20 Questions with Kirk Deeter(Part II: The Answers)

Kirk Deeter is the Vice President of Trout Media for Trout Unlimited, and Editor of their membership magazine, TROUT. He is also an Editor-at-Large for Field & Stream, and Editor for

Angling Trade magazine.

I’d like to thank Kirk for taking the time to answer my questions. His answers are

informative and telling. I have included Kirk’s answers verbatim. My questions are

in black, Kirks answers are in blue.

Disclaimer: The questions presented here are mine and mine only. What I

say is not, and should not be considered, a reflection on anyone or any

business I work for or with…

Question: For generations, Sportsmen have broken ranks with their peers over what they felt were threats to the resource. Bait fishing comes with a high incidental mortality rate, and by most admissions, bait anglers keep a higher percent of their catch than other anglers. TU is now reaching out to bait anglers and those who harvest fish by actively promoting both. Are you at all concerned that giving these anglers a seat at the table will make it harder for TU to gain consensus in the future regarding the promotion of conservation initiatives and low-impact fishing?

Answer: I think everyone is entitled to a seat at the conservation table, so long as they live within the rules, and are respectful of others at the table. One of the most significant challenges for fly fishing is the stigma that the sport is dominated by elitists and prudes. And I worry that wondering aloud if we should bother to give others a “seat at the table” only serves to reinforce that stereotype. I get more mail (though not much) complaining that TU is too fly-centric, and too catch-and-release focused. Actually, I think you might be the first and only to complain that TU is not fly fishing/catch-and-release enough. When I took over as editor of TROUT five years ago, John Merwin, then the fishing editor for Field & Stream, a great mentor, founder of Fly Rod & Reel, and probably the leading authority on anything fishing at that time (he passed away in 2013) told me the smartest thing I could do as editor of TU’s magazine would be to run a cover shot with a Panther Martin lure hanging from the mouth of a trout. I didn’t have (and still don’t have) the guts to do that. Curiously, however, while researching a retrospective piece on TROUT magazine, I realized I wouldn’t have been the first to do that. In the 1980s, Tom Pero, who was and still is a fantastic writer and editor, ran at least one “lure” cover. In fact, leafing through nearly every issue since 1959, I noticed a fair number of lure—and yes, even bait—stories (and ads) in the mix. Also I think it’s worth noting that Lee Wulff, considered the father of catch-and-release angling, included sections on bait casting, bait casting tackle, natural baits, etc., in his Handbook of Fresh Water Fishing. I’ll elaborate more on opinions related to bait, and catch-and-release questions in a bit, as I see some of what follows will afford more opportunities to do that… but I think saying that we are now “actively promoting” bait fishing is over-stating things.

Question: While long viewed as a “conservation organization”, many anglers now refer to TU as a “fishing club.” This is most likely due to a marked increase in outreach programs such as Youth Camp and Trout in the Classroom promoted at the national level, and events such as fishing derbies, stocked fish fin-clipping and fly tying at the local level. Guest speakers at chapter meetings now often present where-to and how-to. Many feel the emphasis has switched from “fish” to “fishing” over the last five or so years. Is this a national or regional trend, and does TU see this as a good or bad thing?

Answer: Art Neumannn, who was one of the founders of Trout Unlimited, said: “Take care of the fish, and the fishing will take care of itself.” I think it is pretty clear that the “fishing” aspect was at least partly the impetus for why TU was created in the first place, and the organization is still true to the original ideal. So this isn’t a five-year shift, it’s been core to the TU plan and mission for nearly 60 years. Perhaps it’s true that “many anglers” are just starting to notice it. I don’t think good trout fishing is possible without a very strong collective conservation conscience, and I think coldwater conservation is more effective with more families (and individuals) engaged in the sport of trout fishing. Remember that TU has different facets. There is the staff—over 200 professionals in the organization and the vast majority (85 percent) of those people are boots-in-the-water folks, as well as scientists, attorneys, etc., whose sole focus is improving and protecting coldwater fisheries. That’s something no other conservation organization can match. We also have over 155,000 members who volunteer efforts to fix and protect rivers. They add nearly 700,000 volunteer work hours to the mix. That yields an 8 to 1 return on investment in terms of work accomplished for every dollar invested in TU conservation. Now, as far as how TU chapters and councils operate on the local basis, that’s often up to them. Many members join their local chapters for camaraderie, and so forth. For example, there isn’t a “native” trout in Texas now, but the Guadalupe River chapter is TU’s largest. And yes, they have social events, including their “Troutfest.” And money raised at that event goes straight into teen education and camps, even river restoration projects that aren’t even close to Texas. So you tell me… is that a good thing, or a bad thing? I like to think that concerned anglers in Texas who make a difference for trout throughout North America are awesome. In Denver, the local chapter organizes a “Carp Slam” tournament. It’s a blast, and it raises money that gets funneled right toward trout projects. Is that losing sight of the mission (carp fishing is blasphemy to some!) or thinking outside the box to support the broader mission? I think it’s clearly the latter.

