Absolutely Fishing Related: Congrats Bush Voters

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

  1. DaMurph Member

    Posts: 115
    Graham, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    boy, this ones gettin heated i would think anyone on this site regardles of who they voted for would be aginst this plan, i dont care if you are democrat or republican or bush or kerry or nader or gay or smelly or really tall or whatever the issue is the fish so what can we do to make shure this dosnt happen, i think the first thing would be to stop whining at each other since we should all be on the same team when it comes to protecing fish.
    TOM :mad:
  2. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,314
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    That's soooooo far from right. The voters chose him, at least a majority did so. And that's what our present system is about, the majority. We flyfishers are a minority. Most people don't know what a steelhead is. Add to the fact that the big bucks don't care either and we better start fishing for bass.

    We can only hope some catastrophe hits or wait for four more years.

    Let's not mix God and politics anymore, it just doesn't work.
  3. Tightline Brian Perry

    Posts: 739
    Seattle, Wa, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Did I read this right? I'm confused... :confused:

  4. Davy Active Member

    Posts: 2,021
    SIlverton, OR
    Ratings: +16 / 0
  5. Flyn'dutchman Member

    Posts: 459
    Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    I've sat back and listened (read) to theses threads long enough. I keep hearing the under tones of remove the dams to protect our fish. Let me ask who of you will be the first to raise their hand to cut their electricity use so the that there will not be the demand for power? If we remove those so called "fish blockers" from our rivers we will have to use alternative energy sources to generate the "needed" power. Many of these sources, coal, oil, natural gas, fuel oil, industrial waste all involve burning which produces more environmental polution than all the good of removing the dams and letting the fish have the free run of the rivers. The dams are also responsible for flood control. We sit back and armchair theorize what we think would be best and throw insults at what and who we don't agree with. We are all involved in this problem. We are a power hungry nation. Each one of us has our needs and wants and opinions. Each one us are at a different station in our lives. Some are at the retirement stage where we have accomplished all we want and have all we want. Others are in the building stage and have more needs and wants. Those of you that "have" need to be more tolerant of those that still have wants. Granted this is not a perfect world we live in. Lets try to get along and make the best of what we have.
  6. Tightline Brian Perry

    Posts: 739
    Seattle, Wa, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Please dude. Alternative fuel sources are there. We just need to exploit them. Windmills in the Columbia basin, Solar Panels etc would more than suffice. And if it includes cutting my electricity to aid in the effort, I'll raise my hand. Of course us lefties have a tendency to put the big picture first... not ourselves.

  7. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,314
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +796 / 1
    Heck, I thought you were right handed, you cast with your right... :clown:
  8. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Yes, I am sure you wouldn't waste electricity on something silly like a computer to access a website about fishing. Sometimes we have to realize how silly our perspectives are as Americans. Your internet service costs more money and requires more electricity than (insert many countires names here) homes use. Computer processors and monitors use a ton of electricity! We use 80% of the world's fossils fuels, but only account for 18% of the total population. You, I, all of us are part of the problem of energy dependence. Hey, I drive a Navigator; BIG OFFENDER OF OIL DEPENDENCE! Even if you drive a Prius, you contribute in some manner. LITTLE OFFENDER? Alternative sources can help, but this problem is societal. How do we solve it? I wish I knew!

    Let's not be like the classic PETA photo of a women wearing a leather belt and shoes throwing paint on a lady wearing fur. We all must shoulder the blame whether big or small! Now let's all log off in unison.... ;)
  9. ray helaers New Member

    Posts: 1,088
    Ratings: +0 / 0

    I am sincerely sorry if any offense was taken. Please see Rob's parsing. I was attempting a bitter lampoon against hypocracy and greed, a whistlng past the graveyard if you will. I did not intend to insult or demean your beliefs, even though I think we may disagree about some issues. And I have to admit that I am genuinely confused why people who do have better morals than me go ahead and vote for lying profiteers. But it is likely that with a little more care I could have written something that didn't offend you, made my point, and still left myself thinking I was pretty damned clever. I apologize.


