Absolutely Fishing Related: Congrats Bush Voters

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

  1. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Media:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    When you get right down to it, in many parts of Western Washington (Seattle, Bellingham, Olympia), a liberal can very easily never have any contact with a conservative in their daily lives. It is almost impossible for a conservative to not have at least some contact with liberals; kinda like trying to live in Salt Lake City and never interact with a Mormon!

    The reverse could also be said about many areas in Eastern Washington, although I don't think to quite the same extent.

    It is, in my opinion, what leads to the "demonization" of people with the opposite political views. Like anything or anybody; immigrants, guns, wild animals, etc., it is a natural tendancy to fear what one doesn't know.
     
  2. Rob Bodkin

    Rob Bodkin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mukilteo, WA
    It is even more natural to fear/pity conservatives when you know them on a deep core level.
     
  3. Bright Rivers

    Bright Rivers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Media:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    It's been said that there is no such thing as bad press, and I'd imagine the same may be true of awards. Lawless would realize this and resist the urge to crown me King Loon. No, there's only one way to deal with deviants like me -- snub 'em.

    That's okay. Even Spielberg was snubbed until eventually it was impossible to deny his genius. ;)
     
  4. Kalm

    Kalm Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cheney, The Dry Side

    Interesting sub-thread.

    I think the great red-blue divide is a bit overblown. What was Bush's percentage in King County? Roughly 35%? So 3.5 out 10 people clearly aren't liberal, and probably half of the other 6.5 people are fairly moderate.
    Besides most people you know or have daily contact with are apolitical. You'll never know their leanings.

    I would agree that most people tend to insulate themselves by befriending like minded people, regardless of geography. But I think what leads to demonization is not who you're surrounded by, but a failure to be open minded and honestly listen to what those of opposing opinions say.
     
  5. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,163
    Media:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Location:
    Not sure
    I would submit that nowhere in this country is that more apparent than in the US House of Representatives, where to compromise or seek out bipartisan support runs the risk of being cut off from party financial support in upcoming relection campaigns.

    As I see it, the polarization divide in our country began before Bill Clinton's re-election when Newt Gingrich conservatives with their Contract With America recaptured the majority in the House and the Evangelical right began to mobilize to keep control of the country from falling into the 'wrong hands'. Like Bush said about the war on terror (lower case spelling intended): "You're either with us or you're against us."

    K
     
  6. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Media:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    What radicalized Newt Gingrich, was a congressional election in the 1980's (Indiana IIRC) where the Rep. won the race but the Dem. election official ordered a recount and then stopped the recount (before doing a full recount) as soon as the Dem. pulled ahead, declairing him the winner. Until that time, he had been an unknown back bencher. No, the polarization started well before 1994!

    But Congress has always been polarized. There use to be fist fights on the floor of Congress back in the 1800's and a few disputes were settled with pistols at ten paces! It's kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys; it started so long ago that no one can say with any certainty who started it exactly.

    The correct quote by President Bush is: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists". Similar, but a slightly different meaning.

    Another exemplary example of "liberal" tolerance and desire to work together. :rolleyes:

    You know Rob, I had always been willing to read and consider your views with interest and an open mind, engage in an exchange of ideas. Maybe even come to an agreement on somethings. But why should I bother now, when you have made it abundantly clear that anyone who doesn't follow your beliefs exactly, is just a loathsome creature worthy only of your contempt and pity.

    Sounds exactly like what people accuse the Christians of doing!

    Think he might have been talking about YOU, Rob! ;)

    I agree with that, Kalm. But with the percentage of Kerry voters in Seattle at 80%, a person living in Seattle can easily go to work, shop, dine, etc. and never meet a Bush voter to have that respectful conversation.

    It's a natural tendancy for anyone, when surrounded only by like minded people, to begin to feel that EVERYONE must think that same way. So when they meet someone of a different belief, well, there just MUST be something wrong with them because they don't think like "normal" people.

