Vice Presidents, Museums, and the State of Our Sport
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 12:06AM Our new friend Dr. Sam Snyder was kind enough to share his thoughts and perspective regarding the Cheney invite to the American Museum of Fly Fishing. Sam is a Professor of Environmental Ethics, a John Daniels Fellow and passionate angler, we're honored to bring his voice to the dialog.
It took me a while to actually put these words down. I wasn’t quite sure about how to handle it all, particularly in the midst of my deep respect for the American Museum of Fly Fishing (AMFF) and all that it stands for - and, in part, because the AMFF supports academics and historians of environmental politics like me. But as one deeply engaged in the history of fly fishing’s environmental politics, the choice of Dick Cheney as the keynote speaker for the annual fund raising dinner deeply troubles me, like it does many others. Beyond my own personal struggle with this choice, however, I think the whole issue gets to larger questions we must all grapple with if we take our sport and its streams seriously.
So, here are a few thoughts:
As both a member of the AMFF and one who has spent many hours in their library, I was surprised that I first heard of this choice, not from the AMFF, but from our friends at Moldy Chum (by way of Ted Williams’ thoughts on the matter). I was outraged! My mind turned not to Cheney’s fly casting or hunting abilities (or lack thereof), but to his environmental record. Seriously, I thought, here is a man who repeatedly ignored varied global human rights accords – so the rights of nature were clearly out the window. Despite a sketchy track record of environment and species protection, those in his camp, such as James Connaughton (the former chair of the Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality under Bush and Cheney), will tout 195,000 acres of marine protection as proof that the Bush/Cheney environmental legacy is defined by “unbouding results.” However, what the politicians fail to note is that those acres of marine protection were traded for an even larger acreage of old growth forest, roadless areas, pristine streams, and endangered species habitat (among many other sins) – all vital to the future of our odd little sport. So, yes, I was upset to see this bit of news regarding Cheney’s invitation. However, when I paused to reflect on it all, I was simultaneously not entirely surprised – which is, in part, what intrigues me. In some ways, I am curious about what the angry response says about us and our views of our sport, as much as it does the issue. Why does it bother us so much? Should we be surprised, really?
It bothers us, because the AMFF is supposed to be one of the hallowed locations of our sport’s history and some of us perceive Cheney as the antithesis to all that we hold dear in our fly casting hands: fish, clean waters, and protected habitat. Despite Ted Williams stating that the “entire fly fishing community is disgusted” with this choice, I suspect that those of us who hate all that Cheney stands for are, in reality, the minority in fly fishing and larger
sporting communities. The entire community is not disgusted, only a few of us. Which is why the AMFF’s choice is not all that surprising.
While numbers might have shifted in recent years, in reality most American “sportsmen,” have supported the likes of Cheney, even in our beloved circles of fly fishers. In part, I believe this is what is so disappointing about it all. We realize that many fly fishers and other sportsmen and sportswomen openly support those who do nothing good for the habitats in which we seek our varied and adored species. So, while in the media, on sites like Moldy Chum, or various blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc., many of us (myself included) have “vocally” protested the selection of Cheney as keynote speaker, there were probably a great number who saw nothing at all wrong with, or even applauded, the choice. After all, he was a vice president who really does enjoy fly fishing (regardless of how good he might be at it). And the collection of presidential angling memorabilia at the AMFF is, for sure, impressive and unique. So in some ways, I don’t necessarily fault the AMFF.
And, my disappointment aside, I will continue to support the AMFF. They have been immensely helpful and gracious with me when I wanted to work in their library for my dissertation research and when they published my work in their journal. However, most importantly, deep down inside I believe in what they stand for in a grander sense. This history is imperative. The history is so significant that I think we should all support it, for reasons I will note below.
Thinking about numbers I wonder how many who are complaining actually support the AMFF financially. The total membership (which costs a mere $40 annually) of the AMFF is barely 2000. This is a paltry percentage of our larger fly fishing numbers. I know, I know. We can’t support every TU, FFF, or other non-profit cause that comes our way. However, if we don’t (or do) like their choices, perhaps we should get more involved. After all, they do watch guard over the material artifacts of our sacred history.
But back to the AMFF. What I have the most problem with, however, is their response to the issue. Beyond the way they handled it, I take issue with their response statement: “Although we work with conservation organizations, conservation is not our issue” (AMFF Director Catherine Comar). While I believe this message is one handed down from the board, and like the choice of Cheney, Comar had little say in the matter, I also believe that the statement is utterly fallacious.
