I AGREE WITH ltlCLEO,

THIS WHOLE POST WAS STARTED WITH THE HEADING, "BUSH SALMON PLAN". FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO OPENED GOHARLY'S "SO CALLED" BUSH PLAN--YOU CAN EASILY SEE THAT IT DOESN'T REPRESENT BUSH'S PLAN AT ALL, BUT RATHER SOME TREE HUGGERS INTERPRETATION OF IT IN AN OPINION PAGE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE EDITOR OF A SMALL PAPER.

AS READERS OF LOCAL NEWS PAPERS KNOW --THE EDITORS OFTEN PUBLISH LETTERS OF OPINION SUBMITTED BY THEIR READERS. BUT KEEP IN MIND THEY ONLY REPRESENT SOMEONES OPINION--AND THAT SOMEONE MAY HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT CLOUDS THEIR OBEJECTIVITY.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE--'CAUSE--BLACK AND WHITE DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE IT RIGHT!

FOR THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED IN FAIR AND BALANED LOOK AT BUSH'S ENVIROMENTAL RECORD, I WOULD INCOURAGE TO LOOK AT BUSH'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE--WWW.GEORGEWBUSH.COM

AS WITH MOST POLITICAL ISSUES WE SHOULD LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE--THE TRUTH IS OFTEN SOME WHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

KEEP IN MIND THAT PRESIDENT BUSH IS AN AVID OUTDOORSMAN AND FISHERMAN WHO HAS CAUGHT A LOT OF FISH--THE ONLY THING OUR PREVIOUS "ENVIROMENTALLY FRIENDLY " PRESIDENT EVER CAUGHT WAS AN OCCASIONAL SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE.

BUSH 2004


"IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING--YOU'LL FALL FOR ANYTHING."

Please read the above two sentences until their absurdity become obvious.

Then please go read an unbiased collection of the Bush witticisms.

http://www.thedubyareport.com/quotes.html

Want a real picture of our sportsman president. This is one of many Bush proposals that will kill salmon.

OR PROPOSAL FORESHADOWS NATIONAL ROLLBACK: A Bush administration
proposal to release dams on Oregon rivers from complying with EPA water
temperature standards is expected to presage a national rule that would
allow dams all across the country to weaken Clean Water Act quality
standards for temperature, pollution and sediment says Greenwire 10/14.
According to the Save Our Wild Salmon coalition the proposal seeks to
avoid “implementing the difficult measures needed to protect our salmon
and environment” and Northwest Environmental Advocates worries that the
prospects for the national rule protecting public health and the
environment are “much, much grimmer.”

I think the author's credentials lend much credence to his "opinion and OBEJECTIVITY" (sic).

Alex Uber of Olympia is a professional salmon habitat restoration biologist. He specializes in fish passage barrier projects on Columbia River tributaries and other watersheds in Washington.

Oh, please.

Again, why is it that anytime the current administration's policies are questioned an immediate reference to Clinton's sex life is presented? It's gotten as pathetic as minorities that constantly play the "race card."

The answer to that question is quite obvious Harley: FEAR!

Grandpa,

Overgeneralizing? Possibly, but if you oppose degrading the environment, you must oppose Bush’s forest plan, which is about degrading the environment in ways that will adversely affect fish production. Sorry, if I’m the first to inform you of this. I’m not fond of extemism either, which is why I’m generally opposed to Bush’s environmental policies. They are extreme. I recognize that air and water can absorb a significant amount of pollutants before the quality degrades to the point of adversely affecting human health or resources of interest. (Hell, a small amount of water pollution often improves fish habitat productivity.) But in the cases where Bush is acting, we are already past of point of environmental damage, and he is trying to increase the poisoning of your, my, and our air and water. I repeat; that is extreme.

BTW, the California fires are not related to over-zealous environmentalism. Those fires, excepting the two believed caused by arson/accident, are normal and natural to the high chapparal and pine country of southern California. The loss of human life and homes is due more to over-zealous development - building in fire-prone areas in the first place, and failing to build with the expectation of fire in the second.

If you want roads in the national forest, you must accept environmental degradation. Even without clear-cutting, the roads themselves cause much of the altered runoff and mass wasting that degrades and destroys tributary streams. You really cannot have it both ways. Sorry. BTW, I’m not opposed to forest roads. I just want vastly lower road density, better construction AND maintenance, and lower rates of timber harvest that doesn’t always include clear-cutting. I will accept some habitat degradation, because I know that the system can tolerate it, up to a point. The problem is that we are beyond that point in most areas of most forests in the PNW.

