Absolutely Fishing Related: Congrats Bush Voters

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

  1. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Bob: Great post! The exploitation of the "religious right" was the key to this campaign. You have to hand it to the evangelicals; they had huge voter turn-out because they cared about the issue they were told to care about by their leaders. George Bush's political career started when this daddy's campaign realized that evangelicals were won't going to vote for an Episcopalian (GHW faith). George was "one of them" (evangelical) and swayed their votes into dad's camp. These events positioned him as a front running candidate for the next ticket and that's how we got GW. So can religion get you elected? Well, I don't think it was his wonderful record of business, personal, or governmental oversight that did it. I am not a devote Christian, but I am one. The religion I learned call for campassion, understanding, and tolerance. Apparently, W and I got different versions of the good book. Frankly this election scares me! The future isn't looking bright, so guys; TAKE OFF THE SHADES.....
     
  2. Davy

    Davy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,031
    Media:
    119
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    SIlverton, OR
    The "Save every little dang bird at any cost people" would fight us "Save every fish at any and all cost people" on the issue of wind farms
     
  3. Rob Bodkin

    Rob Bodkin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mukilteo, WA
    Great post Ira, lots of useful info and numbers.

    Thank you!
     
  4. ChrisW

    ChrisW AKA Beadhead

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Wow, we said it would be bad, those of us who follwed GWB's policies for the past four years. This news is almost exactly one month from his election day victory. The second term has not started. For those of you who voted for him and support his policies in other areas you find important, are you surprised? If you believe that stopping stem cell research is more important than saving entire races of native fish, then you voted correctly.

    TH says write your legislator to oppose this. We will. We have been. I have written GWB too. It feels good to go on record that you oppose something that you have little control over. I also told him how I felt about Iraq before we went in (Remember the last great act of defiance picture? with the rat and the eagle?) Actually I was more respectful than that, but that is how I felt.

    BR, BN, C & C? care to comment? Do you care about this? You guys were all over the other thread. Liberals are whiners right?

    For me environmental issues were paramount. This is the one topic that the two candidates differed more than any other. But neither one campaigned on the issue. I guess Dems were too worried about alienating those states that have already destroyed their natural environment beyond all recognition. Well they didn't win and the issue was not even brought forth in the campaign so they/we have ourselves to blame on that one.

    If I could honestly believe that Reps had the best interest of the environment at heart (yeah right), I would hop on that elephant an' ride it as far as it would take us!

    CW, the not surprised.

    Swarzenegger in '08! He's our only hope! (OK I admit it, I am 'groping')
    :rofl: :rofl: :beathead: :beathead: bawling:
     
  5. Matt Burke

    Matt Burke Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    3,666
    Media:
    3
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Kenmore
    I won't mince words at the risk of pissing off half of you. I tried to tell you Repubicans, religious wannabes and other bag man. George is the anti-Christ and I'm glad I can say I didn't vote for him. This is only the beginning. We still have to whine about his upcoming detraction of his stance on not initiating the draft. You guys were duped by a Salmon and Steelhead killing, gonna send your son to die in the middle east because they tried to kill George Sr., raise you mom’s medication costs, waste away the social security, over the budget spending, clear cutting asshole.
     
  6. Jeremy Husby

    Jeremy Husby Is there a Vahalla for fishermen?

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    303
    Media:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arlington, WA
    Home Page:
    I think both elephant and donkey use up to much money in campaigning and both pay off their supporters in ways that no one will agree with. In my opinion it is time a third party steps up and takes reigns over a downward spiral of country. People just need to listen to the views of the other parties that have been around long before Dem. or Rep. and the might hear some that they agree with. not left or right but a good compromise for the people. The amount of money that Bu5h & Kerry spent on this campaign could of back so many things, the money spent in just the governor race could of built the mono-rail. Come on people wake up see past the pretty colors and balloons, the big parties that you don't attend. There are other choices that could right our wrongs. I don't know when the Dem. & Rep. started this but there has been other parties since 1776 and for some reason we have been blinded by the flashy materialism and don't see our choices anymore. It took a billionaire last time to show his face, to break through the Rep. & Dem. war machines to even let people know there were other choices (eg. perot).
     