It is fallacious because you cannot separate the very important historical artifacts housed in the AMFF from the issue of the environment and conservation. Their separation, in this case, seems a convenient move for the museum and the moment. In reality the claim is illogical. At the AMFF, in its galleries, on its book shelves, and in its storage rooms, we find the sacred artifacts of our sport (rods, reels, flies) and the stories (both published and written in personal journals) – all of which track the growth of technologies, shifts in rod building, and advances in fly tying. Throughout all of that, however, we also find details of the evolution of our varied ethics and relations to nature, streams, and the fish we pursue with religious passion.
So, to the AMFF, its leadership, and the executive board, I politely argue that you are wrong; the AMFF has everything to do with conservation. This is why I and so many others are drawn to your cause in the first place. Now, I am not asking you to be out rolling boulders, planting willows, and restoring native species. That is, for sure, the work of groups like TU, FFF, and the countless and invaluable grassroots organizations who are getting it done on our streams. However, I hope that you recognize the fallacy in your claim. Everything you do has to do with the preservation of our sport’s history. And, therefore, has everything to do with the conservation of the waters out of which the sport’s history hatched.
It is for those same reasons, however, that I will continue to support your work and the overall aim of the AMFF, all that it represents, and all that it means for understanding how we have grown as anglers and conservationists; where we have gone wrong, and how we can learn from those errors to continually improve our ways of relating to the waters and species that mean so much to us. I hope we all will. If your choice of Cheney angered so many, then we need to get involved and direct the future of the place that protects our holy artifacts.
Sure, I know that many reading this, many in my generation of anglers, are more intrigued by blogs, big fish, flashy pictures, and sexy films. Antiques and museums are not necessarily that cool. I get it. But we must never forget our history – Halford, Haig-Brown, Marinaro, Schwiebert, and so many more. These are the figures who have truly pushed our sport’s boundaries both in terms of techniques and our ethics of conservation. This is why places like the AMFF are so very important. Don’t get me wrong. I, too, love all the great new movies that attempt push our sport deeper and deeper. I support and admire sites like Moldy Chum - I start every morning with a dose of coffee and molded chum. I think that what B2 and EJR are up to is great. However, we must also note that amidst their big pictures, humor, and boundary pushing angling, they profess an important message – fly fishing done “Reel Pure!”
No matter how deep we push the sport, we have to remember and understand that we come from a long, varied, and inspirational history of both famous and anonymous anglers. The stories of that evolving “reel” purity are what places like the AMFF tell. And, by paying attention to that story, we can, as Teeg Stoufer (Recycled Fish) says, all “become better steward of our streams” . . . and our sport. Therefore, in working toward that stewardship, we must all, the AMFF included, remember that in our quests to push the depths of fly fishing, history and conservation are inseparably essential.
I have to thank Teeg Stouffer and Brian Bennett (a.k.a. B2) for encouraging me to finally finish putting these thoughts into words. Also, thanks to B2, EJR, and Moldy Chum for throwing these thoughts out to the fly fishing community. If anyone has any replies on my thoughts and rants, I would love to hear from you (snyderaway@gmail.com). I currently teach environmental ethics at Kalamazoo College in Michigan, I am moving to Alaska in the fall, and in spring 2010 I will be the John H. Daniels Fellow at the National Sporting Library, where I will continue to explore the deep story of our sport’s history and its evolving environmental consciousness.
Reader Comments (39)
Thanks, Dr. Snyder, for posting such a well argued response. I'm glad to see a response to the situation that actually considers the intricacies of the issues rather than a simple knee-jerk response. You are exactly right: we cannot separate these kinds of ecological and institutional issues for the sake of convenience. Thanks for reminding us of that.
Good piece Doc... a few thoughts;
I, as well as speaking for others I'm sure, get tired of having the $ sign thrown in my face everytime I stand up for or against something. If I spent $35.- everytime some group came asking, I would be a great humanitarian... and living on the street. Most that I know give their hard earned cash/time to local issues, as do I. Truth be told, I did not know about the AMFF till this whole Cheney thing came out. I am glad there is such a place. I hope to visit some day. If I do, I will be sure to drop a little something in the pot. With that said, this country is "free", which means, I don't need a "membership" to protest about a particular issue.
