Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by ray helaers, Dec 1, 2004.
Call Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell...maybe they have a plan.
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.
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? )
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?
Well said O mykiss!
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.
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.
Did I read this right? I'm confused...
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.
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.
Heck, I thought you were right handed, you cast with your right... :clown:
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....
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.
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.