html


----------