  7. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    I guess this is a good place to start........or continue......

    The best thing to do in a panic situation is NOT to panic.......

    Irafly, post #40 spells out a good start...... iagree

    Let me take it one step further.....

    Fly Fishing organizations throughout the PNW, some with nationwide affilliations and exposure are fully aware of this, I'm sure. Local flyfishing clubs routinely have legislative committees within their club dedicated to tracking and taking action on issues of this nature and magnitude.

    To start with on the Northwest end, the Fidalgo Fly Fishers (Anacortes), the Evergreen Fly Fishing Club (Everett) and the Washington Fly Fishing Club Seattle) (OBTW is the oldest ffg club in the state) have such committees.
    Get involved with these clubs or one in your area, and although it is good for individuals to take efforts to contact the "electeds", there seems more power in "numbers", when groups are loud and clear.....

    http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/links/Washington/Clubs/

    Contact your nearest club, get involved. If your not familiar with a club in your area, go to the nearest fly shop, they should know who's where....
    Brian Simonseth (mbr of this board) past President, Fidalgo Fly Fishers, is a committee member of more watershed (legislative watchdog committees) than you and I can imagine. I can almost guarantee he is on top of this, plus he has a wealth of information, corporate knowledge, current actions, and proposals. I'm sure he'll be weighing in on this, huh Brian?

    Clubs network, so check around.

    Now is NOT the time to sit around, point fingers and name calling. Get organized, stand up, be heard, be cohesive, concise and respectfull, otherwise "their" just going to shut us off.

    Dont wanna be called a "fanatic" do ya? :D
     
  8. Brian Simonseth

    Brian Simonseth Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Skagit, Stillaguamish mostly
    Thanks Tom

    Today I’m meeting with both Watershed Groups, more later.
    Got to go to the meetings NOW!
     
  9. alpinetrout

    alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,907
    Media:
    294
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Hiding in your closet
    "Officials acknowledged that Mark Rutzick, a lawyer who had sued the government over salmon protections for years on behalf of the timber industry, helped design the habitat plan. Last spring, Rutzick was appointed a special counsel to the fisheries service for salmon recovery."

    Mark Rutzik is the asshole who has been responsible for proposing all of the anti-salmon policies to the Bush Administration over the past year. The guy doesn't have a concience and can't think past increasing his own retirement account. If this was the middle ages and I was King, I'd have him drawn and quartered.
     
  10. Steelie L

    Steelie L Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Issaquah
    Bravo, Ray. Every once in a while, you gotta use a barbed hook.
     
  11. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    In case any body wants to write to Mr. Bush (I refuse to call him President) here is "his" email via the whitehouse:

    president@whitehouse.gov
     
  12. Bright Rivers

    Bright Rivers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Media:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    Much Ado About Nothing?

    Ray –

    Like previous posters, “I admire your wit and can feel the bitterness in your post,” but my esteem ends there. In my estimation, the groaning and garment tearing over this latest administration action amounts to much ado about nothing.

    Listening to the shrieks of horror arising from environmental groups, you would think that Bush had just rolled back a century of salmon recovery progress. In fact, the action is a reversal of a Clinton action that was instituted in 2000, so the worst case scenario is that salmon protections are back to where they were four years ago. Maybe that is worth getting upset about, but in any case, the sky is not falling.

    At the risk of becoming too technical and boring (we don’t all have your wit), I’ll try to explain why I think this action is meaningless and why the administration’s previous decision to count hatchery and wild salmon the same is far more deserving of our ire.

    The ESA’s process for protecting endangered species (and for conserving their ecosystem) begins by granting the Secretary of the Interior authority to list species in need of protection as either endangered or threatened. There are a whole slew of protections that attach to that designation. The Act requires further that, in addition to the designation itself, the agency must also determine what is “critical habitat” for all listed species. What people don't seem to understand is that once a species is listed as Endangered, it already has all the protection the ESA has to offer, and a “critical habitat” designation offers no new protection. This is why the Fish and Wildlife Service usually doesn’t even bother to designate “critical habitat.” During the Clinton years, 250 species were listed pursuant to ESA, but only twice did FWS actually follow the law and bother to designate the “critical habitat” that goes with it (and in those two cases, only because they were compelled to do so by court order). Why did the Clinton administration fail to designate “critical habitat”? The answer in their own words: because “Critical Habitat Designations are unhelpful, duplicative, and unnecessary.” But they are very expensive and very handy for environmental groups who want to throw road blocks in the path of developers who are not affecting salmon. The bottom line is that all actions that result in a violation of critical habitat designation are already prohibited as a result of the Endangered Species designation.

