It's Official- Sierra Club is a member of ASA/ICAST

[Lane]

We are members of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) which

hosts ICAST. We received our ASA newletter yesterday, and Sierra Club is listed as a new member. Thats not all we received. Tony also

received a very disturbing envelope from Sierra Club asking him sign

a petition that would protect endangered species ON THEIR LIST.

They also solicited his membership, they sure didn't waste any time

spamming the ASA membership for the disguisting propaganda!

The Sierra Club is against most forms of recreational sportfishing,

with the exception of fly fishing for trout. They are against ALL hunting

on public lands. They opppose tournament angling, live bait angling,etc. The wolf is in the hen house!

Their agenda is to fracture the only influential organization that they

sportfishing industry has (ASA) with their membership.

IMO, this recent event is major blow to recreational sportfishing and

the industry! I AM LIVID! >

[firefightn15]

I assume that means that there is no prerequisit for membership? How far behind is PETA

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/353415_joel03.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05042004.html

[Paul Roberts]

That's not the Sierra Club I've known. Putting biological integrity ahead of industry interests (whether mining, drilling, or commercial fishing or even recreational fishing) certainly does not warrant damnation, nor further propaganda.

Give us some specific examples so we can research them and make informed decisions about this accusation.

[Lane]

Sorry Paul, I disagree, which is my right! While I do support several

of the environmental issues, I do NOT support their stance on recreational sportfishing and hunting. I especially do not support their

political agenda, and we don't appreciate being spammed by them.

I do not support the closing of access roads on federal lands, nor do

I support the reintroduction of wolves in certain areas that surround

PRIVATE agricultural ranches. Conflicts that result in casualties on

both sides have resulted in some of these introductions.

I am a scientist, and I do support good management practices, which

include sportfishing and hunting to control populations and provide

wholesome recreation. There will always be a few bad apples in every

group, but most of the public funding for conservation and management comes from sportfishing and hunting. We are the ONLY user group that provides the majority of the funding to support fishery

stocking programs, management, and habitat restoration. I used to

be a member of Sierra Club ( back in my young and dumb college days), and I was disappointed to learn that a large amount of their funding goes to political candidates.

Here is where you can view their position on sportfishing and hunting.

www.sierraclub.org/sierrasportsmen/

As a scientist, I do not support their stance on global warming. They

present their postition that human influence is responsible for global

warming as fact, and in the scientific community it is still considered a

theory. With that being said I do support efforts for curtailing emissions due to human health. The jury is still out on global warming,

and I for one am not willing to state theory as fact.

Last but not least, I am a member of ASA and I seriously doubt that

most of us will support their membership.

[Lane]

When you go to the link, go to the left of the page and click on

Policy of sporthunting and fishing.

I do not support closure of public access due to endangered species,

unless absolutely necessary.

[Lane]

Here is the VILE petition that they sent.

Petition to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker of the House Nancy

Pelosi

Petition to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Having failed to outright destry the Endangered Species Act during their more than seven years in office, officials within the Bush Administration are now attempting to greatly weaken this important protective measure by cutting funding for the Act and delisting threatened species like the WOLF.

For the benefit of their special interest friends in the oil industry, the logging industry, and commercial development, they are making it more difficult to protect species, while making it easier for these special interests to exploit the habitat of endangered species.

I urge you to act, and do everything in your power to thwart efforts by

the Bush Administration to weaken and destroy the Endangered Species Act.

Thank You,

My husbands name and address

Sorry, but using our membership to ASA to gain access to our private

mailing address is OFFENSIVE to us!  I currently agree with the delisting of several species from endangered to threatened including the wolf. This delisting was based upon sound science from wildlife biologists within the US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. I agree with

firefightn15 links that were provided, they don't even stick to their

OWN policies, which they STATE are based upon VAILD BIOLOGICAL

SCIENCE!

AT least with PETA, what you see is what you get!

[roadwarrior]

I think the Sierra Club and PETA are one in the same with overlapping

membership. Their goals are the same and their methodology is , too!

I wouldn't trust anything they have to say.

8-)

[burleytog]

The Sierra Club is no different than PETA, HSUS, or Greenpeace. Hell, throw Earth First and all of the other looney, bat crazy environmental and animal rights groups in there.

[Lane]

BINGO! Now they are members of ASA. At the very least, they will fracture the organization.  Here in Texas, we are taking matters into

our own hands by getting a petition signed for a consitutional amendment that would protect Texan's right to hunt and fish.

I am not going to wait for the other shoe to drop!