    This is a condition that can affect people of ALL political, religious, ethnic, etc. backrounds. It's what made the cavemen fear/hate the cavemen from the next valley over. It's one reason why the "Know Nothings" feared/hated the Irish. It's why any area, be it a "Red" area or a "Blue" area, that votes 80% for only one party is an unhealthy thing.

    I enjoy coming here and having these discussions so that I don't get that mind set. It's good to learn from a different perspective, even if you don't agree with it!
     
  7. Zen Piscator

    Zen Piscator Supporting wild steelhead, gravel to gravel.

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,074
    Media:
    551
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Missoula, MT
    Home Page:
    Bright,
    Regardless of your political opinonis, saying that loosing 80% of protected salmon habitat will not affect the fish is like saying that leveling new york with a nuke will have no effect on human life in new york state. It is simply flat out incorrect.

    Peace,
    Andy
     
  8. Bright Rivers

    Bright Rivers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Media:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    Andy –

    I understand completely why you and a lot of other people are concerned. An “80% reduction in critical habitat” certainly sounds like a big deal. But if you understand the legal meaning of the label “critical habitat” (and that’s all it is, a label), you will better understand what it is I have been trying to say.

    Let me try one last time, through the use of an analogy. I have young boys. We have a blanket rule in my home that they are not allowed to roughhouse anywhere inside the house. Then one day, I add another rule: that the living room in particular (where there are more breakables) is designated a special “No Ball Throwing Zone” where they are not allowed to throw balls. This sounds like I just added more restrictions, but in fact I have not, because throwing balls anywhere in the house is already against the rules, because it falls within the household definition of “roughhousing.” Then one day I tell the kids that the living room is no longer a No Ball Throwing Zone. My wife would freak -- you told them what!?! (just like everyone on this site has freaked out) until I explain to her that roughhousing is still prohibited everywhere and that throwing balls is roughhousing.

    This is a crude analogy, and probably imprecise in some important regards. But the principal is the same. The words “critical habitat” only mean what the law says they mean, and the courts (not me, but the courts) have ruled time and again that they are virtually meaningless.

    But I sense that you would feel better believing that Bush’s actions will have dire consequences and that a good rant may be therapeutic for you. So don’t let me get in the way.
     
  9. Zen Piscator

    Zen Piscator Supporting wild steelhead, gravel to gravel.

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,074
    Media:
    551
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Missoula, MT
    Home Page:
    This isnt a rant, its simply the truth. Also, can you tell me with 100% honestly that this will infact not take away 80% of protected habitat, and that is will have NO negative impact on the salmon population in the areas that are not unpretected? Riddle me this, If it has no negative impact and acomplished nothing, what is the point in doing it. Bush has alot of clever people around him, im sure Carl Rove and all the others are indeed doing this for a reason.

    Peace,
    Andy
     
  10. Whitey

    Whitey Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,005
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Far side of the moon
    Alright, I chime in and give some of you a shock, seriously, you need to be shocked. The 80% thing, protected habitat. Well, how can I say this, guess I'll just come out with it: A lot of fish are in places you either didn't think they were, or are just uninformed. Get real people, WDFW doesn't know every single little creek and river that has fish. WDFW is dumb and lazy, hey their state employees and we all know how ineffecient they are. These would be zippers, a few of us know, how? we hike, we read, were plain nuts and hunt these places down. So they fall into a grey area, which means there is no evidence of fish, or the state ever checking it out, doing surveys, etc. I know a place that is full of steelies, its a 3 mile hike, all native fish, completely forgotten about. Amazing how nature can do what man can't? the state has no idea, but the land around it is protected for various reasons, but it will be clear cut and destroyed if Bush gets his way. And for what? so some greedy bastard can make a few bucks, or some rich guy can build an estate for his trophy wife? F'n lame. leave it alone, let it be wild and free. let nut jobs like me fish it in peace. Ya, I'm selfish, but you Republicans are lazy and uninformed, which is ok to a point, the point where you read some phyco-babble report by some slanted douche bag about something you know nothing about and make decisions that affect me. YT :cool:
     
  11. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,628
    Media:
    85
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    This forum, like any community is in trouble. I read through these posts and see too clearly the problem facing the world today. We, the human race, in large part don't understand that we are all connected. In our own ego driven fear we have grouped together behind religion or politics or even recreational groups to bring about a personal agenda to benefit us, individually, not as a species. What we end up with is us versus them in most of our affairs. Republicans vs Democrats, Protestants vs Catholics, Gay vs Straight, Bait vs Flyfishers, and on and on and on...