    If you took offense, good; that was my point. It was supposed to be funny, but funny is always at someone's expense, right? Anyone else who self-identifies with bag men can feel free to take offense too. You're right, elections are not just about one issue, and I disagreed with Bush on just about every issue, including whether or not I could marry a homo if I wanted to, or whether lying profiteers who used to work for Timber Interests should get to set salmon-recovery policy. But didn't I acknowledge the other issues you must care about when I admitted that really, what is a natural heritage, more or less? I guess it must be worth Saddam in jail, or cheaper gas, or a tax cut, or a little extra padding on the old portfolio. If I sound bitter it's because I am. If it seems aimed at you, well get over yourself.

    I will not grow up, sir, and ask any of the regulars around here what they think the chances are of me keeping my mouth shut. As far as talking about it like a man goes, this Bush-Administration decision is purely political. If you voted for Bush, you own it. You could be a man and try to defend and support it, or be a bigger man and apologize for and oppose it, but it's yours. Or you could be a man and hide behind "more than one issue," or better yet, my marginalizing tone.

    But whatever. I am reminded of a morning twenty four years ago. I was getting dressed after a lazy, sensuous morning with my first paramour, a lovely, vibrant young girl, in her apartment in the North Beach section of San Fransisco. We fancied ourselves artists, certainly some sort of beatniks. As I was putting on my shoes a knock came on the door and her father strolled in. He was redolent of old, Knob Hill wealth.

    She was very excited to introduce me, particularly as he had caught us nearly en flagrante, and so obviously so. This was a new dimension of her personality to me.

    He shook my hand and said, "mmmmm," as if he were tasting something and he wasn't quite sure yet.

    "Daddy," she said, "I'm afraid we're on our way out."

    "Where?" he asked.

    "To the anti-Reagan rally in Union Square," she said, as if it were the silliest question in the world.

    "Oh," he said. "Have fun." He didn't exactly smirk; breeding you know. but he fixed us with what I've come to call the winners smile, full of pity, indulgence, and mockery. Go ahead, it said; the game's over.

    I don't know. Maybe it is. Maybe it was then. But I didn't think so then and I don't think so now. Twenty four years later I'm still working to wipe that supercilious grin off that pompous face. So there's your tone.
  10. Monk Redneck

    Posts: 709
    Marblemount, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Comes down to this man: Do you want to divide the flyfisherman (an already small contingent of voter demographics?) even further? I didn't vote for the asshole, but I am a conservative. DOn't generalize. If you want to make people mad, go piss off people lobying for malls in river drainages.

    You are just preaching to the choir here man. I haven't heard one person here that even disagrees with these policies. Don't try to scapegoat the religious or the right, because "we" didn't vote for Bush and "we" didn't vote for this legislation.

    If you want to do what's best for the watershed, you will not try to divide the community but strenghten it and use it as a lobying agency.
  11. o mykiss Active Member