Other than that, your piece was well thought. My hope with Cheney is that at some point in his life, before he croaks, he see's the light.... but given his track record, TAGFH!
I think it was a very poor choice on AMFF's part....and with that said, I hope that they see the light at some point to.
a penny...
Deerhawk
Thanks for the kind comments and astute point of difference. Let me say, that I am not saying you should be a member to critique. We all should critique their choice, even if we are not members - because, after all they do keep watch over "our" sacred artifacts.
You are right, if we gave to every cause we would be broke. I am the same way, I don't give to every cause. I am just out of grad school, have debt deeper than I can fathom, and don't have a lot to spare - but I support a few causes, that one for sure. But you are correct, we should if and when we can support local issues, and then work outward from there.
These are, tricky and deeply intertwined issues, that I hope to get a conversation started around. So, thank you for your helpful comments.
cheers
sam
A very well written piece -- conservation and fly angling go hand-in-hand. However, I do find something quite disturbing...I am in the oil business (GASP!!!!). It seems that many of you have great disdain for my profession. I go to work every day to produce hydrocarbons, the hydrocarbons that fuel this country, the hydrocarbons that YOU use EVERYDAY. It is nearly impossible to touch any item in which oil did not play a role in its production. The monitor, keyboard, and various other components making up the very computer you are staring into are petroleum products. Your comfortable lifestyle was made possible by oil.
I am a passionate oilman, fly angler and...conservationist. Yes, it is possible to be a responsible oil producer with a mind for conservation.
"Sam is a Professor of Environmental Ethics"???
Ahhhh HAHAHA hahaha.
Talk about a pointless career choice. How much does that pay anyway.
Your stupid little sport is dying anyway.
Pointless? Possibly to someone like yourself, then again, you've probably also no God, nor have you any sense of community. I pity you, truly.
Dr Sam, thanks for the words. History of the sport, and its involvement in conservation is something that cannot be overlooked. It cannot be disregarded, neither can it be allowed to be destroyed by someone with such abhorrent track record. (Not only of conservation, but human rights. That's a different issue, however.)
Anyhow, thanks.
Perhaps a bit off topic? But I was wondering if the CHUM powers that be - might consider re-posting this again? http://www.moldychum.com/home-old/2009/5/22/friday-pin-up.html ... Thanks.
You seem to be forgetting one important point, money talks and bullshit walks. Do you really think that the "sport" of fly fishing has has a chance to stand up to the relentless onslaught of development, population increase, resource abuse and degradation, invasive species and the quantum leap in the number of fishermen who relentlessly abuse trout to death? In the 40+ years of fishing I've seen rivers in the east and the west decline in the numbers and quality of fish exactly correlated with the increase in the numbers of people fishing, houses and strip malls built upon the banks of rivers and streams, the number of fly shops and big box retail outlets, AND the number of movies and web sites that need a constant and growing number of new fishermen into their sport to grow their businesses.
What once was a cool little hobby that relatively few people did has turned into a business that needs to grow and be profitable to survive. Who told these people that a seasonal sport thats very dependent on nature would be a good business idea? I remember fishing the Delaware river for both trout and shad and you'd rarely see another person. How many shad have been seen in the Delaware in the past few decades? Have you ever even heard that you could catch a shad in the Delaware?. The same thing with the Willowemoc, Beaverkill, esopus and all the other Pennsylvania steams. What was once a rural area is now strip malls and subdivision housing. I've lived in the west for the past 20 years and I've seen rivers in Montana like the Missouri, Rock creek, clark fork, blackfoot, etc...going the same way.
This web site sells hats, shirts, stickers, fishing trips and movies and promotes fly shops and other commercial ventures related to the fly fishing INDUSTRY.
Thats what they do for a LIVING.
So, you better make your money while you can boyz because in spite of the "hustle and fish" movie and all the other stuff you sell, someday soon alls you'll be able to sell are memories at the rate things are going.
Someone's bitter. Perhaps you need a change of venue. Fly fishing the coast is quite sustainable. Catch and release fishing and the banning of commericial gill netting has done wonders for our coastal fisheries.
What a joke is bitter indeed.
Our problem is that you cannot compare or relate fly fishing to conservation. Fishing is fun. Conservation is mans will to survive.
As for the Doc's letter. I felt it turned into a ramble in the middle and end. I got bored and stopped reading it. I agree with the parts that I read.
Isn't it time for another Pin-up?
I for one am with Dr. Sam.