    When will we ever come together for the common good of all people?
     
  12. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Media:
    516
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    What is the 'common good'? Is the common good for all people the exact same thing as the common good for all life on earth?
     
  13. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,628
    Media:
    85
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Yup! All life is interwoven...you can't have one without the other...well, now that I think about it, nature in general might be in better shape without us screwing it up as we seem so ready to do.
     
  14. Kalm

    Kalm Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cheney, The Dry Side
    What is the 'common good'? Is the common good for all people the exact same thing as the common good for all life on earth?

    Of course it is, if you continue Roper's point about "being connected" to nature and not just human interests. And I think an obvious common good to start with is a sustainable environment. That should far outweigh profit, which might not even be a "common" good to begin with.
     
  15. ray helaers

    ray helaers Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    BR,

    Let's get serious for a second. Your analogy, in fact your entire analysis, misses a fundamental point. It is not the "reduction" in the amount of habitat designated as critical that is important; it is the definition the administration proposes that is problematic.

    You are more or less right that critical habitat designations in currently occupied habitats are to some extent redundant. The Section-9 take prohibitions protect listed salmon where ever they exist, regardless of whether or not that habitat is designated critical or not. (It is worth noting that a CHD DOES afford them some extra measures of protection, but whatever, they're still protected). But that is where your analysis ends short. Areas that are currently not occupied by listed salmon are NOT protected by the take prohibitions. If there's no salmon, they don't need to be protected, and those habitat areas enjoy NO ESA PROTECTIONS, unless they are designated as critical habitat. In a case like salmon, where they have been functionally extirpated from vast areas of their historic range, including many areas that would likely need to be repopulated in order to effect successful recovery, at least some of those currently currently unoccupied habitats need and deserve the types of ESA protection that they can only recieve through a Critical Habitat Designation.

    Say you turned your garage into an office. If your kids got themselves a slick lawyer with no concience (like say Mark Rutzick), they might successfully argue that the garage was not technically part of the house, and you would have to add another layer of protection to your house rules to protect your new office furniture from overzealous games of capture the flag.

    In fact, the language from the ESA makes pretty clear that Critical Habitat Designations are more or less reserved for those habitats that are currently unoccupied, a recognition of the redundancy between CHD and Section-9. Currently occupied habitats must demonstrate certain special features in order to qualify for CHD. By saying that ONLY currently occupied habitats will qualify for CHD, the administration is mocking the intent of the law, turning the CHD into a meaningless, redundant shellgame. They are creating a CHD that certainly will do nothing to contribute to recovery, while freeing up tens of thousands of square miles of potential and necessary salmon and steelhead habitat to inappropriate exploitation.

    Again, congratulations to bag men everywhere (present company excepted of course).

    Oh, and by the way. As to your concern about my lack of a diverse circle, aren't we friends? Maybe we should fish.
     
  16. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    271
    Location:
    .
    Ray, you 'da man. I hadn't really thought of it quite this way. If you're right (particularly the part of your statement I bolded) - which I'm not necessarily ready to accept - this would be a major legal shortcoming of this CHD proposal. I need to go back and re-read the proposal, but isn't it the case that the only places that NMFS is proposing to designate are (1) areas that listed fish are known to occupy, and (2) areas that biologists with local expertise presume are occupied by listed fish? If that is so, I can't imagine they have met the mandate of the statute, which is to designate areas that, while not occupied, are "essential to the conservation of the species." It just doesn't make sense to me that the best available science indicates that only areas currently occupied (or presumed to be occupied) by listed species are all that is essential to their conservation, unless (as some have suggested, and I'm somewhat suspicious of) NMFS is construing "conservation" narrowly to only mean avoiding the extirpation of the species. Such a narrow construction would fly in the face of the ESA, since "conservation" is defined to mean "the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no long necessary." (my emphasis) (In other words, the object of the ESA is not simply to prevent listed species from going extinct, but to get them to a point where ESA protections are no longer needed - i.e., so we can fish for them to our heart's content!)

