Group apathy

General trout, fishing, conservation, or anything outdoors related discussion. Trip reports and stream conditions welcome, but please do not name streams.
POLITICAL FREE ZONE
brntrout
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Group apathy

Post by brntrout »

harris wrote:Well, you can't please everybody all the time so why even try. One question though. Without TU would any Legacy money be spent on trout streams?
Maybe, maybe not!

What most people ( and TU members) don't realize is the fact that originally it was MTA's president, Jeff Broberg, and myself that proposed to MNTU to try to get Legacy money for habitat projects. In fact, Jeff and I put the first three years of proposed trout stream habitat project information together, which MNTU used to create proposals to submit to the LSOHC. The point being is the MTA might have done the same thing on there own, if Jeff wasn't so busy at the time.

Funny how things are not quite how they appear to be isn't? :shock:
Last edited by brntrout on Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

brntrout quote: I agree, improving watershed conditions would be a major plus. However, that is not going to change degraded habitat back to good trout habitat.

This isn't entirely true. I know of three streams off hand that do and/or have/had high mud banks. In one instance livestock has been replaced with native plantings. Over the course of the past 10 years the banks have slumped creating a much more gradual slope entirely on their own. One of the others was overly wide due to the damage the 07 flood. Since then banks have also slumped in greatly narrowing the stream and a new deeper channel is being formed.

Granted the effects of nature don't act as fast as mans influence on it but in some cases under some conditions improved land use practices alone are enough to have a major affect.

There is also a great need to replace trees that have been removed due to large scale habitat work. I fully understand that the vast majority of the trees that have been removed were junk trees anyway and were also to close to the stream. With current climatic predictions it would be a great idea to plant a couple tree species back into the project areas. The native grasses that are being planted in the areas without cattle are great, BUT, they are fire dependent and should be managed not ignored. Native grasses left unmanaged over the years will be overcome by willow and other trees paving the way for major beaver problems. With low fur prices driven by modern urban culture less and less people are getting into trapping and in the future there will be major problems in the areas I have mentioned if they are not properly managed.

What I'm getting at is there is so much more than just H.I. projects carried out by TU,MTA,MNDNR,and private contractors. There is a big pool of money available and it could be better managed.
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold

brntrout
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Post by brntrout »

Having high banks that have slumped, changing the bank profile and channel dimension isn't necessarily a good thing or sign, because its likely the next major flood will probably remove the slumped area because now the stream has likely become too narrow in all probability. Even if the slumped area is not removed by the next flood, it very possible channel braiding will occur which isn't good either most of the time. The way it is now days, the next big flood could happen at anytime.

Getting rid of livestock along streams can be a good thing or bad thing depending on whether or not some kind of rotational grazing program has been established or not. Usually removing cattle promotes box elder growth which is not a good thing, as trees in general shade out grasses which can help ( but not stop in some cases) hold banks from eroding during flooding because of the dense root mass grasses have compared to trees.

I have no doubt in "some" smaller drainage's some smaller sized streams may in fact be helped by better land use practices alone, but in general it will take improved land use practices and H.I. to fix the rest of the streams that lie in larger watersheds and drainage's.

I don't totally agree with planting trees, unless they are planted outside the flood plain. Planting lots of trees inside the flood plain usually just creates more opportunities for bank erosion problems to occur during flood events.

As far as managing the money, I think it could be managed better as well, but for different reasons than you have!

harris
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:44 pm

Re: Group apathy

Post by harris »

brntrout wrote:
harris wrote:Well, you can't please everybody all the time so why even try. One question though. Without TU would any Legacy money be spent on trout streams?
Maybe, maybe not!

What most people ( and TU members) don't realize is the fact that originally it was MTA's president, Jeff Broberg, and myself that proposed to MNTU to try to get Legacy money for habitat projects. In fact, Jeff and I put the first three years of proposed trout stream habitat project information together which MNTU used to create proposals to submit to the LSOHC. The point being is the MTA might have done the same thing on there own, if Jeff wasn't so busy at the time.

Funny how things are not quite how they appear to be isn't? :shock:
It appears MTA also has problems getting members who are active. :D

brntrout
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Post by brntrout »

harris wrote: It appears MTA also has problems getting members who are active.
Your right, and for "some" of the same reasons, nobody wants to take on a leadership role and put in the long hours of work required to keep an organization running on all cylinders!

harris
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:44 pm

Re: Group apathy

Post by harris »

brntrout wrote:
harris wrote: It appears MTA also has problems getting members who are active.
Your right, and for "some" of the same reasons, nobody wants to take on a leadership role and put in the long hours of work required to keep an organization running on all cylinders!
Exactly, but don't bad mouth those who do. Like I've been trying to get across, you don't have to take a leadership role to be active, participate, or contribute. Just say'n.

brntrout
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Post by brntrout »

I'm not bad mouthing anyone just telling the truth! And I don't care to be a member of HTU probably for the same reasons many others have bailed or don't show up anymore. If by chance I did decide to rejoin TU I would join Win-cres TU! Just say'n!

High Stick
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Group apathy

Post by High Stick »

harris wrote:
brntrout wrote:
harris wrote: It appears MTA also has problems getting members who are active.
Your right, and for "some" of the same reasons, nobody wants to take on a leadership role and put in the long hours of work required to keep an organization running on all cylinders!
Exactly, but don't bad mouth those who do. Like I've been trying to get across, you don't have to take a leadership role to be active, participate, or contribute. Just say'n.
I think one can be particular of something without the bad mouthing label. People get very sensitive when you start opining on volunteer work (stream work). I get that. But when a volunteer group fails to accept conserns from the base (and the base doesn't have to be a TU member either) then you get apathy and a reluctance to volunteer. I have voiced concerns to local and state TU leaders. It hasn't gotten me anywhere other than embroiled in lengthy emails from John Lenczewski that do nothing more than continue to justify TU's position. Not once have I gotten acknowledgement that considered my questioning of coldwater habitat restoration trends in southeast Minnesota. They are right. Everyone else who questions it is wrong and labeled "disgruntled" in some capacity.

Instead of apathy, how about disgust and dissatisfaction as modifiers of the current state?

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

The flood plane can be a grey area. I'm not talking about reforestization. I dont see trees being planted 40-50' off of the stream causing one bit of a problem. They will provide ZERO shade for many years at that distance but we need to think long term. Burning is easy enough to do with proper knowledge and man power and will keep woody plants from moving in.

I am no Longer a member of TU but Had no problems with the folks at Wincres. Didn't/don't always agree with what they do but they are an active group. I did voice a concern on a non typical trout stream issue and the president at that time did respond positively. Basically what happened was we both got busy and it never was looked into but that isn't their fault.
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold

brntrout
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Group apathy

Post by brntrout »

S.T.Fanatic wrote:The flood plane can be a grey area. I'm not talking about reforestization. I dont see trees being planted 40-50' off of the stream causing one bit of a problem. They will provide ZERO shade for many years at that distance but we need to think long term. Burning is easy enough to do with proper knowledge and man power and will keep woody plants from moving in.
Planting trees back at that distance from the stream bank edge should not be a problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact I think its a good idea!! In some cases if an outside bank is much taller than the inside point bar, trees can be planted a lot closer to the stream bank edge, as the lower inside point bar area will act as the flood plain!

Post Reply