    Posts: 1,308
    Ratings: +181 / 0
    Hey Flyn' - I don't think anyone in their right mind is advocating pulling down every dam on the Columbia and Snake. First of all, it couldn't be done because 26 of the 55 dams on these rivers are privately owned. What some of us want is to think seriously about breaching some or all of the four lower Snake River dams. (Note that Columbia/Snake salmon and steelhead runs have crashed by 90% since these dams were built in the 1960s. Moreover, something like 50% of all Columbia River fish originate or historically originated from the Snake and its tributaries. Obviously, the dams are the major reason for the decline and - though the feds are trying to convince us otherwise - a major impediment to meaningful, long-term recovery of wild Columbia/Snake salmon and steelhead.) According to the BPA, the four lower Snake dams have about a 3500 megawatt production capacity, which is roughly 15 - 16% of the total production capacity of the roughly 30 dams owned by the Army Corps and Bureau of Reclamation on the Columbia/Snake rivers. The BPA markets power from all the federally owned dams on the Columbia/Snake. BPA represents somewhere between 45 - 50% of the total energy production in the Pacific Northwest, and since some BPA power comes from sources other than dams, the four lower Snake dams probably represent about 6 - 8% of PNW power production. That is nothing to sniff at, of course, but it should not be that difficult - using a combination of efficiency initiatives and other production sources - to make up for the lost production capacity without major impacts to the price of electricity in our region. Look, the days of building hydro dams are dead (anyone who doesn't recognize that needs to wake up). All new energy production in this region is going to come from other sources. Most of the new sources in the West now consist of natural gas-fired plants. Gas-fired plants representing many multiples of 3500 megawatts have either come on line in the last few years or are being built. I'm not a huge fan of gas-fired plants, but what I'm saying is that finding that 3500 megawatts is not as difficult as you make it sound. Sure, it's a real problem and would cost money, but even the feds, in the Columbia/Snake biological opinion (which has now taken dam removal off the table), estimate that their hodge podge of techno fixes to keep the lower Snake dams around are going to cost $6 billion over the next 10 years. I guarantee you we could build 3500 megawatts worth of production for a hell of a lot less than $6 billion. That $6 billion represents a MASSIVE SUBSIDY to agricultural interests that are growing crops where naturally crops don't belong, to the barging industry, which ships agricultural and other products along rivers that have perfectly adequate railroads streamside, and to waterskiers. It is also a massive subsidy to our electricity rates here in the PNW. Maybe the rest of the country would not be all that thrilled about throwing $6 billion our way just so we in the PNW can continue to pay lower electricity rates than the rest of our fellow Americans. But anyway, to answer your question, I'll be happy to raise my hand to cut back my electricity use to pave the way for this.
  12. clockwork New Member

    Posts: 318
    bothell township
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    some of us are so pathetic. we sit here pretending to love these fish and pretending to embrace conservation but as soon as someone blasts the policies of this rogue administration, wham, we find out where people's true loyalties lie. all of a sudden you take up arms to protect "your side" when he's really the biggest threat in the world right now to many things we all pretend to love so much.

    you may have voted for him but face the friggin facts his policies are killing these fish and his policies are going to ruin it all for our children's children. are you all too blinded by the our side/their side debate to accept this? you act like its simply a matter of dividing the FFishing community, BS! it's about taking offense to what we point out about your chosen administration. when you blacked out that little square next to his name, you voted for the 80% reduction, you voted for the hatchery/wild steelhead policies. perhaps you voted for him primarily because you advocate his stance on american imperialism and the unnecessary killing of thousands or maybe it is his tax breaks to the rich and huge corporations, maybe that $150 tax refund you got in the mail clinched your vote, I dont know, but what you forgot about was the rest of the world: the environment, the fish etc.

    Bush was the overwhelming choice when "morality" was the biggest issue to voters, he was also extremely popular with the christians. did a lot of people vote for him simply based on his proffessed faith? you bet your ass they did. i met alot of them. why is he viewed as more moral? because people view clinton as immoral, nothing more. i guess our sense of morality as a nation doesn't regard the open destruction and disregard for GODS natural world, nor the needless killing of thousands and lying about it, nor a lawsuit to stop a recount as immoral. all we know is that we hate homosexuals, we want to make money no matter what the expense to the environm,ent and we should spare no cost in life and money to carry out the military manifestation of one man.
  13. Monk Redneck

    Posts: 709
    Marblemount, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    "all of a sudden you take up arms to protect "your side" when he's really the biggest threat in the world right now to many things we all pretend to love so much.

    you may have voted for him but face the friggin facts his policies are killing these fish and his policies are going to ruin it all for our children's children. are you all too blinded by the our side/their side debate to accept this?"

    Who did this? :confused:
  14. Monk Redneck

    Posts: 709
    Marblemount, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Since you feel the need to question my devotion to the fish let me ask you this. Are you taking the chance at a pot shot at "the other side" despite the negative repercussion the fish might feel due to a rift in the FF community? It's a double edged sword there pal.
  15. Monk Redneck

    Posts: 709
    Marblemount, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    " did a lot of people vote for him simply based on his proffessed faith? you bet your ass they did."

    Actually this is a pretty big myth that was explored by the NYT and it found that actually, this was not true at all.
  16. Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Posts: 60
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    One man does not run the Country, last time I looked, we do, if we know how to do it..."we" collectively have (D) in Congress as well as a predominantly (D) state legislature/gov...you/we can petition all of them (D's) & (R's) in the same manner as you've written this post.....