[firefightn15]

There is an old adage that goes "divide and conquer".  As many already know, most with an ardent agenda can make it work.  Sometimes too good!  Look what did to themselves in Mich.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25708115/

They are in bed with THEIR enemy.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[Paul Roberts]

Lane, your RIGHTS were never questioned. The information you are presenting is what I'm asking about. Don't confuse the two.

Here's what you had me read:

About Sierra Sportsmen, and the Sierra Sportsmen Network:

The Sierra Sportsmen Network is a countrywide, thousands-strong group of conservation-minded anglers and hunters. Since the Sierra Club was founded in 1892, hunters and anglers have played a leadership role in our work to preserve the wild places and wildlife all Americans enjoy. We have built this community website for angler and hunters like you, a place to share your passion for the outdoors!

It appears to me that the Sierra Club is following in the enormously successful footsteps of The Nature Conservancy bringing anglers and hunters into the mix. GREAT idea! I always thought that should be done, and have worked toward it. But it's so easy to spook the right. Just as it's so easy to spook the left. If you fear, "divide and conquer", well, unfortunately, it's already here. Many special interests are real experts at this. Maybe a cursory understanding of the issues doesn't serve? Or maybe it does, depending on ones intentions.

I'm going to continue to keep my eye on the ball: The integrity of biological diversity in our increasingly crowded and urbanizing country and world.

Here's the other you had me read:

Sierra Club's Policy On Sport Hunting & Fishing

Wildlife and Native Plant Management, Sport Hunting And Fishing - Wildlife and native plant management should emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy, viable native plant and animal populations, their habitats, and ecological processes. Acceptable management approaches include both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and when consistent with all other management purposes and when necessary total protection of particular species or populations.

Because national parks are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife, the Sierra Club is opposed to sport hunting in national parks.

Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, December 10-11, 1994.

Sounds an awful lot like what you suggested, Lane. I'm surprised you can't find common ground there. I have no issue with the above statement. And if I had to lose a bass fishery to save an indigenous chub, I might be a bit disappointed, but I'd be all for it. Bass are ubiquitous. I can just go down the road apiece. Or fish for something else.

Essentially, and here's the issue at hand: The heritage entrusted to us, the biological integrity of our land and water, is not just another plaything.

The other links offered illustrate the inner workings of an organization working its way through the political minefield this country is. (As evidenced by this very thread.)

As to global warming, the "controversy" is pretty much over. Where have you been? The EPA actually finally went against "the inner circle" of the Bush administration and stated what's become the present understanding: That global warming is supported by too many facts to be ignored. And that's where things stand within the administration. Elsewhere things are moving at a more rapid clip including the energy industry itself. You are standing on antiquated ground, my friend. Or, you are more political pundit than scientist. I remember Bush's response speech, where he suggested sunblock and sunglasses. Kinda like the Be proud, Go shopping statement after 9-11.  

And, gosh, if one believes the Bush administration's stance and actions on environmental policy are sound, then... the biological integrity of our land and water really is in trouble. Is it? Or isn't it? What's your take on that question?

Hunting will disappear -whether our cold dead fingers are wrapped around our guns or not. It'll go because the natural world will continue to lose constituency.

The enemy is not "us", (the anglers/hunters) and "them" (the "environmentally aware"). It's those that would exploit our ignorance of each other, and divide us.

[Zel]

I remember in the 70's that all the world's climatologiest agreed we were headed for global cooling and another ice age.  If I recall correctly, there was no more need to debate the subject back then either.

[Glenn]

Ok, this has gone way off topic.  Let's get back to the issue at hand, which is the sierra club joining ASA.

Let's refrain from comments about global warming, or other side conversations.

[firefightn15]

Paul Rogers, I agree with alot of what you are saying, but I still have a hard time with what I consider bending or skewing the morals of conservation.  To me what some of the sierra club offers is a comparison of obeying all the fishing regs, and then willfully keeping one more than regs allow because I did such a good job of obeying the rest of the laws.

Alot of these organizatons are for common goals.  As long as the goals are on THEIR terms.

[Zel]

Glenn's right sorry. For now I will try to keep and open mind on the relationship between the Sierra Club and ASA. But it has been my experience that they seem to be an activist group aimed more at restricting access to public lands than promoting hunting and fishing. And I might be wrong, but I think the Sierra Club has likely done more to close off public lands than any other organization. It would be disingenuous if they were using ASA as a means to progress their own agenda. Hopefully ASA will monitor their actions carefully and not put dollars ahead of values if questionable activities arise.

[Muddy]

Topics like this just burn my butt! Hey Glenn is it cool talk about butt warming instead of Global warming???

[Lane]

Here is a link to an official STATEMENT from Sierra Club and other

organizations on the Aminal Liberation Front website.

www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm

Here is the condensed version of Sierra Club's position just in case entire link with not print out.