I realize that it isn’t correct to say that all Republicans are for raping the environment. It’s just that it is so very, very many of them, and that and a couple of other platform positions they advocate has pushed me toward the liberal camp that holds some positions I don’t care for all that much either, but at least they seem likely to leave the planet capable of still supporting life.


Plunker,

“Patently false and biased allegations.” ??? Who makes patently false and biased allegations? Our Commander in Chief comes to mind, with his insipid statement claiming responsibility for successful salmon returns.

It’s true that I’m a product of the 60s (and earlier for that matter), but I’m not high on acid or any other drug. I may be naive about a few things, but I’m neither stupid nor uninformed. I’m recognized by many in my field as an expert on salmonid ecology, and I have a background in physics, biology, forestry, the hydroelectric industry, hatcheries, harvest management, and plenty of exposure to political gamesmanship. I routinely work in an adversarial environment. No one has described my work as extreme. I am generally described by the parties I work with - and this has included members of the forestry and energy industries - as reasonable, fair, and a strong advocate of the fisheries resource.

You are wrong regarding Bush’s advocacy for leaving the dams in place. True, the environment is already either degraded and destroyed. However, leaving the dams in place will not recover Snake River salmon. Many populations are gone, and more will be lost, even if the lower four Snake R. dams were removed today. Saying we can have both is duplicitous. For the Snake, the sky already fell for most salmon populations.

It’s true that today’s forest practices are more earth-friendly, but don’t delude yourself by believing that they are actually good for fish. They are good for fish in the way that beating your wife less harshly than you used to is beneficial to your wife. (I’m not implying that you actually beat your wife, but am trying to strongly make this point.) More dams will be removed or decommissioned in this century, and there will likely be significant positive environmental responses.

I understand the issues associated with development, but am confused by your suggestion that people participate in development of zoning ordinances, since you seem to imply approval. The classic conservative position is to oppose zoning as the unnecessary, unconstitutional taking of private rights and property. So are you partially a closet liberal? Zoning is a very liberal idea, hated by conservatives.

I don’t expect that we’re going to change one another’s views, and that wasn’t my point. I’m just really curious how conservatives who truly value environmental quality reconcile the mutually exclusive positions they must thereby embrace. Believe me, I shudder when I consider some of the positions advocated by some of the people I’ve voted for. It’s never satisfying to simply choose a lessor evil.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Okay, I've held my tongue for long enough (everybody keeps giving me funny looks anyway ) There is so much to agree with and disagree with even in the same post. Logging practices have been beaten to death on this board and yes, I will say that I am bitter over what the logging practices of the 19th and 20th centuries have done to our National Forests and the rivers that run through them. Those criminals (unconvicted) are the real environmental extrimists. But, on to GW - I can see reasons why people support Bush, I don't agree with them but the conservative politics of Bush do appeal to a large part of the population. But, please do not insult my intelligence - this Administrations environmental policies are not good for fish, all the available, good science has proven it to me. Support him if you must, but listen to Salmo - his words are truth.

How can you support democrats when they are the ones supporting the commercial gillnetters in this state? If we let the democrats in this state have their way, we won't be allowed to hunt or fish, but the commercial netters will be allowed to net at will. Who is really protecting our rights in this state? Those evil republicans!

I can not support a party that wants us all dependent on the government, eating granola bars, and riding unicycles. NO HUNTING, NO FISHING, THAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC SALMON PLAN!! Don't forget to support Ron Sims....he really cares.... yeah right.

surecatch
goharley
4salt
salmo
and ,yes, even you Eddie

You all make my head hurt.

Salmo..sometimes your "facts" are ideology based and embellished quite a bit to suit your ideology.

Give me Al Sharpton in 04 because atleast he's funny (he's hosting Saturday Night Live this week). Until then I am wrapping foil around my head to stave off the all that bad Bush karma that you 5 are so certain is raining down on all of us.

Oh I almost forgot....Salmo..I actually listened to you until this post when I realized your political bias punctuates much of your factual ramblings.

Oh Harley..did you ever notice that Bill Clinton's nose looks like a fat penis? So if I call him a lying dickface is that ok?

Grandpa, I must tell you, I laughed out loud when I read you troika of posts. And that's a good thing, when I stop laughing, I think I'll be dead. The tinfoil thing - priceless.

Grandpa: You can call Bill anything you want. (Although i wonder what he has to do with the bush salmon plan?) At least Clinton would be able to hear you. Now if we were talking about Rush . . .