    All 600+.....of them.
    Blaming the voters over "values".....ain't gonna make a change, it's not too late, I think it read "proposed", and sounds like typical government in action, and a media as well......now there is a need for constituant reaction.......
    see what the real proposal says and move on that......
    It's truely designed to work that way.
    Research and then.....
    Write your legislator!

    I will presume you voted......
  17. Troutnut New Member

    Posts: 33
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Remember, God hates fish! It's a sin to restore His creations to their natural state after you've damned them. *snicker* ;)

    I'm glad to see a forum that allows some environmental discussion that's honest about the Bush administration.

    It would be neat if writing legislators would help, but most of them are Republicans and for most Republicans special interests are more importan than America.
  18. BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Posts: 2,879
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    This o mykiss, while a bit mealy- mouthed at times, is no fool. I'm booming him for vice president and Kalm for prexy. Oh, and Ray Helaers for Secretary of State...

    Bob, the me? Well, I'll take a small post in Patagonia. :)
  19. Dylan D Member

    Posts: 323
    West Seattle
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Both the P-I and Times had a story on this today, and I can't remember which it was, but in one of them they listed the date/place of the first public forum on the issue. Local action can speak loudly -- and it may just be our best avenue for action.
  20. Irafly Active Member

    Posts: 3,684
    Everett, Washington, USA.
    Ratings: +1,095 / 1

    Looks like we need to encourage the fish to stay away from the salt. Is there anyway we can ship some kings to other rivers? Can we consider Atlantics rare and endangered in some of these historic ranges once inhabited by great Kings and then quickly run down to QFC buy some nice fillets, throw them in and call them wild? Would the Bush administration consider fillets the same as wild? Man this if fun.

    I know the next part is lengthy, but here is an e'mail I recieved from Joseph Boggard from Save Our Wild Salmon. I hope it helps. (Joseph@wildsalmon.org)

    "This plan represents a total failure of leadership and is a
    crushing disappointment to the people of the Northwest," said
    Jan Hasselman, an attorney with the NWF (member group of SOS),
    the group that's led legal challenges to the federal salmon

    "It's a very disturbing proposal that radically limits the
    potential to recover salmon and steelhead, and sets a
    horrendously low standard for wildlife and habitat protection,"
    said David Hogan, urban-wildlands program coordinator at the
    Center for Biological Diversity

    Hello Advocates for Wild Salmon and Steelhead,

    If you saw the papers today, you saw huge headlines about the
    Bush Administration's recent decisions around salmon that are
    certain to harm recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin and
    across the Pacific Coast. Coverage in the media has been
    coast-to-coast: New York Times, LA Times, Oregonian, etc. Some
    links to these articles are below.

    From the perspective of wild salmon, and the people who value
    healthy salmon populations and the healthy lands and waters that
    they depend upon, this is very bad news; and we have some work
    to do!

    Two major decisions were announced in the paper today.

    HABITAT PROTECTIONS REMOVED (1) The Administration is going to
    eliminate more than 80% of the habitat protections ("critical
    habitat designations") under the Endangered Species Act. The
    Administration will only protect habitat where the salmon exist
    today - rather than where they once thrived.

    So it accepts salmon population levels where they are today -
    severely depressed and declining, and abandons the idea of
    protecting and restoring them. It also ignores the idea that
    rivers and lands are connected and influence each other.
    Removing habitat protections can only mean further habitat
    degradations and additional population declines.

    SNAKE RIVER: PLAN = EXTINCTION: (2) The second announcement was
    the release of final federal Salmon Plan for the Columbia and
    Snake Rivers. The "new" plan is actually worse than the "old"
    plan. The "old" plan was published in 2000, and invalidated by
    the courts in 2003 as ineffective. The judge in the case ordered
    the plan revised by the Bush Administration. This "new" plan
    ignores economics, taxpayers, science, and common sense. The
    plan cannot be called a recovery plan since it will allow
    already declining runs to continue to decline toward extinction.