Question: What would you say to those who feel “Trout in the Classroom” sends the wrong message: That trout come from an aquarium and that releasing trout from a secondary source into the wild is OK. With all the problems we are experiencing across the nation with respect to stocking and “bucket biology”, are you at all worried that the kids will get confused and see husbandry as a valid form of fisheries management?

Answer: I think getting kids fired up about trout at any age is a good thing. My wife is fifth-grade teacher, and I know that anything “visual” is a huge learning aid. I think fostering some care and interest in trout among students is important. As such, I think Trout in the Classroom is great. I also think “bucket biology” is wrong and harmful. But I don’t think observing the growth of trout… teaching the science behind trout and salmon … and then releasing fish according to the regulations, is “bucket biology.” “Bucket biology” is, by definition, someone without expertise spreading and stocking species without knowledge of the authorities. That’s an apples and oranges comparison. Let’s get kids jazzed about trout. There’s no downside to that. I’m 1,000 times more concerned about Nature Deficit Disorderthan I am concerned that a kid who sees trout grow in a tank in his/her classroom would become a “bucket biologist.” I would challenge those who feel TIC sends the wrong message to sit in on a class with a TIC tank, listen to a session on trout habits, biology—or, even better, the story of salmon. That's what TIC is about. Releasing the fish? That’s the gravy for the kids. By the time they let a few dozen fish loose, they’ve already learned the important things.

Question: The article “State of the Trout” in the Summer 2015 edition of TROUT magazine painted a pretty bleak picture for many of the nation’s wild native trout. How do you justify saying "There is true value in killing a few fish for dinner” in TROUT magazine last edition without prefacing it with a request that you do not harvest wild native fish, especially rare fish such as sea-run brook trout, Arctic char and Yellowstone cutthroat?

Answer: The story that triggered this question is Tom Reed’s “Worms” essay in the Spring 2017 issue of TROUT. It’s a first-person essay, in which Tom recounts his own childhood experiences of fishing for trout, with worms. To suggest that this one, personal, essay has signaled a shift in TU mindset to “actively promote” bait fishing is flatly not true. To wit, I’ve been working with my 16-year-old son on SAT prep. For the English section, you have to read an essay (or an excerpt), and then deduce what it really means. To prepare for the test, students are taught that there’s at least one “totally nonsense” answer that you can eliminate. For kicks, I had my son read the Tom Reed essay then look at some potential answers describing the message of the piece. The “totally nonsense” answer that he tossed out right away was that TU is “promoting bait fishing and killing fish.” To those of you who interpret this essay as anything other than an homage, or a personal reflection of how a young boy grew attached to fishing for trout, I am sorry, as that was not its intent. I would only add that Tom Reed has done more to protect and restore wild and native trout in this country than 99.9 percent of anyone who read his piece, and feel free to check his record on that. The final kicker to this question is a question to you. How did you (anyone who’s reading this) learn to fish? Was it some patient adult who stood next to you as you struggled as a 5-year-old to master the “upstream and dry" technique with a bamboo 4-weight? Or was it that same adult who helped you bait a hook, told you generally where to cast it, and let you get the timing down between the thumb-release lever on the Zebco 33 and the cast? If it is the former, you're a rarity. The latter? You're just like most of us.