    So it comes down to whose interpretation of the ESA and related rules is right:

    1) BR, who says that the take provisions that apply to any listed species would prevent anything and everything in terms of modification to non-critical habitat that a critical habitat designation would?

    or

    2) Ray, who says that no habitat protections would apply to areas that are not designated as critical habitat because there are no listed species in those areas and therefore no habitat modification could represent an illegal take?

    (Either one of you can correct me if I've misconstrued your basic premise.) I personally think the answer is somewhere in between: I believe there could be scenarios where a court would consider modifications to habitat that has not been designated as critical to be an illegal take (because it harms listed fish that occupy critical habitat further downstream), but also scenarios where a court would not consider modifications to habitat that has not been designated as critical [/I]not to be an illegal take. And because I simply cannot believe that only 20% of what was originally considered essential to the conservation of these species to be all that is required to successfully recover them, I continue to believe this proposal is bad (not to mention, illegal).

    By the way, can someone repost a link to the proposal? I initially looked at it thanks to a link that someone posted on another thread, but I am having difficulty locating it (and can't seem to find it on NOAA's web site). EDIT: nevermind, here it is: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/NWRproposedCHD-web.pdf
     
  17. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Media:
    516
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    "Of course it is, if you continue Roper's point about "being connected" to nature and not just human interests. And I think an obvious common good to start with is a sustainable environment. That should far outweigh profit, which might not even be a "common" good to begin with."


    This sounds reasonable if we lived in a utopia type world. When we (people) are in 'survival mode', what is 'good' for us may not work out so nicely for the other life around us.

    I guess my point is - who do you think is a better steward of the enviroment, the capitalist\industrial USA or xyz (pick your favorite) 3rd world country?

    Because we are a nation with 'plenty', we have the 'luxury' of diverting time, money, resources to help improve, sustain, and protect the environment.

    I'm not saying that mindset is good, but I think it more closely reflects reality....
     
  18. alpinetrout

    alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,959
    Media:
    294
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Hiding in your closet
    Every year, thousands of anglers fly off to third world countries for the better fishing they offer. We once were a nation of plenty, but now we're a nation of debt.
     
  19. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,309
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    I'm with you Roper- we are in trouble. iagree

    But the ego is the same everywhere in this world and "us against them' is just one of the many rediculous, unnecessary, paranoid and destructive defenses in the ego's pantheon of transparent ploys. Anything but surrender, humilty, healing, and joining in equality will do.

    The emperor has no clothes.
     
  20. Zen Piscator

    Zen Piscator Supporting wild steelhead, gravel to gravel.

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,074
    Media:
    551
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Missoula, MT
    Home Page:
    Ray,whitey,brendan,o mykiss,Roper,Bob AMEN. Brendan, you bring up a point that seems like something that totally shouldn't be happening. I can name more than a few 3rd wold countries that have populations of fish per water ratio that drawf ours. Another interesting example is canada. With Brian Chan being the head of fisheries, they have made many stillwaters and streams into great fisheries, and preserved the many that were already great. Canada seems to understand how much money fishing can bring to their country. This resource has given them many benefits. On the other hand, our country has done the opposite. Look what the effect has been. America could really make some money if we restored some of the fisheries that we had. Can you begin to fathom 200 million pounds of salmon entering the columbia river every year. Do you realize the ramification of so much biomass? So, is there a proposed solution in sight for the fish, or are some of going to keep ranting and raving about it. I must say i am guilty of this, but getting mighty fed up.

    Peace,
    Andy