A Dream Come True For Some!

WDFW becomes a part of DNR. The very possible resulsts would be a sharp reduction in hatcery fish. This not only means steelhead and salmon but trout.

For those of you that disdane any nonindigenous fish this should be a day to celebrate! No more non native fish introduced into our waters. That means no more rainbows in the lakes or streams. No more steelhead in the rivers. No more Lahotan Cutts in eastern WA. No more browns to be stocked. In fact no more stocking at all! I hope you have caught a steelhead, hatchery or otherwise because if this happens you aren't going to catch one.

Yes, it will revert back to what is there now that survives will become our fish of choice.

It seems strange to me that the Rocky Mountain west, which is very conservative, is the destination of choice. The more liberal the state the poorer the fishing and hunting, California and Washington for example and the entire east coast. Yes the Dems really care about wildlife and the environment. Just look where they have run government for any significant period of time.

Good fishing all. You elected these liberal Dems and now we get to pay for it!!

Once again... if you think there's a difference between modern democrats and modern republicans, you're mistaken; same thing, different marketing. debating partisan politics is a waste of time when it comes to survival of fish.
Democrats = the party of bad ideas.
Republicans= the party of no ideas.
Or is the other way around?
Simply break the word down and it becomes obvious. Politics - Poli, meaning many. Tics, blood sucking parasites.


Active Member
Well, you could also look at the statistic of people per square mile in the states that you just described. The population per square mile is much higher in Washington, California, and the East Coast than it is in the western rocky mountain states and Alaska. Higher population density generally equates to more liberal state politics because there is a higher chance of the population being from metropolitan areas, which are generally very liberal. Sorry if that's conclusory. Higher population density will also create more pressure on the fish because of either the environmental or overfishing concerns. The relation between politics and the state of the environment in these states should be more correlative than causative. Also compare the price tag on a salmon or steelhead to that of a westslope cutthroat. I think it's wrong to examine the two very different situations and draw a political generalization from it.

Old Man

Just an Old Man
You all start bringing Politic's into this thread and it will probably get locked up. That is one thing Chris has a no-no on. In the forum rules.

Leroy Laviolet

Aint no nookie like chinookie
Once again... if you think there's a difference between modern democrats and modern republicans, you're mistaken; same thing, different marketing. debating partisan politics is a waste of time when it comes to survival of fish.
:thumb::thumb::thumb: Neither side has any interest in running our country based on the constitution . They are both after governmental control, the exact opposite principle of what this country was founded on... How off base the government has become- If you think either side really gives two shits about fish and wildlife , you are kidding yourself- Power , control , and the ability to bleed us to death through taxation is uncles sam's priority these days- Anyone who thought Obama was a win for the fisheries was high on crack-:beathead: Anyone who thought either candidate was going to be a win for the fisheries was equaly high on crack !!


Active Member
I am not a member of either of the parties in the ridiculous 2 party system we have. However, I do notice trends or tendencies of both parties in regards to the environment and natural resource management. I find that members of the GOP tend to be poorly informed regarding the natural resource issues that they say they are concerned about. Wet Line is a perfect example of this. Apparently, based on his highly misinformed statements, wet line believes that rainbow trout and steelhead are non-indigenous fish and that the discontinuation of hatchery steelhead plantings will somehow preclude any of us from ever catching a native steelhead which I presume he means when he uses the phrase "or otherwise". So in one statement he says that steelhead are not native and in another statement he implies that there are steelhead that are not of hathery origin. Nice logic wet line. He never states where he heard that hatcheries were going to be totally eliminated. This is a typical trick of the GOP. Exaggerate, embellish, mislead and never provide citations or sources while doing so. Also make sure to ignore any real causitive factors that preclude your argument like the population factor that Cruik pointed out.

Although I am not satisfied with the track record of the Dems on the environment, it does seem to me that they are the ones that have a more positive history when it comes to environmental protection and responsible resource management. This is my conclusion when I ask myself the following questions: Which party is typically trying to expand or create new National Parks, Wilderness Areas and National Forests and which party tends to fight these efforts in favor of development and resource extraction? Which party fights against offshore drilling while the other screams "drill baby drill!"? Which party tends to create and support legislation that protects clean water, clean air and endangered species and which party almost always fights to dilute these efforts in the name of economic expansion (ie corporate profits). Which party is trying to reform 1880's mining laws that allow mining companies to claim public resources, extract or harvest those resources, while leaving the public to pay the bill for cleanup efforts afterwards? Which party supports mountain top mining that allows creeks to be filled with mining tailings while stating that this practice is not necessarily bad for water quality or aquatic resources? Which party supports efforts by fishery managers to prevent overfishing using science based managment regimes and which party rejects additional regulation in favor of regs that allow overfishing to continue?

Well, wet line, do you have answers for these questions? And while your at it please point out speciific examples of policies, laws or statements that lead you to the conclusion that liberals are bad stewards of the envrironment and natural resources and conservatives are doing well in this arena. Also feel free to state where you heard that all hatchery programs were going to be eliminated if the departments merge. I have provided examples, to support my opinion. Maybe you should try and think of some examples to support your terribly biased and misguided statements. This fiscally conservative socially liberal forum member is looking forward to your response!


a.k.a. Griswald
Please, you are dissmissed. Democommie attacks? How old are you? I expect better.

I will start debunking very slowly for you...and we can go from there:

James Watt (thanks Wikipedia)
In 1980, President-elect Reagan chose Watt to be his Secretary of the Interior. He was soon after approved by the United States Senate.

Watt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior was marked by controversy, stemming primarily from his alleged hostility to environmentalism and his support of the development and use of federal lands by foresting, ranching, and other commercial interests.

For over two decades, Watt held the record for protecting the fewest species under the Endangered Species Act in United States history. The record was broken by Dirk Kempthorne, a George W. Bush appointee who, as of August 27, 2007, had not listed a single species in the 15 months since his confirmation. [3]

Greg Wetstone, who was the chief environment council at the House Energy and Commerce Committee during the Reagan administration and later served as director of advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Watt was one of the two most "intensely controversial and blatantly anti-environmental political appointees" in American history. (The other was Anne Gorsuch, head of the EPA at that time.)[4] According to the environmental groups, Watt decreased funding for environmental programs,[5] restructured the department to decrease federal regulatory power,[5] wished to eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which had been designed to increase the size of National Wildlife Refuges and other protected land),[5] eased regulations on oil[5] and mining[6][5] companies, and favored opening wilderness areas and shorelands for oil and gas leases.[5]

The reality is that BOTH parties are responsible for many faults and troubles. Our best hope is to work with leaders and organizations who value our resources and our future, regardless of party affiliation.

Please take your trash talk and your ignorance somewhere else...