    I am sure that Ray, omykiss, and a few others are still following, but I’m at risk of boring everyone else to death. So let me put it in the form of a challenge. Can you name one action harmful to salmon recovery which was prohibited before this week’s policy announcement, that will not be prohibited if the policy is instituted? I don’t think you’ll be able to, because any action which may place salmon recovery in jeopardy is already precluded by the Endangered listing, whether or not that action is taking place in an area designated as “critical habitat.”

    In other words, this new policy doesn’t change anything, except that it will be a great fundraising tool for environmental groups who will use it to tell people that developers are now free to build housing developments up and down salmon spawning streams. That, of course, is not true and they know it.

    We’re all well aware of the Bush administration’s decision to count hatchery fish and wild fish the same. Now, that is news and is worth making noise about, because it has the potential to actually de-list some species, and will result in less protection. But I’m not too worried about this “critical habitat” policy, because I can’t see that it makes any difference.

    But then I could be wrong. And I’m sure you’ll tell me just how wrong I am.
     
  13. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    David,
    The point of the Endagered Species Act is to restore endangered species to their previous population levels. If you take away historical habitat how is it that possible?

    Troutfanatic
     
  14. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    Much Adieu About Nothing?

    It will reverse the decision concerning the removal and refusal of four dams in Washington State and no longer require salmon protection in at least four military naval bases. Salmon obviously come from the ocean and not protecting them there is just the same as limiting their habitat.

    troutfanatic
     
  15. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Thanks for the insight David. You sound well versed in this subject. Sometimes the very laws that we make to protect us become the roadblocks that stop the very progress we are trying to make! The environmental laws of this country remind me of the labor laws passed in the 1950s. These necessary laws passed then to protect the safety and welfare of the American worker have created more problems by the twisting of corporation, unions, and labor attorneys than imaginable. For every good result there's an equally negative one. The result: Lost jobs, unfair organizing activity, corporate and union joint deception of workers, etc. I don't think this is what the drafters of these laws had in mind (or at least I hope). The problem is that the laws become so complex and so many groups seek to find ways to exploit the laws weaknesses and loopholes for advancing personal agendas. The environment lobby is as tainted and guilty here as their counterparts. The goal at the end is money! Just as union have stolen millions of dollars from the workers they promised to protect from corporate greed, environmentalist uses fear to collect millions from those of us who contribute money to protect our environment. It's hard to figure out just who the bad guys are in this game. Surely, there are great groups out there truly interested in progress, but we have all seen report after report of groups that have exploited followers/members and bilked us of our moneys. With unions, this activity has become almost cliche. Type union + indictment in Google and see what you get! I appreciate the advice of those like you who are able to dissect these seemingly simple issues. Please post more! I for one am looking forward to your future posts. :thumb:
     
  16. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Geeeeez, why dont ya tell us how ya really feel......

    Your solutions and recommendations are certainly going to be welcomed at the bargaining table......
     
  17. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    .
    Okay, BR, I'll accept your challenge, though I'm no expert on the ESA. I also accept a good part of your premise. It's true that if a species is listed under the ESA, among other things it is illegal to harm or harass the listed species. So, activity that modifies habitat in a way that harms the species could conceivably be considered an illegal "take" under the ESA. Another point (which you did not bring up, but I will) is that critical habitat designations do not directly impact private landowners. Critical habitat designations apply to federal agencies. Regardless of whether critical habitat has been designated for a particular listed species, federal agencies are required to consult with whatever federal agency is charged with enforcing the ESA with respect to a particular species (e.g., might be U.S. Fish & Wildlife or it might be NMFS) on projects the federal agencies carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the survival of the listed species. So, I accept part of your premise – that even without critical habitat designations there are (at least in theory) limits on what a federally funded or authorized project can do with respect to habitat; actions that would jeopardize the survival of the species could be blocked by the agency in charge of enforcing the ESA with respect to the species at issue. However, a critical habitat designation adds another layer of protection: it requires federal agencies to consult with the agency in charge of enforcing the ESA to make sure actions that are being funded or authorized will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. With the way this administration is approaching conservation issues, I think it is going to be hard to stop some project that modifies non-critical habitat on the theory that it represents an illegal "take."

