Absolutely Fishing Related: Congrats Bush Voters

This has been an interesting discussion, and quite frankly, one that's probably not taken place in most of the rest of U.S.

I suspect that the habitat reduction story that received such prominent front page placement in the Seattle Times didn't even appear in the Atlanta Constitution, Miami Herald or the Birmingham Bulletin. In Georgia, Florida, or Alabama, salmon are not as integrally woven into the fabric of local culture as they are here. In most of the rest of our nation, chinook or coho are more likely to be found on the menus of tony restaurants than in protracted discourse.

But here, the announcement resonates; especially so in a group like ours in which anadramous fish are held in such high esteem.

I imagine that the announcement of Bush plan came as the same collective kick in the balls to all of us on this forum, liberals and conservatives, red and blue alike. The interesting part is to see how quickly the conservatives begin to parse and dissemble, arguing that the habitat protection reductions are actually meaningless distinctions, a form of bureaucratic hair-splitting with no real potential impact.

Not that it matters now, but I wonder how many of the professed Bush supporters among us would have voted for him anyway if they had known of his plans in advance?

K

 

I would imagine that much of this historical range has already been developed and is beyond the ability to protect. There were thousands of small streams and other habitat areas that have been destroyed by cities, ports, farms, etc. that will never be protected or restored. As much as many may wish, the cities are not going to tear out streets en mass to restore streams. Nor are they going to remove the Ballard Locks or tear out Grand Coulee dam to restore historical fish habitat. I just don't see us every getting back to 100% (or even 90%) of the historical habitat being reclaimed and protected.

I apologize for having not studied this issue as much as others have and have some questions for those that have.

There are also many miles of historical habitat that can be readily restored by culvert improvements, levee setbacks, wider stream buffers, etc. Is this proposal saying that these readily recoverable areas will not be protected and restored?

Does anyone know exactly HOW much of the 80% of historical habitat is left in a condition that can be either readily reclaimed or protected? Or is this a proposed 80% reduction of the remaining historical habitat? Could the proposed 20% of historical habitat really be 75% of the remaining habitat?

Doesn't this proposal have to pass muster with a Federal judge? And if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to support the attorney's representing the fisheries groups?

 

I don’t expect to be cut any slack, and I’ve never asked for it (or received it). If people know that I oppose Bush on some important issues, then they know that when I support him on other issues, it’s because I support him on those issues, not because I’m following a party platform on blind faith. I can see that doesn’t impress you much, but I feel differently. I’m always impressed when I hear a liberal disagree with his party on an issue. I make a mental note that, while this guy is a loon, at least he’s an independent minded loon. And that’s all I’m trying to get around here – status as independent thinking loon.

I think you have Republicans confused with Libertarians, because most Republicans don’t support either of those ideologies as you’ve written them. I can handle reasonable taxation, and I view limited governmental regulation as positive and useful. However, I will oppose anything that smells like socialism, which leads to national poverty, which leads to people caring much more about putting food on the table than saving the environment.

Do you mean to tell me you don’t have one conservative friend? Ray, I know conservatives are not easy to find in Western Washington, but that’s sort of sad. To stay “in touch,” everyone should have at least one close friend who is at least 10 years older than they are, one which is 10 years younger, one with a different religion, and one with an opposing political bent (not necessarily one of the opposite sex though, as that is asking for trouble). If I meet any conservatives with no liberal friends (that would take real loner around here), I’ll match you two up. :thumb:

I’ll take it!

I am strongly opposed to the fish counting proposal but that was announced long before the election, so you know that wasn’t enough to lose my vote. And you already know that I’m not at all concerned about the CHD reduction. So that leaves dams. Would I have voted for John Kerry if I knew that Bush would decide to keep the dams? Given that Bush isn’t proposing to build more dams, but just keep the status quo, the answer is No, my vote wouldn’t be any different.

Actually, it was federal judges who got the ball rolling by ruling that most CHDs are bogus because the federal agencies designated them without giving any thought to the “economic impact,” as they are required by law to do. Similar to the fish counting policy, the Bush administration is just codifying the federal courts interpretation of the ESA. Liberals like to imagine that this whole thing came down because the timber barons and developers walked into the oval office on November 3rd, stogies clenched in teeth, and said, Okay Georgie, we scratched your back . . . now its payback time. The truth is that the ESA is a hopelessly screwy piece of legislation that NOAA and NMFS have been fumbling for two decades. The federal courts have, in recent years, begun telling them to get their administrative act together, and the Bush administration, as it should, is codifying the case law so that NOAA and NMFS don’t go on making the same mistakes. We’ll continue to see more of this kind of thing until congress supplants the ESA with legislation written by someone who knows what they’re doing.

 

Be carefuly what you wish for BR. Lawless might concoct some sort of wacky award for you :-D

K

 

BR - I haven't had time to post much lately, but I am encouraged to see someone represent my perspective in such a positive way. Thanks!

 

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.

 

It is even more natural to fear/pity conservatives when you know them on a deep core level.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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