Our lifestyle runs downstream and we gotta take a big picture approach if we're gonna prove the 'What a Jokes' of the world wrong.
That's not to say that I have anything against Jr. and his associates. In fact, I wish we had MORE oilmen who saw themselves as conservationists (and a little fly fishing for perspective sure never hurt anybody).
Industry and Ecosystem don't have to exist in opposition to one another, like each of us, industry can be the problem or the solution. More often we're all a mix of both, but it's worth the effort to lean into the solutions.
US census estimate is for an average of 400 million people to be living in the US by the year 2050. It could be higher @ 410 million or lower @ 390 million. Thats 100 million more then today, or the equivalent of the populations of england and france moving to the continental US. Where do you think all those people are going to live? Where are they going to get their food? where are they going to get their water? Where is all that waste going to go?
Nature doesn't stand a chance.
Here's my solution:
1 - Drop the bottle.
2 - Get a job.
3 - Make some serious $.
4 - Buy a ranch.
5 - Build a big tall fence.
6 - Enjoy.
If I can do it, trust me, you can too.
What coast is it that you have a ranch on??
sorry to confront you with a hard reality, but I didn't make it up
I like feeding trolls, it's fun for all involved. You bring a semi valid point that the population is increasing. Therein lies the importance of being steadfast in that we must continue to protect the natural world. Nature doesn't stand a chance? Yellowstone, Glacier, Denali, Three Dollar Bridge, The Beaverhead, Big Hole, Gunpowder, Blackfoot, the North Shore.... Nature doesn't stand a chance? Every one of the above is a recovery story, some huge, some minor. Some complete, some in process. All recovery stories. Nature doesn't stand a chance? Not with that sort of outlook from people in your state, or position. Therein lies the importance of guys like Teeg, Sam, B2 and most of the rest of the Chum heads that I've met.
Ask Craig Matthews if nature doesn't stand a chance, ask John Herzer, Yvon Chouinard, ask Ellen Savko.
I'm willing to write responses like yours off in general, yet you strike me as someone that speaks without realizing just how ridiculous a point you attempt to make.
Look, I understand that you're trying to protect your fish biz, but the reality is, and if you are honest with yourself you'll admit it to yourself, is that trout habitat has been in serious decline for as long as I've been fishing and thats been for 40+ years throughout North America. The fact is that wherever humans change the environment to suit their wants or needs around a trout habitat, the trout suffer. I'm not making up the population numbers in the next 40 years, they came from the US census, go and see it for yourself,
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf
copy and paste the link please.
If you think that trout waters will survive with a 33% increase in the population that we have in this country today, then you r kidding yourself.
That's the point! You say that it's in decline, and there's no way of righting that. All of the above are conclusive proof that it CAN be returned, and sustained. There are rivers in the West that are better than they have been since the mid-century. Again, that's the importance of what many peoples' efforts are doing.
Hi,
George C. here, typically just a lurker ... love the CHUM! .. Couldn't help but chime in on this topic and just wanted to share my view. Have a look. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
AHHH HAHAHAHA hahahah
God I loved Carlin. I'm gonna miss him.
Not sure what you point is , But I like it.
Spot on. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I was not aware that the director of the museum had actually said “conservation is not our issue.” Unbelievable! When you look at people like (just one example) Haig-Brown, our most revered modern fly fishing writer and certainly one of the most influential figures in fly fishing, and see all the conservation work he did, this is a kick in the nuts. How can they say that and supposedly represent the history of fly fishing. Without conservation, we’d have NO fly fishing or fishing or fish...
Furthermore, Cheney was an integral factor in a presidency that, by all accounts, was an environmental disaster. From trying to get hatchery steelhead counted as part of the wild population, to the fewest number of ESA listings in the last 100 years to wholesale support of resource extraction corporations, Bush/Cheney did their best to destroy all that fly anglers cherish. Cheney should not even be a part of anything having to do with a fly fishing historical museum, other than as an example of people who worked to our detriment.
Of course, now that I say all this, I better watch out for flying shotgun pellets...
The only worst choice would be the president of the Pebble Mine consortium.
Our ranch is on the south Texas coast - There are more redfish and trout in the lower Laguna Madre right now than there were 20 years ago....And there are a LOT more boats running the flats now than there were back then. Our Tarpon are making an amaziing comeback too. We built several lakes that with careful management have amazing bass fishing. Thanks to our management program we now have healthier deer and quail populations.