Question: It is generally accepted that bait fishing, including worms, comes with a 30-35% incidental mortality rate, meaning that 1-out-of-3 trout caught and released using bait die. How do you justify saying “Bait makes fishing fun, and fun is not just for kids", without prefacing it with a request that you do not use bait over wild native fish, especially rare fish such as sea-run brook trout, Arctic char and Yellowstone cutthroat?

Answer: I didn’t say that; Tom Reed said that in the context of his essay. But I will say that the first trout I ever caught, I caught on a worm that my grandfather put on a snelled hook, when I was fishing with him in northern Michigan. And now I’m the editor of TROUT Magazine, and a contributing editor for Field & Stream. I am extremely fortunate to have a chance travel all over the country (and the world) to write about trout and salmon… with a strong focus on conservation. I’ll let my record regarding trout conservation, passion for fly fishing, catch-and-release, etc., stand on its own merits. But I would not deny the irony that most of what I do (and write) today at least had some sort of genesis with a worm and a hook. To the extent that I, as editor of TROUT, might affect a similar phenomenon, I am completely committed to that. I hope the person who will be editor of Trout magazine in 2056 is fishing with his or her grandpa now… and if he or she is using worms to catch stocked trout, that’s absolutely fine by me. I do not, however, advocate using bait for wild/native fish, and I don’t fish for any trout or salmon with bait myself anymore (it’s been about 30 years).

Question: It is common knowledge that fishing with live bait, minnows, is behind many of the invasive fish infestations we are experiencing. As they say, “to use live bait is to lose live bait.” And like worms, live bait comes with a 30-35% incidental mortality rate, and even higher with ice fishing. How do you justify saying “Bait makes fishing fun, and fun is not just for kids" without prefacing it with a statement that precludes using live fish as bait?

Answer: The story was titled “Worms.” I think worms are fairly common “entry-level” practice. I think TU is pretty clear on its stance against aquatic invasive species and has done much to combat that issue. I accept the concern about live bait and minnows, and pledge to be more cautious and conscientious in that regard going forward. It’s a very good point, albeit somewhat narrow when, after a good review of TU archives in recent years, I can't locate a single piece of literature that promotes fishing with minnows or other potentially invasive species.

Question: The term “catch-and-release”, once common in TU literature and merchandise, and long a part of the TU logo, is now all but gone from the medias and consumer products. I can find only one product with “Catch & Release” on it: The awkwardly named “Retro TU Hat” (Retro: A style that is consciously derivative or imitative of trends, music, modes, fashions, or attitudes of the recent past.) Why has TU moved away from catch-and-release?

Answer: TU hasn’t moved away from catch-and-release. And “Retro” specifically referred to the style of the hat. The fact is, Trout Unlimited has done more to instill a catch-and-release ethic among anglers than any other organization, ever, bar none… and that started long before I ever got involved with the organization, first as a member (life member) and, later, as a staffer. Trout Unlimited knows, however, that catch-and-release isn’t a panacea. We encourage catch-and-release in most places, because that reflects the Lee Wulff ethic that most gamefish are too valuable to be caught only once. What's more, we've gone beyond catch-and-release, and are now preaching, on a regular basis, the #KeepEmWet mantra that not only asks that fish be returned to the river, but also returned as healthy as possible. But there are caveats and considerations… First, catch-and-release angling, done poorly, is a significant detriment to trout populations. The angler who lands 50 fish a day, and holds them all out of the water for photos, leaving them gasping for a minute or more, is possibly doing far more damage to the resource than the angler who tucks three hard-earned fish into a creel at the end of the day. We covered that issue, specifically, in a feature by Erin Block titled, “At What Price Glory?” (Fall 2013). We know, for a fact, that fish mortality happens, even after catch-and-release. We know that the limit a fish should be out of water is 10 seconds, period. We support the above-mentioned “Keep ‘em Wet” initiative, and as you leaf through TROUT magazine now, you’ll see that ideal reflected on our pages. Our last cover, for example, was an underwater shot… not a coincidence. Another important aspect to consider, however, is that killing and keeping one type of fish can help another type of fish. In the next issue of TROUT, we’re going to run a story that talks about how anglers need to kill more rainbow trout (and eat them) on the South Fork of the Snake (written by Dan Garren of Idaho Fish & Game), in order to save the native cutthroats. It’s very difficult to apply a “catch-and-release” standard as the “gold standard” in all riversheds, in all situations, all the time. And I believe it’s only responsible to tune into the different nuances and situations as best we can. Speaking personally, I cannot remember the last time I killed a trout. That said, I’ve also sat with elders of the Yup’ik tribe in Alaska, who think catch-and-release is disrespectful to the animal. There are some who see this as “playing with your food.” There are editors at Field & Stream whom I deeply respect, who simply do not accept the catch-and-release philosophy (you don’t paintball deer or elk for fun, do you?). There are countries that mandate learning how to dispatch a fish as a condition for getting a fishing license in the first place. And, as mentioned, there are some places and situations where removing fish from a watershed actually helps other (native/wild) fish in that watershed. The point is that catch-and-release is a very complex discussion, and there’s simply no “one-size-fits-all” way to approach it. It’s far more reasonable and prudent, in my mind, to look at catch-and-release on a situation and regional basis, and encourage that when it is done, it’s done effectively. That’s exactly what TU is doing.

Question: TU’s Mission Statement is “To conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.” The term “fishery” is defined as “the occupation or industry of catching or rearing fish.” Wikipedia says, “See also: fishing and fishing industry.” As a “conservation” organization, the term “fish” would seem more appropriate than the term “fishery.” Is this an oversight, or was it a deliberate choice of words?

Answer: I’d revert back to the Art Neumann quote, from a founder of TU… “Take care of the fish, and the fishing will take care of itself.” We can dally around in semantics all we want, but we all care about fish, and a lot of that is based in our interests in catching fish. Speaking for TU, I can also say that protecting and restoring those "fisheries" is good for everyone.

Question: Most of the conservation-oriented editorial on TU’s website and in TROUT magazine is about “habitat.” There is very little aboutprotecting fish from angler exploitation and stocking. Conversely, the Native Fish Society promotes “Harvest, Hatcheries, Habitat, and Hydropower.” Does TU believe harvest and hatcheries pose a threat to wild native trout?

Answer: Again, we have to look at every watershed on a case-by-case basis. Of course… in many situations, TU is opposed to hatchery-based management and favors native and wild fish. We don’t want to sacrifice native and wild fish for hatchery fish. That’s why TU is fighting so hard, for example, to protect Bristol Bay and the most prolific wild salmon fishery on the planet. We don’t accept the notion that, if there’s a mining catastrophe, an artificial fishery created through stocked fish could ever replace what’s already there. That said, the fact is that the vast majority of anglers in this country caught a hatched fish as their first fish ever. It’s a balance, and that balance depends almost entirely on the place. As far as harvest is concerned, in some places, harvest of certain species can ensure the viability of native species. We will dedicate all the space that we can to flush out the differences and create a better understanding among anglers of this very complex situation. As for hydro, we're doing our part, having helped negotiate the eventual removal of four dams on the Klamath River that block fish passage from the above-mentioned habitat (one example). We're on the record that, scientifically speaking, the best solution for recovering Northwest salmon and steelhead is via the removal of five dams on the lower Snake River that prevent fish from reaching intact habitat. They go together, because without one, you rarely have the other.

Question: Upon taking over as Editor of TROUT magazine you stated in the “From the Editor” column that you considered it the “written conscience of trout angling.” TROUT had a pretty consistent conservation theme for decades. As you recently announced, you are taking the magazine in a different direction by increasing your coverage of how-to. Did the conscience of trout angling change, or were your predecessors misinterpreting it?

Answer: I do want TROUT to be a conscience. And lest anyone misinterpret that, let me be clear right here… TROUT is not becoming a “how-to” magazine. By adding some tips, and some product reviews, etc., which we have been doing for years, we’ve increased our page count, and as such, our readers are actually receiving more conservation content than they were five years ago, when the magazine was much smaller that it is now. Add to that our daily digital content that is a solid mix of conservation and fishing, and TU members and others are getting more out of Trout Unlimited, in terms of conservation. What's more, we're attracting more anglers to TU, and engaging them in fishing ... and the conservation that makes good fishing happen. If we're not growing and sharing, we're not cultivating the next generation of conservation-minded anglers. Put it this way, Bob… Do you really think I would roll back my involvement with Field&Streambecause I wanted to go make a “how-to” magazine for Trout Unlimited? For Field&Stream I was writing (and I still write) how-to stories for the oldest and biggest outdoors brand in the world. We measure those audiences in millions. I was already safely ensconced on the biggest, baddest how-to platform on the planet. That’s like playing for the Yankees (okay, for some of you in Maine, the Red Sox). Do you think I want to go compete against my friends and colleagues there? No, I came to TU because I have a conservation conscience. I cannot justify making a living off of writing about a sport I love so much, without trying to put something back. It’s as simple as that. If I use some proven techniques that sprung out my experiences of playing big league ball for the past 15 or so years, I feel obligated to do that… for the benefit of conservation.

Question: You also stated, “Part of me fears putting dings in a classic” in reference to TROUT magazine. You went on to say “…the otherpart wants to stand on the gas pedal and see what this baby can do.” It is fair to say you are now “see[ing] what this baby can do.” Why did you abandon a theme, “conservation”, that had been in place for decades, and does this imply a change of direction at theorganizational level as well as at the magazine level?

Answer: We didn’t abandon the conservation theme. Any notion to the contrary is simply incorrect. We gave the magazine more personality and soul. You see more faces, and fewer bulldozers in TROUT now. There are more families in TROUT magazine now. Reader satisfaction is way up. Advertising support from the industry is way up. Pages are way up. We’re expanding our digital and social media presence, and our web traffic is way up. Our bounce rate is way down (which is good). Engagement with the younger demographic is way up. We have more women contributors and editors in the mix than ever, and that’s been met with positive response. We're engaging more people in fishing and conservation than we ever have before. So we are on the gas, and it’s humming along. Nicely.

Question: You recently wrote, “…Now, we’re also going to pay more attention to helping you catch those trout… But we’re going to step up our ‘how-to’ efforts. You’ll see more of that in [TROUT] magazine, starting with this issue, almost entirely focused on ‘skills.’” With numerous "how-to” centric fly fishing publications out there, and no other conservation-centric publications, why do you feel TROUT magazine should increase its focus on tackle and technique, and does this mean there will be less conservation-oriented editorial going forward?

Answer: The operative word there is “also.” Some people apparently missed that, and for that, I apologize for not being clearer. I, like the rest of you, realize that there are plenty of “how-to” fly-fishing magazines already, although that number is dwindling. We’re going to stick to conservation, but we’re ALSO going to do some tips and tricks, and most of that is happening and will happen online. We’re going to cover policy and politics, but we’re ALSO going to do some gear reviews. We’re going to give members (and non-members/interested anglers) more avenues to connect with TU, without losing sight of the issues, and most definitely, without losing touch with what we are charged to do. Every issue we do now has a theme. Past themes have included “State of the Trout” and “Mentorship”… “Culture” (which is why we ran a native Alaskan title on the cover of the winter 2017 issue) and the last issue was “Skills.” The “Skills” issue was intended to kick-start a book by TU members called Trout Tips. It involves tips for fishing from members throughout North America, and all the money goes back to TU… to help in the mission of improving habitat, education and so forth. I can tell you that the next issue will have a theme of “Wild/Native.” We’re going to run many stories on issues ranging from acid rain and brook trout, to the recovery of the Skagit in Washington, to Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Wyoming, and more. Most of that is clearly conservation-driven. Anyone expecting tips will be disappointed because there aren’t any in there (although response to the last “Skills” issue has been overwhelmingly positive). The Fall 2017 issue is going to have a “Legacy” theme, and we’re working on stories on the Wyoming Range, families that have affected great fishing through generations, etc. The Winter issue has a theme of “Art.” That will be heavy on Dave Whitlock and others. But “art” magazines shouldn’t worry that we’re getting into their space… and the how-to fishing magazines don’t have to worry about us either. We’re also revamping our website, to make that more effective. In time, most of our “media effort” is going to be digital. We’ve researched this extensively, and we know that most fly consumers (particularly younger fly anglers) don’t surf around the Internet looking for sites that tell them about problems with rivers and ask them for money. They want service. They want to know how to tie flies, and catch fish, etc. So we’re going to give them that. But guess what… when they click back to find the fly recipe, they’re also going to be greeted with all the information on the issues of the day, and asked to take action, etc. The metrics have already proven all of this… we’re getting more clicks on our digital conservation content now, just by having some service content in the same neighborhood.

Question: There was an ad for an “Uncle Henry Fillet Knife” in the Summer 2016 edition of TROUT. As you know, fillet knives serve one purpose only: Preparing fish for cooking. Some would see this as inconsistent with TU’s long-standing mission of “protecting” our wild and native trout. What say you?

Answer: I say a good filet knife is important so you don’t cut yourself when you’re cleaning fish. I haven’t killed a trout in years, and I certainly don’t advocate killing wild or native fish (most of all, not in places where regulations forbid that). But I might pick up an Uncle Henry knife for the next time I go jigging for walleye. The majority of TU members say they fish for many different species, using different types of tackle. And, as I mentioned above, there are many TU anglers who live in places where trout are neither wild nor native, and the "put and take" fisheries that are provided by state fish and game agencies depend on angler harvest. Otherwise, when waters warm in the summer, those hatched trout in those places where they don't naturally occur simply die. Knowing how to filet a fish is a skill.

Question: It is common-knowledge within the fly fishing industry that TU, or more accurately TROUT magazine, is pursuing paid advertisements from tackle vendors, lodges, guides, etc., more aggressively than they have in the past. What would you say to those who see this as a potential conflict of interest, and a threat to the integrity and objectivity of TROUT and TU?

Answer: The fact of the matter is that TU invests more in the fly-fishing industry than the industry invests back in TU, on a roughly 3-1 basis. And that’s before you start to consider that TU is doing most of the heavy lifting on behalf of the natural resources that support much of the fly-fishing industry to begin with (over half the fly rods sold in the United States on an annual basis are 9-foot, 5-weights). TROUT is even better positioned to “call it like it is”… certainly more so than a for-profit private or corporate publishing entity that depends on ad revenue to survive. Any ad revenue we make goes toward defraying the cost of ink and paper, so we can spend more on rivers, lakes and fish. Market dynamics are driving this too. Product manufacturers want to touch the TU demographic, which represents the most dedicated consumers in the space. TROUT has the largest, stable print subscribership in fly fishing. Its CPM value is better than any other magazine in the space. And manufacturers know the money goes into a nonprofit that takes care of resources. If anything, TU and Trout Media are positioned to offer more candor and objectivity than anyone else in the space. I’m glad you raised the question. Thank you.

Question: Cabela’s is the number one purveyor of high-impact fishing tackle including treble and bait hooks, bait, soft baits, lead weights, minnow traps, bait buckets, fish stringers, filet knifes, fish skinners, cleaning stations and fish storage bags. How does TU justify promoting a company whose products put wild and native fish at risk via “Gear We Like” tackle awards (two of which appeared in the Summer 2015 edition of TROUT), gear give-a-ways, etc., and at the expense of fish-friendly companies such as Orvis, Patagonia and Simms?

Answer: Cabela’s is the number-one purveyor of all fishing tackle in the country, including fly fishing, and we’d be stupid not to work with them. (We’d like more support from Cabela’s, if the new owners at Bass Pro Shops are listening). We didn’t review any treble hooks or soft baits, etc. We reviewed trout-related products that are less expensive than some of the other alternatives on the market now. It’s important to review lower-cost products and not just premium-priced products. For the record, and to perhaps correct a misconception, TROUT magazine actually did a feature on “The Most Trout Friendly Companies in America,” and Orvis, Patagonia and Simms were all included in that.

Question: Based on what I have seen and heard, and I believe it is fair to assume this is just the tip of the iceberg, the recent policy changes at TU and TROUT magazine have resulted in some level of membership cancellations. Did TU anticipate this, and is TU willing to continue to lose long-term members to try to reach non-traditional members?

Answer: TU membership is actually up. Revenue is up. Corporate support is up. Reader satisfaction with the magazine is at an all-time high. I’m sorry to see that there are some on your thread who have quit or are dissatisfied. I know that there are more specific, probably local, reasons for most of that. But there hasn’t been a policy shift—TU is still the foremost coldwater conservation organization in America. We’re trying new things, trying to get more nimble, more responsive to the expressed interests of members, trying to grow more, and trying to get younger. We’re trying to be more diverse and inclusive. We don’t expect everything to work, but we’re trying to get better with our media. For those who are bitter because we’re trying to be better… that’s their choice. But know this: TU support is growing: Our social media footprint is significant (120,000 Facebook followers, 32,000 Twitter followers and an Instagram following closing in on 50,000), and we're using these tools to, first and foremost, spread the trout conservation gospel.

Question: Were the recent policy changes regarding TU and TROUT magazine decided by rank-and-file members, the National Leadership Council, Board of Trustees or the TU management team?

Answer: There were no “policy” changes. The creative direction we’ve taken the magazine has been my call as editor. The buck stops withme. I did (and do) run the general plan by senior management, and the board, and even the rank-and-file. I don’t operate in a vacuum.

Question: It is my understanding that TU has a policy against chapters being involved in stocking over wild fish. Does the policy extend to stocking in general, and if not, where exactly does TU draw the line? If chapters are in violation of the policy, what can be done to stop them? Lastly, is there a mechanism by which concerned anglers can report violations of TU’s stocking policy?

Answer: TU supports the protection and restoration of wild and, especially, native fish. There are some chapters that do stock local waters, and, of course, national leadership prefers they didn't. That said, our chapters are given a wide purview to be responsive to local membership and local volunteers. It's our hope that these chapters will see the harm they are doing to the resources in question, and it falls to national staffers to educate local chapters on best practices.

Question: What is TU’s policy regarding legislation? Specifically, are chapters allowed to submit and/or support state-level legislation, and do you see this as a valid and useful tool for gaining protection for wild native fish?

Answer: Our chapters are not only allowed to be involved in state and regional legislative initiatives, but also encouraged to be active in protecting trout and salmon resources in their backyards. We're seen this last winter a huge hue and cry from TU chapters and state councils in the West over the ongoing efforts of some state legislatures to transfer public lands to states where they will more than likely be sold to the highest bidders. We've seen local chapters in the upper Midwest get involved in CAFO issues; chapters and councils in the Northeast led efforts to gain new national monuments or oppose wrong-headed mining efforts. No, the relationship between national TU and our chapters isn't always perfect. But we understand and recognize that our grassroots army is perhaps our greatest strength.

Question: What is TU’s policy regarding federal and state ESA listings? Specifically, does TU support/allow chapters to get behind efforts to use the ESA to gain protection for wild native fish?

Answer: This is a good question. The simple answer is yes, but, as with any complex situation, there are caveats. For instance, there have been efforts to list native strains of cutthroat trout in the West, which could very likely prohibit anglers from pursuing these fish, even on a catch-and-release basis, and put onerous restrictions on landowners, guides, outfitters, farmers, ranchers and so on. TU rarely goes to court—it's our preference, and it's proven to be successful, to collaborate with interested parties and hammer out solutions that prevent the listing of trout species by encouraging proactive efforts to protect them. This has happened with Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the South Fork of the Snake (and on Yellowstone Lake), Bonneville cutthroat trout in the Bear River drainage and in other locations across America. This approach creates allies, not enemies. It encourages cooperation, not vitriol. And it works. That said, in some cases, listing might be the only tool left to save a fish. Local chapters and councils can support those efforts, but we encourage them to exhaust all other options first.

I undertook the exercise due to a genuine, and I believe well-founded, concern that TU was drifting away from its long-standing, clear and effective message regarding the conservation of

our wild and native salmonid resources. I come from an era when generalist “sportsmen”, “sporting” publications and high-impact fishing were the norm. I watched as generalists were

replaced with specialists, sporting publications with fly fishing publications and high-impact angling with low-impact angling. I saw conservation-minded fly fishers break ranks with high-impact anglers and form groups like TU to try to save our wild and native fish. I watched these

groups bring our wild and native fish back from the brink. Having TU, the largest and most visible advocacy group for salmonids, change to a more generalist fishing platform would be

bad for trout, trout fishing and fly fishing. In doing so they could cause us to fall back into the “bad old days” when trout were viewed as table fare and anything anglers could do to be more effective at catching them was deemed acceptable regardless of its impact. I believe walking away from something that has worked for decades and back into what got us in trouble in the

first place is wrong-headed, dangerous and bad for all involved – especially the resource.