    The plan lets dams off the hook, saying that they no longer
    "jeopardize" salmon and steelhead. This plan is estimated to
    cost $6 billion over the next 10 years, yet it will still allow
    salmon to decline towards extinction. It is a $6 billion
    roadmap to extinction.

    The "salmon" tone has been set for the second Bush
    Administration - and it is grim for healthy waters and lands -
    and for the people and the salmon that value and depend upon
    these important northwest qualities. We must all respond quickly
    and publicly and relentlessly to reject these efforts to degrade
    our "home-waters" and "home-lands."

    Our two best opportunities are the Courts and Congress.

    COURTS: Many people quoted in today's articles predict
    litigation as certain. Though the courts are generally a poor
    place for policymaking, they can be an effective place to stop
    bad things from happening. To be sure, there are court battles
    on the horizon.

    CONGRESS - THIS IS WHERE WE NEED YOUR HELP: The other place that
    we need to work is Congress - and there is a huge role for you
    to play communicating with your members of Congress - our
    salmon, our clean waters and healthy rivers and lands need you
    calling on your members of Congress to actively resist these
    efforts by the Administration. Our Congressional members need to
    hear from all of us that we are ready to work with them to
    defend our region's quality of life.

    1. Please make calls to your Representative and Senators. (See
    details below)
    2. Write them letters. Send them emails.
    3. Write letters to the editor, and send them copies, whether
    they are published or not. (See details below)
    4. Pull some friends together and meet with Congressional staff
    in their offices in-district. Attend "town-hall" forums and ask

    Work with me and others in the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition to
    ensure that our Congress members are working hard to protect and
    restore wild salmon and steelhead and the rivers that WE ALL
    depend upon.

    Please be in touch with me if you are interested in getting more
    involved in resisting this plan for extinction.

    Representative Larsen and Senator Murray:

    Introduce yourself and tell them:
    1. salmon are a defining part of our region's culture and

    2. the Bush Administration's policies fail us in three ways: (a)
    they ignore science, (b) they waste taxpayer money, and (c) they
    don't protect salmon.

    3. we need their leadership NOW to protect salmon, salmon jobs,
    taxpayer dollars, and a healthy environment - help fight for
    habitat protections and an effective alternative plan that can
    replace an wasteful, failing Columbia Basin Plan.

    Representative Larsen: (202) 225-2605

    Senator Patty Murray: 202-224-2621
    AND PLEASE WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR to the papers in your
    area (and cc it to your electeds!)

    Seattle Times OR the PI (not both)
    PI: editpage@seattlepi.com
    Times: opinion@seattletimes.com

    send your name, address, and day and evening phones; 150 words
    max. (and send me a copy in a separate email. thanx)

    Choose 2-3 points to make:
    1. salmon are important to our Northwest identity, culture,
    economy and environment. The public supports recovery, and this
    plan abandons the people and the salmon of the region.

    2. The "new" Bush Plan will cost taxpayers $6 billion, but it
    will still allow salmon to go extinct. There has to be a better
    way! Taxpayers get fleeced and salmon get the shaft.

    3. The Administration's plan ignores sound science, sound
    economics, and fiscal responsibility. Ignoring science when
    crafting policy is wasteful and ineffective. The Northwest
    should reject this plan.

    4. Let's be honest and follow good science. Let's quit wasting
    time and money and take a hard look at the option that
    scientists support - removing the lower Snake River dams. It
    costs far less and achieves far more.

    5. Where are our northwest leaders? Senators? Representatives?
    Hello! We need you. Are you going to stand by as our salmon and
    our dollars go down the drain? Is this why we voted you into

    6. Salmon mean business in the Northwest - 35,000 jobs and more
    than $3 billion annually. Salmon are good for jobs, tourism,
    and our economy.

    To read more:
    Seattle PI - Dropping dam removal from recovery plan angers

    Seattle Times - Dam Removal isn't an option under Bush Plan:

    New York Times - U.S. Rules Out Dam Removal to Aid Salmon:


    Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.


    If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
    Save Our Wild Salmon at: