# River Advocacy Groups



## superpuma (Oct 24, 2003)

*Advocacy*

GCPBA


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

American Whitewater and then would try and find your local group for Oregon or you home river basin. Friends of the Yampa for my local plug.


----------



## cmharris (Apr 30, 2013)

kayakfreakus said:


> American Whitewater and then would try and find your local group for Oregon or you home river basin. Friends of the Yampa for my local plug.


This makes sense. I will look into the Deschutes River Conservancy.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Most important (and easy) thing to do is join AW. Local organization support is good as well.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Friends of the Cheat (WV)


----------



## malloypc (Jun 6, 2009)

cmharris said:


> Who do you support? Who is doing good work?



I annually support with contributions matched by my employer :

American Whitewater - AW Homepage
https://rrfw.org/ through Living Rivers Home Page
:Willamette Riverkeeper
Portland, Oregon | Team River Runner through Adaptive sports for anyone with a disability | Disabled Sports USA
Outdoor Adventure for Cancer Fighters | FIRST DESCENTS.ORG
American Rivers | Rivers Connect Us
Home |Hudson River Sloop Clearwater | Creating the Next Generation of Environmental Leaders
http://www.glencanyon.org/
I am a dues paying member of:

Willamette Kayak and Canoe Club
Oregon Whitewater Association | Oregon's Premier Whitewater Rafting Club
Lower Columbia Canoe Club


----------



## cmharris (Apr 30, 2013)

Thanks. I will look into some of these organizations.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

American Whitewater if you're a boater
Grand Canyon Private Boater's Association if you want to go run the Grand Canyon
Your Local Whitewater / River Conservation Advocacy Group


----------



## suzpollon (Apr 18, 2009)

A big shout out to Trout Unlimited!


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

Trout Unlimited is the main lobby group fighting to keep boaters off the Chattooga Headwaters. If you enjoy floating on rivers do not give them your money.


----------



## suzpollon (Apr 18, 2009)

I do not know about their involvement there. Please show a link or two. I do know in the west they are doing great projects that often benefit kayakers and rafters. Things like getting access and removing dams.


----------



## mdignan (Dec 26, 2010)

Screw Trout Unlimited, they are trying to shut down boating in the SE. For example, here is a letter signed by a few chapters trying to shut down boating on a tributary to the Chattooga, Overflow Creek: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=aw:overflowclosereq.pdf

AW has a good resource on who has been involved with the Chattooga headwaters dispute:
American Whitewater - aw:chattooga_groups

Of note: 


> Trout Unlimited
> National organization whose mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Two state chapters and several local chapters of TU oppose paddling on the Upper Chattooga, *with support from the national organization*. These chapters sought to join the lawsuit in defense of the boating ban


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

My understanding of the primary (national) conflict that river runners have with Trout Unlimited, is that TU prioritizes fishing over river running. Thus, when it comes to private vs public land/river access disputes, TU has a tendency to compromise by trading sections. They'll support a land owner in closing a section of river to river runners (to preserve said land owners commercial fishing operation or whatever), in exchange for fisherman gaining shore access to a different section of river nearby. They don't advocate for legal river running access everywhere, just where they choose. 

Their intentions of river access are good for boaters as far as finding a put-in and take-out, but some river runner's feel they aren't helping the right-to-float arguments. 

I'm sure someone has better, more specific examples, and more expert insight, but it's my understanding that boaters shouldn't let boaters support TU. 

(I hope I'm wrong. My dad used to be a TU member, before AW of course.)


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

Feel free to throw the baby out with the bathwater folks, but if it weren't for TU alot (maybe most?) of water in WV would be dead from extractive industry practices. 

...but hey you could still float it right!?!? Never mind that orange water that'll stain your boat or the sulphur smell sticking to your skin when you get wet, cuz hell we're having fun!! Any of you who go to Cheat Fest should be thanking them.

Notice that the push for those chatooga closures originated and are spearheaded by local chapters and have "support" from national. Become a member, go to the local meetings and don't support these grassroots efforts that propagate closures if that is your viewpoint.

