Diskusijas par tauvas joslu citās valstīs.

Viena lasītāja vēstule par tauvas joslas tēmu lika man nedaudz tuvāk iepazīties ar diskusijām par šo tēmu ASV. Var teikt, ka arī ASV nepārtraukti notiek diskusijas par publisko pieeju upēm. Pie tam pieeja un likumi dažādos štatos ir atšķirīgi. Viena no lielākajām nacionālajām sabiedriskajām organizācijām, kura darbojas upju aizsardzības jomā, ir Trout Unlimited (TU) . Tās mērķis ir upju vides aizsardzība, izmantojot cilvēku interesi par makšķerēšanu.
Man ar šīs organizācijas vadītājiem (Earl S. Vorsham, Steve Lundy) nācās tikties,
kad 1986. un 1987.gadā viņi bija ieradušies Krievijā ar nolūku veidot attiecības ar makšķerniekiem uz Kolas pussalas lašupju bāzes. Es tajā laikā biju Rosohotribolovsojuz komandas treneris, viesojos Maskavā un dažreiz piedalījos arī sarunās ar ārzemniekiem.

Zemāk pievienoti daži no konteksta izrauti tipiskākie rakstu un lasītāju komentāru citāti par šo tēmu.

To be successful as a national conservation organization, TU must be able to enlist anglers and landowners, among others, in a common cause. ... TU must reckon with two simple facts: that many of those waters run through private land that is not publicly accessible, and that many landowners are understandably reluctant to work with a group whose motives they perceive as mixed.” From a national standpoint, the access issue is incredibly complicated, said Kirk Otey, TU's National Leadership Council chairman. Every state addresses the issue differently.

“In many areas, public access is simply not an issue,” Otey said. “For instance, in North Carolina where I live, 90 percent of the cold-water habitat is found on national forest lands and there isn't a problem with access. ... In the Midwest, almost all the cold-water habitat is on private lands. It's just night and day.”

Trout Unlimited got its start in 1959. Montana Trout Unlimited formed the following year. Public access to Montana's waterways has always been an important issue for the state organization. 140,000 grassroots members across the country.

National Trout Unlimited retreats from access stance

By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian

And Montana has become ground zero for the debate. The right to walk along a river or stream and cast for rising trout below the high water line, which is written into Montana law, is certainly one of the most powerful advantages of living in Montana, both in the freedom it offers, and in something less easily defined—a recognition that some things are so
beautiful and important that no one should be able to deny them to others. That unique recognition helps define the state, and is one of the reasons so many people across the nation revere the place (and want to move there). But as the state becomes more crowded, that public right, always a delicate balance of goodwill on the part of the public and the landowners, becomes ripe for misuse by people for whom fishing or swimming is secondary to their anger at the wealthy.

Fights like those dramatically illustrated that a conservation organization could not afford to involve itself in a battle that began with some local fishermen calling up the newspaper and a game warden and then testing the stream access law by venturing onto the property of Huey Lewis and taking big trout within sight of his windows. It began as a clear case of using the access law as a boot to kick sand in the face of a conservation-minded landowner who had undertaken, at his own expense, work to restore fisheries and habitat on his property Wildlife conservation depends absolutely upon the public trust, or wildlife as a commons. It is clear that TU has abandoned the public trust in favor of private power and greed.
TU has made a choice is what truly is a class war that is manifesting itself in every part of American life to destroy the public good and replace it with elite, private power, which is tyranny.

Where that class war is most symbolic as well as down and dirty is in wildlife and land use. Look at the history of game management in Europe, which may summed up as the "problem of the King's Deer." In the American system, sometimes called the "North American Model of Wildlife Management," the King's Deer became the Peoples' Deer, and wildlife prospered because we all had access to it, because we all had a stake in it. Private rights did not trump public responsibilities. TU seems to prefer the European model, which is one of feudalism, perverse aristocracy, and facism, where the rich and powerful control access to land and wildlife, not to mention everything else.

I would not hazard saying that I understand everything here but I don't see this changing much of what TU does. Remember, TU is not a fishing club.
TU is a cold water resources group. I see TU saying that they are no longer going to get into these long drawn out expensive battles over access. Access does not necessarily conserve cold water resources, so may not fit the goal of the organization. I don't see it saying that they won't promote access, just that they are not going to spend money, that could go toward fixing cold water habitat, fighting over it.
TU's greatest strength is its ability to mobilize a nation-wide membership of conservation-minded anglers. TU has built this membership by recognizing that when people develop a passion for fishing, they develop a passion for conservation. While TU is not a fishing club, its activities have always included things that promote an interest in fishing, including fly-tying demonstrations, casting lessons, kid's fishing days, and preserving stream access.

It is unrealistic for any of you to overlook the reality of that old truism regarding "... give an inch ... they take a mile ..." when you expect any private property owner to meet your demands.

That IS the reality of it all for many private property owners. Private property is not only owned by the mega-rich of the world. A large portion of it is owned by people who have worked hard to purchase what they own and have sacrificed much to do so.

And if you buy land in Montana, you buy it KNOWING that the public has a right of way on the river that runs through it. Hope you can adjust.

The truth of the matter is that the river access always belonged to the public and that recent court decisions are only a recognition of this public ownership.


Perhaps it would help if people would take the time to differentiate between WATER and LAND.
WATER: include/differentiate the often-quite-different rulings of the courts re navigable water vs. non-navigable water.
LAND: include/differentiate the often-quite-different rulings of the courts re land under water vs. land surrounding water.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson

Trout Unlimited Proposes Backing Out of Stream Access Debate

By Hal Herring, 3-15-07
13. 04. 2008.

  Seko jaunumiem Facebook

two comments

zaraza zaraza - 14-04-’08 20:13

Palasīju oriģinālos komentārus. Diskusija atgādina tās, kas brīžiem uzvirmo vietējos forumos, tikai argumentētāk un korektāk, bez dūru un intīmo ķermeņa daļu vicināšanas :) Personāžs “Rose Mary”, kas pārstāv zemes īpašnieku viedokli liek galdā visus tos pašus argumentus kas aktuāli Latvijā, par piemēslošanu, čurāšanu utml. cūcībām, piesauc nodokļus un svētās īpašuma tiesības. Atbilde, kas vistuvāk sakrīt ar manu viedokli un stāvokli Latvijā bija:

Your comments are fair, reasonable, shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. I almost would agree with them myself. However, your comments are based on the assumption that access to the streams is being taken away from landowners and given to the public.

“The truth of the matter is that the river access always belonged to the public and that recent court decisions are only a recognition of this public ownership. In light of this fact, your comments are understandable, but unfounded.

The sidewalk analogy is a good one.”

zaraza zaraza - 13-04-’08 18:55

“ some things are so beautiful and important that no one should be able to deny them to others”


piekrītu 100% :)

Tauvas josla ir tāds pats apgrūtinājums, kā teiksim elektrolīnija vai ceļa aizsargjosa un zemes īpašniekiem ar to jārēķinās kā jau te rakstīts par Montanu:
“And if you buy land in Montana, you buy it KNOWING that the public has a right of way on the river that runs through it. Hope you can adjust”

Tas ir tikai viens komentārs. Turpat ir citi, no kuriem izriet, ka pati tauvas josla daudzos štatos tiek traktēta dažādi. Ja šī tēma interesē, orģināla avotā ir arī citi interesanti komentāri.

(optional field)
(optional field)
Ieraksts nepieciešams tikai, lai šeit neparādītos automātisku komentāru sūtījumi.
Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.
© Copyright JST 2017-2020. All rights reserved.