Hit 'em where it hurts

[TigerPaw]

Here's a response from LL Bean:

"Dear ******,

Thank you for contacting L.L.Bean regarding our sponsorship with Trout
Unlimited. We have been supporters of Trout Unlimited since 1981 and
have always had great confidence in their resource management approaches
to support sporting interests.

We were unaware of the situation between Trout Unlimited and OHV trail
issue in the Tellico watershed, and we appreciate your bringing it to
our attention. We contacted Trout Unlimited in order for us to have an
understanding of the situation, and they shared the following
information with us:

"The notice of intent against the US Forest Service is not against OHV
recreationists. The intent is to hold the Forest Service to its legal
duty to abide by water quality laws, both federal and state, and to
abide by its own established regulations. Trout Unlimited did not choose
to file the notice of intent on the spur of the moment, it was the only
remaining alternative after years of fruitless, exhaustive negotiations.
The number of trail miles in the Tellico watershed vastly exceeds the
trail miles that were established under the FS management plan for that
area, in addition to the national standards for trail density. The
current trail miles are more than double the mileage allowed under the
current forest plan for the Nantahala and Cherokee Forests. I am sure
many of those trails were cut in by people who aren't responsible OHV
recreationists. The FS turned a blind eye while new trails were
illegally built without an inclusive, public process for comment and
engagement to discuss these dramatic changes to the original plan.

This watershed is also one of the last remaining brook trout populations
in NC and TN that was rated as having significant surviving populations
by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture in their Status and Threats
report on eastern brook trout. I'm sure there is a way that we can all
work together to solve this situation where we can eliminate the threat
to the water quality and trout populations, while at the same time
providing OHV recreation. They have recently measured sediment loads in
these streams at levels 500-1,000 times higher than similar streams in
reference watersheds nearby. Some areas with trails right next to the
stream were contributing 59 tons of additional sediment per year, which
drastically affects trout reproduction and survivability."

L.L.Bean is fully committed to the sporting interests of our customers,
and we offer charitable contributions to non-profit organizations to
help advance those interests. While L.L.Bean does not have a position
in this matter, we continue to be confident in their approach.

We appreciate your taking the time to contact us. You are a valued
customer and your opinion is important to us. We hope you will allow us
to be of service to you in the near future.

Sincerely,


Carolyn Beem
Manager, Public Affairs"

 

[lowenbrau]

It doesn't always have to be "us vs. them" To my simple mind the issue is something like this...
TU has a mandate to protect waterways and the fish that live in them. That doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. The trouble is that recreational four wheeling can cause silt to make its way into fish bearing streams. That can be bad for fish. TU's solution is to recommend trail closures. The unorganized four wheeler's solution is to find other creeks to drive in. The organized four wheelers band together and demand that anybody who supports TU stop doing so or lose the Four wheeler business. (honestly, do you think Cabella's sells more fishing rods or seat covers?)

How about if we all agree that silt in rivers is not good? How about we approach TU and ask them to work with us to upgrade our trails to reduce the amount of damage we do to fish populations? Believe me, the majority of 'greenies' are not so different than the majority of wheelers. We all love the outdoors and and want to be able to continue to enjoy them for generations.

Our local off road community has lost a large piece of our wheeling area lately and we are now working to get it back, one trail at a time by building bridges, both literally and figuratively. I'm amazed at how positively the radical green groups respond to a suggestion from wheelers that we clean up our act and build sustainable trails. (that's right, build *new* trails)

I think I'm going to go to GSMTR this year and put my money where my mouth is.

 

[SOAZ]

After reading most of the websites and posts (on Pirate), I'm equally distressed as several of the other posters here that once again polarization is winning the day. It's the emotion of land use, I think, that does it. No one thing or organization or business is "pure" good or bad.

Cabela's is a huge corporation that's trying to do the right thing. TU and TL are great organizations trying to do the right thing according to their missions. But in the lens of polarization, people try to see things only as black and white. TU is bad. TL is bad. TU is good. TL is good. You can see that philosophy on the Pirate posts - lumping "greenies" into one side and OHV users on the other, as though we who like 4x4 exploration can't also be greenies.

Locally at Tellico, many users like GrimReaper are trying to do their best, but get beat up when lawsuits are threatened or filed.

In Arizona, I've worked with TU on a restoration of the East Fork of the Black River - we created amazing blue ribbon native Arizona trout fishing habitat, it's fantastic. Our TU team was NOT political. In other places, the members are more political.

In the end, it's never a simple black and white issue - we should just try to take each issue separately, as Jonathan states, rather than try to just yell at Cabela's or TL or TU in general.

This would help in the polarization wars.

Well said. I also feel like the polarization does more to hurt our efforts than good. If everytime a company supported "tread lightly" the folks at the sierra or other hiking club stopped asking for donations and support from that company because they dared to support "our side" we would win easily. We can't be making that mistake.

Maybe it just means we need to work harder to get these companies dollars. Corporations are largely issue blind. They will support causes that give them good press and or support their client base.
I say instead of not shopping at cabela's (I know thats not really what was suggested by folks on this forum, but I'm speaking in generalities) we should try to get those dollars to support organizations that support our views most closely.