Just in WV, about 300-400 streams have been protected in the past few years largely thanks to TU's suppport/lobbying and they are all still open to paddling (if you can fit a boat on them).

I belong to AWW and TU btw..


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

AW member


----------



## suzpollon (Apr 18, 2009)

Well, I did a search on AW, google, bing and here for boating bans and I only found the one - Chattooga - that appeared to have no reason other than a fisherman/boater conflict. It looked like all of the other bans were your National Park and High Water safety closures. (I'm sure I'm about to be hammered here).

So (I'm trying to ask, not to incite) when you say that TU is trying to shut down all boating in the SE are there other rivers/creeks? I certainly hope that is not the case.

As for not advocating for boating everywhere - yes, their priority is fishing, just like AWs is boating. 

I have worked with TU in three states (Colorado, Oregon and Wyoming) and only know the stuff I work on (fish passage) in terms of their policies. However, from those experiences I can say they really are benefitting boaters. Think of the many dams they have worked to take out, instream water rights that have been obtained and that they look to obtain, and spring releases for fish. 

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that so many of you will not support them.


----------



## mdignan (Dec 26, 2010)

I never said "all" boating, I said they are trying to shut down boating in the SE. I supposed I should've used the word "some". I was referring to the Chattooga headwaters, including the Upper sections and tributaries.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Cutch said:


> My understanding of the primary (national) conflict that river runners have with Trout Unlimited, is that TU prioritizes fishing over river running. Thus, when it comes to private vs public land/river access disputes, TU has a tendency to compromise by trading sections. They'll support a land owner in closing a section of river to river runners (to preserve said land owners commercial fishing operation or whatever), in exchange for fisherman gaining shore access to a different section of river nearby. They don't advocate for legal river running access everywhere, just where they choose.
> 
> Their intentions of river access are good for boaters as far as finding a put-in and take-out, but some river runner's feel they aren't helping the right-to-float arguments.
> 
> ...


A big issue I have with TU is that they promote the moment of stored reservoir water in the winter in order to keep river flows at minimum healthy amounts for trout populations in summer and fall. Trout Unlimited believes the Voluntary Flow Release Program on the Arkansas is detrimental to a burgeoning trout river and they also view private boaters as a nuisance... I am a member and a fisherman, but membership is mostly for monitoring purposes.

I would encourage those of you who love the Ark to get involved with Friends of the Arkansas, in addition to AW.

Friends of the Arkansas River


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

FOR, Friends of the River. 
RRFW, River Runners for wilderness.
https://rrfw.org/

Friends of the River - The voice of California's rivers


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

American Whitewater 
Colorado Whitewater

I would give to these 2 first.

As far as the bad rep that TU gets IMO it is well earned.. One current example is that their rep to the CTF has has asked that all forms of boating be eliminated or banned on the Arkansas Headwaters just south of the town of Leadville Colorado... Ridiculous idea that sets a horrible precedent for any boatable water in Colorado. 

A second is that they did not support the right to float push of a few years back.

Third is that TU has continually pushed to keep flows below boatable levels on the Arkansas River.

While they may do good other places from what I see and as a fishermen I am of the opinion that TU does very little to help boating on water here in Colorado. Also TU has very deep pockets or it is fair to say AW and CW could use the money more.


----------



## suzpollon (Apr 18, 2009)

Hi Everyone - I was the person who originally suggested TU. 

I'm going to preface a lot of this with - issues on rivers are subtle. I seriously doubt you could find two groups who place equal weight on all of the same values you as an individual might. 

I personally place more emphasis on the natural habitat available for various river species. But I do like to boat and I believe it is RARE that the two collide - although it does happen. As someone else mentioned on this thread - I really hope you wont throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I thought the question was "Who do you support? Who is doing good work?" I never claimed TU's priorities were exactly aligned with boaters' priorities. Yes - their priority is preserving cold water fisheries. Again, I would venture to say that their priorities helps kayakers the majority of the time. And they definitely do good work. 

The last post brought up three issues. I was fairly certain the individual was misinformed, so I asked the Director of the Colorado Water Project (a TU position) about them. Below are his responses. (I did not ask about the right to float issues). 