"....We should respect the moral right of all creatures to exist, to maintain basic and successful breeding stock, to have essential habitat

protected, to be free of unnecessary predation, persecution, and cruel

and unduly confining captivity....regulated sports hunting may have a place for those who choose to pursue it, but there are more pressing concerns..."

My guess is that those pressing concerns deal with ENDANGERED SPECIES!  

UPDATE!!!!!!!!

I sent an e-mail to the ASA, and the phone rang within 2 MINUTES. It

was Gordon Robertson, who is head of Government Affairs for ASA. I worked with Gordon on many issues in the past.

He stated that he DID NOT KNOW that Sierra Club was listed as a member and was SHOCKED! He also stated that Sierra Club's position

and actions have been in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the sportfishing industry. He stated that ASA DOES INDEED CONSIDER Sierra Club an

animal right group, due to their actions, such as closing of coastal marine areas to sportfishing, closure of roads on FEDERAL LAND (NOT

NATIONAL PARKS) that restrict access to recreational fishing opportunities.

Gordon called me back again, and stated that Sierra Club applied for

membership into the ASA in May and their application HAD NOT BEEN

APPROVED! He also stated that is would NOT be approved in the future. For some reason both the ICAST Buyer's Guide (Addendum)

and the ASA newsletter had them listed as new members, when they

were NOT. He was even MORE SHOCKED about the materials that they

sent us. They are going to investigate this matter, to see how they obtained our name and address. We believe that they obtained it through the ICAST Buyer's Guide, even though Sierra Club was not

listed as a registered attendee of ICAST, many people are able to obtain badges without the proper credentials. Something that will probably change.

IMO, Sierra Club is MORE DANGEROUS than PETA!

[Paul Roberts]

From the Sierra Club:

For over a century, Sierra Club has been dedicated to exploring and protecting the natural world. We are a broad-based conservation organization with a diverse membership. Approximately 20 percent of Sierra Club members reported buying hunting and/or fishing licenses in the past year, and Sierra Club policy explicitly recognizes sport-hunting and fishing as a valuable wildlife management tool. Sierra Club also has an active political program dedicated to conservation, which in 2004 endorsed 40 members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and 19 candidates with an "A" rating or better from the NRA, seven more candidates than in the previous election cycle. Contrary to NRA assertions, the Sierra Club does not have a position on the right to own guns and does not seek to prohibit private ownership of firearms.

From PETA:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights group founded on the belief that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment.

...

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds...

From ALF:

The ALF Mission Statement:

To effectively allocate resources (time and money) to end the "property" status of nonhuman animals.

The Objective of the Mission:

To abolish institutionalized animal exploitation because it assumes that animals are property.

IMO, Sierra Club is MORE DANGEROUS than PETA!

Oh, come on! I'd call THAT a bit radical. And patently untrue.

As Zel mentions, the infiltration of conservation organizations by those with extreme, detached from nature (not to mention weird) objectives is something that must be watched, and acted against appropriately. But let's not fall into the same pit with them.

Firefightin, I am currently PO'd at Trout Unlimited, for a similar discretionary act. But, an organization is as good as it's constituency. We lost the ASPCA to PETA. What a shame, however, they are causing a lot of rolled eyes in the world of the sane. It reminds me of the old Defenders of Wildlife, who started as an AR organization and realized how limited they were. They got smart and became a professional conservation organization. They are focused on Endangered and Threatened species, which deserves advocacy, especially in light of the Bush administration disdain for the value of intact ecosystems.

BTW: Here's another organization worth knowing about: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php?link=board

As to road closings in backcountry areas, here's their statement:

Use the quads God gave you.

[Lane]

First off, If you are going to use my statements as quotations, please

do it in an accurate manner, and don't skew what I post.

I did NOT make any comments about the Bush Administration or their

environmental policies, NOR did I post that I agreed with their environmental policies. I printed the political petition that was sent to

us by Sierra Club. We do not appreciate receiving any UNSOLICITATED political material, either to the left or to the right!

Second, I did not state that global warming was a theory, I CLEARLY

stated the HUMAN INFLUENCE of climatic changes is STILL a theory!

Global warming is not the, "controversy", the theory that human influence is to blame is, and scientists are divided over this. Accuracy please.

If you would like to believe Sierra Club's statement that their organization has a large membership of hunters and recreational

anglers other than flyfishermen targeting trout, so be it. I don't

buy it for ONE MINUTE!

We support habitat conservation for ALL USER GROUPS, not just

hikers!  Anglers and hunters fund most of those efforts, NOT SIERRA CLUB.

