Absolutely Fishing Related: Congrats Bush Voters

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by ray helaers, Dec 1, 2004.

  1. Congratulations Republicans, conservatives, and other bag men! God's Chosen One must have gotten the message straight from Him that business as usual (and the repayment of campaign contributions) is a lot more important than the survival of His creatures.

    The Bush Administration is proposing only to protect habitats where salmon and steelhead currently exist, not anywhere in their historical range where they have been extirpated. that's an 80% reduction from current protections.

    (see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105390_salmon01m.html.)

    In other words, recovery would be defined as where salmon are now, not where they have been, or even where they would need to be to "recover." Combine this with the proposal to count hatchery fish as wild, and the "determination" that dams don't hurt salmon, and you've got the end of wild-salmon protection. Oh boy!

    To my conservative friends: I am so very happy that moral values mean so much to you and your president (though I am confused by the lying and profiteering).

    To my Naderite friends: We can be slightly consoled by the sure knowledge that everything would have been EXACTLY the same if Kerry had been elected (so what the hell, keep working it out so that Democrats lose the ties).

    To my angling friends: Remember that Sitting Bull said, "when you have killed the last of the buffalo, we will hunt mice, for we are hunters." (Learn to like pike minnow and walleye.)

    Oh well. What's a natural heritage more or less? At least I won't have to marry a homo. :hmmm:
     
  2. Bravo, Ray. I admire your wit and can feel the bitterness in your post. You are spot on, my man.

    But we are preaching to the choir for the most part. Yet, there is solace in venting and maybe a just few might actually change their mind about things.

    We worked very hard over here in Jefferson (very blue county) to get out the vote and we did. But sadly, it was not enough.

    Bob, the Never give up, iagree Ray!
     
  3. Its hard to argue that bush has the best interests of the environment in mind with this one.
    -Thomas Buehrens
     
  4. Although I dont like politics and rarely say anything related.....come on Ray.... a little better approach than throwing stones at anyone religious because you believe we all voted for Bush :ray1:
     
  5. No kidding Ray. Elections are not about one issue. Grow up and discuss it like a man or keep your mouth shut.

    It is better that you keep silent and have everyone think you are a fool; than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. -dunno
     
  6. No, not all religious voted for him. But studies show it was the religious who were standing in those long lines waiting to vote for B. You'll just have to live with that, Pat, because that's the way it was. Homosexuals, marriage, abortion rights, gun control, stem cell research fears--all contributed to Kerry's demise and these issues generally resonate with the religious.

    The poor economy, joblessness, environmental disregard, a war that is looking like Vietnam all over again, women's rights, equal rights, help for the poor and hungry--all these issues seem to have escaped the religious right. But I thought that Jesus spoke to many of these issues in the "Sermon on the Mount." But apparently his words fell on deaf ears.

    Bob, the One of the reasons I'm not much on religion is becasue of the hypocrisy of it all. :ray1:

    Monk. To say grow up to someone of Ray Helaers distinction can only be considered a personal attack. Please avoid this before someone refers to you as stupid.
     
  7. I wasnt addressing that issue you pointed out Bob....it was more of the approach I was commenting on. And I wasnt, just for clarification, attacking Ray. Just commenting that the approach could have been worded a little different instead of smacking the attack on us religious folks.....and no I did not vote for Bush, or Kerry for that matter, but yes I did vote.

    In my opinion, these issues should resonate within all of us. That might lead to a better nation. But its not going to happen so I digress and step away from this political thread as I want nothing to do with it.
     

  8. Ray does not appear to be throwing stones at religious people, he appears to be throwing stones, perhaps rightly, at the man who acts like he feels like the chosen one by his god. Nor does he imply or state that "religious" people all voted for this guy. He mentions Republicans, conservatives and other bag men.

    And as a card carrying bag man I'm terribly offended!

    Perhaps Pwoens you are reading something into this that was unintended?

    Rob
     
  9. If you voted for Bush believing that his positions on some issues outweighed his environmental record and intentions (or the net of Kerry's strengths and weaknesses), so be it. But don't delude yourself. He is doing exactly what he said and signaled he would do over the last 4 years. So if you like what you are getting, keep doing the same thing :)
     
  10. Dare I say that these issues DO resonate within all of us, and there in lies the problem.
     
  11. Hey Rob....you bring a good point. Ray...as I said above I was not attacking you. It is perhaps that I did in fact read something different than what you meant. Maybe it is that you stated GW himself thinks he is Gods chosen one and not the religious people that think this???? I dont know??? I am out of this one for good now....again Ray, nothing personal I just felt the approach to be aimed at myself because I am religious (myself being a "religious" person, not myself as in patrick oens in person...if ya get what im trying to sputter out on the keyboard???).