1.
"One current example is that their rep to the CTF has asked that all forms of boating be eliminated or banned on the Arkansas Headwaters just south of the town of Leadville Colorado... Ridiculous idea that sets a horrible precedent for any boatable water in Colorado."
Response
Sometimes TU chapters or individuals say things in the name of TU that are inconsistent with our organizational position. It’s unfortunate, but we can’t control it. That said, I really doubt that anyone from TU has advocated for elimination of boating on the Arkansas River. That would be ludicrous. It is certainly not our organizational position. As an organization, we are all about recreational use of rivers.

2. "Third is that TU has continually pushed to keep flows below boatable levels on the Arkansas River."

I can also tell you that TU (as an organization) is a signatory to – and a strong supporter of – the Arkansas River Voluntary Flow Management Program. That program calls for augmentation of flows above natural levels during the summer in order to support recreational boating, even though those artificially high flows that are possible because of imports from the Fryingpan River are not necessarily in the best interest of trout. As a compromise, the VFMP also calls on water managers to target flows of 250 cfs during the fall and winter. 250 cfs is optimal leading up to and during the fall brown trout spawn and during egg incubation during the winter. But 250 is less than optimal for boating. There is sometimes some negotiating around the edges of the VFMP, and maybe that has been misconstrued or misunderstood as TU pushing to keep flows below boatable levels. But, again, our organizational position is that we support the VFMP – with its artificially high flows during the summer and more moderate flows during the fall and winter – as a compromise between the needs of boaters and the needs of fish.

I hope this helps clarify TUs position on some of these issues.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

That is an unsatisfactory response from an uninformed individual. The suggestion has been made, several times in my limited time attending the meetings. If you want more specifics its Fred Rasmussen suggesting that boating should be banned above Granite, and if you look at the records and the facts significant water was moved over the 2011/12 winter at the request of DOW/CPW/TU despite a drought, in favor of the fishery over the summer recreation. In this instance it came back to bite them because the drought was so bad, but don't forget it, because they will push this agenda again.


----------



## ukonom (Nov 21, 2008)

I don't know how all the different TU programs interact, but I will say that I think the Western Water Project is doing good work in the Colorado River Basin. They helped upgrade a dangerous diversion dam on the Gunnison by Delta and have numerous projects to improve streamflows in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Good projects for the river.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Utah Rivers Council


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

cmharris said:


> Who do you support? Who is doing good work? I am currently not a member of any group but I need to change that. The two I'm aware of, at least through their website, are Idaho Rivers United and American Whitewater. I'm sure there are more. Thanks.


For stream access and use rights advocacy:

Montana- Public Land Water Access - PLWA.org
On January 16,2014, PLWA won a major public bridge access case and further clarified the overall Curran stream use law and 2009 House Bill HB 190 Clarify Public Bridge Access, both of which are now law.

Utah - Utah Stream Access Coalition - utahstreamaccess.org also Facebook
Currently, USAC is involved with two navigable waters and Public Trust based lawsuits and an access/use legislative bill to be introduced within the next couple of weeks.

Although presently inactive, and since you are in Oregon - Common Waters of Oregon - Common Waters of Oregon | Preserving Oregon rivers as common highways and forever free."
In 2010, Common Waters tried to move 2010 Senate Bill SB 1060 that would have clarified stream use. This bill has excellent model language to adapt for here in Colorado.

Nationally, National Organization of Rivers (NOR) nationalrivers.org advocates for water access and use and has written a book about these 2 issues.

In Montana, both MT TU and MT Wildlife Federation actively moved MT HB 190 Public Bridge Access to enactment, so they also may deserve your support.

Here in Colorado, CTU, access-wise, may be supportive of expanding the existing, permitted Colorado Parks and Wildlife hunting "Walk In Access" program to include boating and fishing over private upland. Otherwise, CTU primarily advocates for stream and trout conservation and preservation, if those are your advocacy interests.

Any or all of these groups deserve active support if by "advocacy" you mean access to/from or use of streams for all lawful water dependent outdoor recreational activities.


----------



## suzpollon (Apr 18, 2009)

I will look into this on Monday. Thankyou for bringing up the specific person.


----------