When you own your own property you can do as you see fit. That is until the hammer and sickle Obama administration decides they need to take it away.
joke makes a very good point about pop growth impacts on the environment. but his conclusions about the future are typically short-sighted. remember the club of rome's doomsday "we'll be out of oil by the 21st century?" they r the best and brightest. so what happened? HUMAN INGENUITY AND DETERMINATION happened...the X factor! and that is the reality of jeremy's point. and the doc's msg goes to the heart of 1 of my 2 points: he's right that those of us who were outraged and shocked r actually the minority of fly anglers...thus an uber-minority of sportsmen and a non-entity amounting to almost a socio-political black hole in american society...and we either have to find exponential force multipliers the likes of which the world has never known, or recruit, recruit, recruit if we hope to make a dent in joke's doomsday scenario. we have some success stories to point to, as jeremy points out. but joke can also point out a dozen or more failures for every 1 of those - a point the good doctor made n his essay when he cited the unholy swap of marine sanctuary for widespread rape-n-pillage of america's landscape.
my 2nd point is 1 of agreement with the professor as well. i think cheney has great historical value to the world of fly fishing (among many other aspects of american life)...AS A VILLAIN. he is a great example of "the ugly american" and the self-absorbed sportsman who has no conservation ethic beyond what the oilman, jr, posted here: get a job (like he's the only guy who has 1 of those), make buku $$$ (like that's not a finite resource subj to the rules of competition and scarcity, so most folks will go without), gather more than ur fair share unto urself, wall it off from the unwashed masses of losers, and screw the rest of y'all! yes, jr. is a dedicated oilman-conservationist, indeed! would that there were only more of him. no thank u! would that there were more like august a. busch! here's a guy who could outspend many an oil industry exec many times over...probably cheney included. what does he do? sure, he has his private refuges for his own enjoyment. and every time the busch family buys 1, they donate an equivalent sum to acquire/improve/protect PUBLIC lands and habitat that they will never use themselves. and they make sure it is done in perpetuity. cheney is very instructive to us all. he's an excellent example of the road NOT to travel, of the dark side of the failure of the proverb "to whom much is given much shall be required." and he is a stern warning to us ALL about the poisonous sub-culture of the oil and gas industry that rules the contemporary world, and a great reminder of why we MUST break their strangle hold on our planet if we hope to survive.
sorry, jr. it's nothing personal. u've just bought n2 a bill of goods that is pure evil. i realize how convenient it all is. and yes...we're all currently trapped by it. but don't condemn the few of us who are desperately trying to claw our way out of the grave.
Well put, Sam.
I don't think one can be a true sportsman without being a conservationist. If you're not at least ecologically minded (which so far as I know, which is not very far, Cheney is not), you're missing not only the issues involved in the sport but you're sort of skirting around the value of the species you're after. If you don't think in terms of fish welfare, you're just a trout torturer. The AMFF tends to honor fly fishermen, not those who just fly fish, if that makes sense.
Read Gene Hill's essay "I've Been Busy"; it speaks to this issue, in a way.
And to address the unpleasant and unfounded cynical gassing by "What A Joke": I just hope most people haven't lost as much hope as you.
I'll try to say this in as polite a way as I can.
"Our sad little sport" isn't dying, rather it's growing considerably, especially since "A River Runs Through It" hit the movie theaters.
Humans have a unique tendency to, with enough effort, do almost anything they wish--revolutions especially. Why would one be foolish enough to think that this won't be the case with angling? If it were just fly-fishermen trying to preserve our sport and our waters, it might be more problematic--but all fishermen and hunters, if the truly enjoy their sporting, can relate to and understand and jump on such an effort. If we truly love our sport, a strong battle, even a partly loosing one, should be the next link in the chain.
What is your aim in posting to a blog of fly-fishermen with such cynical acrobatics? You're not going to convince anyone here to give up the fight to save fish habitat, because those here truly love this "sad little sport." Dogmatism and arguing for the sake of making a lot of noise is not only in bad taste but makes you look overbearingly silly. What A Joke, the joke's on you, I'm afraid. I'm trying to say this in as polite a way as I can.
And Dr. Snyder's career choice clearly brings intellectual thought to an increasingly important connection between two of the strongest movements/factors in American life. Intellectual fields are never a bad career choice, regardless of salary or audience. Based on your comments thus far, a little intellectual discourse could improve your own arguments and language. Look into it.