    That made no sense so im outta here. Continue on

    Thanks again Rob!! :thumb:
     
  12. What can we do about this joker and his 2% mandate? We can't let him get away with it. How many ways can he screw the country? We gotta go to bat for our salmon. I'm pretty sure God's not really on his side. That's just gas in his gut telling him what to do.
     
  13. "Congratulations Republicans, conservatives, and other bag men! God's Chosen One must have gotten the message straight from Him that business as usual (and the repayment of campaign contributions) is a lot more important than the survival of His creatures."

    Wow. So I am a bag man. Thanks. Your hostile tone will not fix the situation. I have stated in the other thread that I disagree with this policy. You can either preach to the choir (here) where everyone agrees with you, or you can quit whining and use your energy to do something about it.

    See you at the stream restoration in the other thread?
     
  14. This thread sure solved a lot of things and furthered what this board is and should be about--FLYFISHING!!,Swing a spey fly thru a ruthless pack of gearhead snaggers might be safer than approaching a run with a fellow flyfisher in it that might not share the same political beliefs as you hold.
     
  15. from the article:

    "In a new, narrower interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, the Bush administration yesterday said for the first time that it wants to safeguard as "critical" only those waterways currently occupied by salmon and steelhead — not areas that might be considered part of a fish's historic range."

    First of all, I didn't know the ESA was open to "interpretation"?

    Second, they are trying to set a precedent with this that is very scary.

    Let's say that tomorrow the last wild steelhead shows up in the Wenatchee river and then dies. Guess what, since the Wenatchee is now part of the steelhead's "historic range" it's no longer subject to any protection under the new "interpretation" of the ESA.

    This is a bunch of Orwellian bullsh*t. They're throwing the ESA out the window under the guise of a new "interpretation". Very sad, as the ESA is probably one the best pieces of environemental legislation in the history of the world.
     
  16. Call Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell...maybe they have a plan.
     
  17. Yeah,

    Their plan is to not gut the ESA and protect our native species.

    To bad their voices will be drowned out by the chain saws and machines grading the land for the next mega development. But what the hell, the Wal Mart will be so much closer and I can buy a cheap DVD of what wild salmon used to look like.

    Rob
     
  18. In Ray's defense, you have to understand what a punch to the gut this is to people like him who devote significant parts of their lives to wild fish conservation.

    At the risk of suggesting something constructive, everyone needs to know that at this stage, this is PROPOSED rule-making. Everyone here has the chance to comment on the rule, and all of us who believe this is a mistake should do so. I wish I could say it will make a difference to the administration, but given that it has plowed ahead with many different environment-related initiatives despite what has often been overwhelming opposition, I'm not all that sanguine we can turn the tide on this proposal. Beyond what the administration is proposing to do with critical habitat designation, it is also depressing to me that they tipped their hand in this proposal that they will be adopting an earlier proposal to count hatchery fish as part of evolutionarily significant units for purposes of listing decisions. That proposal, this new critical habitat designation proposal, the Columbia/Snake draft biological opinion taking dam removal off the table, and the massive reduction of critical habitat designation for listed bull trout, is making things look pretty ominous for wild salmonid in the West. But voicing your opposition to these things through the comment process still has value. These ESA-related issues are extremely complicated, and it can be pretty hard to come up with a well thought out comment, but anything can help. And please support with your dollars conservation organizations that do have the background and expertise (legal and scientific) to provide well thought out comments to these types of proposals and who are and will continue to lead the charge in the courts to hold back the tide. And please, could some of you Republicans who do care about this stuff start trying to get your party to take a different look at this? (I know Ducks Unlimited got the administration to back off somewhat on its wetlands proposal last year; would they respect us more if we carried guns, like duck hunters? ;) )
     
  19. I don't care. I didn't even vote for the guy, but his sweeping generalizations do nothing but marginalize his position. This is not a left vs. right debate. It is a corporate vs. outdoorsman debate. If we fight amoungst ourselves, what good can we accomplish. Why don't we focus our energy on fixing the problem rather than blaming each other for the situation?
     
  20. Well said O mykiss!
     

Share This Page