    It is not that difficult to think up a couple hypotheticals to illustrate where this could make a difference. For example, let's say Company A comes to the Bureau of Land Management and asks for authorization to set up a gravel mining operation on B Creek. Let's say that pursuant to this new policy, critical habitat designation for B Creek is removed because, although historically it represented major spawning habitat for endangered upper Columbia steelhead, they haven't been observed in the creek for a number of years. Let's say B Creek is a tributary to C River, which is designated as critical habitat for upper Columbia steelhead. If the gravel mining operation is going to result in mining waste and sediment being dumped downstream into C River via B Creek, the ESA is probably going to prevent the BLM from authorizing the mining operation. But let's say instead of a mining operation, it is an impoundment (i.e., dam) to collect water for cattle that are being grazed on BLM land, and the impoundment represents an impassable barrier to the upper reaches of B Creek. The impoundment sure has screwed up B Creek, but it hasn't had any impact on C River (let's assume that it's designed in such a way that flows out of the impoundment are not negatively impacting C River – water flows from the bottom of the dam so that it is cool and cattle can't get into the impoundment itself to foul the water). Since B Creek is not critical habitat and since the impoundment can't really be viewed as harming the listed steelhead, the BLM can authorize the construction and operation of the impoundment. So even though B Creek was historically major spawning habitat for listed steelhead, the absence of critical habitat designation means that it is forever unavailable to assist in the recovery of the listed fish. Before this proposal came out, it used to be the case that areas that were not necessarily currently occupied by a listed species, but which were needed for the species’ recovery, could be designated as critical habitat, and could therefore be an important component of the long-term recovery plans. But, if this goes through, that will no longer be the case. And when we're talking an 80% reduction, that is pretty alarming. (By the way, if critical habitat designation is so meaningless, as you seem to be saying, why is even the Bob Lohn-lead NMFS offering up critical habitat designation for several thousand miles of rivers and streams?)

    Finally, you can brush this one off if you like (doesn't surprise me, for reasons which do not need to be articulated). To me, this is one more stick in the old Kerplunk game that is being pulled out by this administration. Maybe none of the sticks by themselves are critical to holding up the marbles (i.e., endangered or threatened species). But you pull enough of those sticks out and all the marbles will eventually come crashing down.
     
  18. alpinetrout

    alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,907
    Media:
    294
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Hiding in your closet
    :cool: I was hoping someone would get a rise out of that...
     
  19. Brian Simonseth

    Brian Simonseth Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Skagit, Stillaguamish mostly
    This quote turns my stomach

    Ray wrote:
    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.”

    RAY NAILED IT!

    I have more meetings next week and I’m not going to say what I want just yet, but it’s coming…..
     
  20. Bright Rivers

    Bright Rivers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Media:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    Well done, o mykiss. I am pleasantly suprised at the quality and thoughtfulness of your scenario (thought I was taking the bar exam again). Even under your scenario, I don't think the policy change makes a difference, but I'll wait for Ray to weigh in before I explain why I think that.
    Why? Because I'm a conservative? Because I voted for Bush? Then why do I oppose Bush's fish counting policy? I think that policy is a terrible mistake and I tell all my Republican friends so. The old "Well, he's one of them." argument will work with a lot of people on this forum, but not the smart ones. Let's stick to the issues (which you almost managed to do, right up to the end).
    Maybe. But I really don't think that is the administration's angle (I know - of course I'd think that!) But I got the distinct feeling from Ray's post that he thinks that all the marbles have just come crashing down around us, and I don't believe that is the case.
     

Share This Page