Here a breakdown of funding that Sierra Club included:

Influencing PUBLIC POLICY 40.2%

Information and Education  11.9%

Outdoor Activities 8.7%

Membership drives 21.1%

Chapter support 0.7%

Fundraising affliations 3.7%

Fundraising Sierra Club 6.6%

General Administration 7.1%

Looks like their political wheel is WELL FUNDED! Who did you call a political pundit?????

As far as endangered species go, maybe you should check out my bio

at, www.sure-life.com I was one of only a handful of scientists in the US granted permission to export CITES Appendix II chameleons from

Madagascar. I support conservation for habitat of endangered species

within reason in conjunction with good science and stakeholder interests consideration. Closing access to a river due to a few albino salamanders without involvement from all stakeholders, combined with

good scientific data is RADICAL!  

I would also like that our company provides FREE OF CHARGE various chemical formulations to US Fish and Wildlife hatcheries for use on endangered species that assist with survival rates during transport and in treatment of disease.

There is a lot of lip service about endangered species, but what about invasive species. Invasive species are the number one threat to aquatic ecosystems. Both myself and my husband spend countless hours working with state and federal biologists on these issues. We have flown to various parts of the country on our OWN DIME to assist with some of these problems.

I am not the type of person to be railroaded by personal attacks. Nor

do I condone the activities of groups or organizations that put their

agendas above the HUMAN life and well being.

[Paul Roberts]

Why choose the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) site to research Sierra Club's stance on hunting? Why not go right to the primary source?

There is no connection between ALF and SC. That page is NOT a page of organizations affiliated, or even of like objectives, with ALF. The list also includes The National Shooting Sports Foundation and Ducks Unlimited, among others.

And, interstingly, you omitted a sentence:

"is not opposed to sports hunting outside of appropriate sanctuaries such as national parks, provided it is regulatedWildlife animals should not be valued principally in terms of whether they can serve as targetswe should respect the moral right of all creatures to exist, to maintain basic and successful breeding stock, to have essential habitat protected, to be free of unnecessary predation, persecution, and cruel and unduly confining captivityregulated sports hunting may have a place for those who choose to pursue it, but there are more pressing concerns"

Here are your statements that I am calling into question:

The Sierra Club is against most forms of recreational sportfishing, with the exception of fly fishing for trout. They are against ALL hunting on public lands. They opppose tournament angling, live bait angling,etc. ...

Their agenda is to fracture the only influential organization that they sportfishing industry has (ASA) with their membership.

IMO, Sierra Club is MORE DANGEROUS than PETA!

These are at very least strongly biased and at worst, inflammatory and divisive.

Where did the Bush Administration come in? That letter sent by the SC strongly condemns the Bush administration not hunting and fishing. I can understand your issue if the SC misappropriated the ASA mailing list, I suppose... What strikes me odd is the vehemence with which you take a pretty standard SC solicitation letter (given the actions and values of the Bush Administration), and run it into the SC's clandestine plan to destroy hunting and fishing in America, or at least the ASA.

The SC's founder, John Muir was against hunting, but he's been dead a long time and the SC has embraced hunters and anglers, as they rightly should. They want to be effective in resource conservation issues, not side-lined as so many fringe organizations have done to themselves. (And one of the fronts that needs to be handled is at the policy level).

...Sierra Club is encouraging behavior that John Muir condemned in the 19th century, spending $200,000 a year on hunter outreach programs, and hosting an essay competition entitled Why I Hunt?, offering as first prize a $12,700 hunting trip to Alaska.

...

About 20 years ago (Carl) Pope noticed articles in Outdoor Life attacking the Sierra Club as anti-hunting, recounted Washington Monthly managing editor Christina Larson in an April 2006 review of the strengthening alliance between pro-hunting organizations and mainstream environmental charities.

At that point, said Pope, I realized we were dealing with a conscious political strategy to separate rural hunters and fishers from urban environmentalists. It wasn't about hunting and fishing. It was about politics.

Since becoming Sierra Club executive director, Pope has sought common ground with hunters, Larson summarized. Because hunters have clout in the U.S. Senate and other Republican-controlled branches of government, Larson explained, and perhaps also because environmental charities have no fear of losing their non-hunting donor base to charities that take firm anti-hunting positions but win no political victories, the Sierra Club and most of the rest of the green advocacy establishment are actively courting the hook-and-bullet crowd.

...

Here's the link It's an interesting read:

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/06/05/editorials5.06.htm

Sure don't wish to offend you, Lane, really. However, I don't think you are giving the BassResource membership the whole story. And you are choosing a vehemently biased, inflammatory and potentially divisive tack.

I don't appreciate that. And I'm willing to say so.

[Glenn]

Ok guys, this is off-topic again, and is turning into a pillow fight. G'night Irene.