Can you hear me now . . . too bad, maybe drugs are bad for you???

Thanks Grandpa,

You have put me in a mood to lite and fine to seriously address Mr. Steelheads droll allegations just now.

I'll be back tomorrow. - Plunk

Sorry, I am A total Salmo G fan here... I also agree with GO HARLEY on most items.. I am a redneck from a redneck state that grew up in a redneck enviroment....

Early on,, I found out that any Reagan, Bush.. and whoever is next in line... cares nothing about the enviroment.....

Sorry Rush fans..... Me and my kids will vote you out off this planet...

This discussion clearly illustrates why the sport anglers in the PNW will never be a force in salmon or any other fisheries management issues. Even on board as populated with passionate anglers that care deeply about their fishing and the fish as this can not have a disuccsion concerning the resource's environmental needs without the discussion being immediately diverted into a political debate.

At one time I believed that if folks just had accurate information and an understanding of the processes that shaped fish management that the angling community could come together and become force. Salmo's and other's efforts over the last several years have proven that is not to be.

As a group we are hopeless and are doomed to fighting over the fish crumbs left on the table after other competing users have feasted on all they want.

my $0.02

Smalma

[QUOTE] [/Me and my kids will vote you out off this planet...QUOTE]

Thank you...We need more rednecks like you representing the Democrats....Got one a them ther confedderrat flaggs on yer pick up?

Smalma...this STARTED as a political debate and not a save the salmon debate. It didn't turn into one. I don't really believe there is a sole here who doesn't want to recover the environment and help the fish runs. It is just obvious there are those who disagree about how to do it. I think you have it backwards. Some of the members of the minority drag salmon recovery into their zealous attacks on the president. In fact, I bet you could have a discussion about baby food and the usual suspects would find a way to turn it around into a Bush Bash....I can see it now: "BUSH BABY FOOD PLAN"........." In an article in the New York Times Ted Kennedy reveals that GW is killing all of our babies because his environmental policies are poisoning the baby food."

Salmon fishing and recovery is not doomed just because some good hearted people disagree on politics and religion. That will always be the case.

Smalma,

Please note that the very first post in this thread was meant to do one thing…
Bash Bush!

It is a political thread initiated in an attempt to divide us politically and move us towards the left. This thread is typical of the attitude of those selfish and outspoken few who wish to impose their own ethics and fishing practices upon the entire angling community and who religiously persecute anyone who does not willingly conform.

It is the united efforts of organizations like Washington Trout, American Rivers, the Audubon Society, the Native Fish Society, the Wild Steelhead Coalition, the Federation of Fly Fishers, Trout Unlimited and others who use (or more precisely misuse) conservation and the environment as an excuse to reduce fishing opportunity and diversity amongst anglers that divides us as a community.

These folks who put the mission before fishin' will continuously attack, bash and redefine everything in their path until their selfish greed for ownership of the resource is quenched. Fishermen and fishing women as a group will never be united so long as so-called fishing groups promote their political and personal issues and seek allocation of the entire resource for themselves to be used in their way only.

Only through groups who promote all fishing styles and work to further fishing opportunities and issues that appeal to all anglers will any semblance of unity be achieved.

OK grandpa, what positive steps to recover the environment would you propose then? You don't think dams on the Columbia/Snake should have to live up to the Clean Water Act, what then? Give us some specifics about the environment, not Indians or commercial gillnetters, or WDFW or left/right this and that. By the way it's soul when referring to a person, sole when referring to a boot.

You know, you're right. It does kind of look like that. You can call him anything you'd like; you surely don't need my permission, but thanks anyway. BTW, if you fold that tin foil just right you can pick up Fox News.

I didn't intend for this thread to turn into another major political debate. I was merely pointing out a policy by the current administration that might not be wise. If you're a Bush supporter, that's great. But just because you're a Bush supporter doesn't mean you have to defend every single policy he comes up with. Perhaps you could write him and suggest that he reevaluate the harm the dams may cause to salmon recovery effort. Following anyone blindly because of party affiliation is the most unpatriotic thing an American can do.

ET- how in the world do you equate commercial netters to be the result of Democrats? I don't see how it can be associated with any one party - seems like it's caused more by greed than anything.

But if I had to attach a political affiliation to netters I'd follow this logic: Netting is BIG business with few restraints; who supports big business with few restraints for profit? Dems or Repubs?

Plunker - you have obvious issues with paranoia. You really should speak with a professional. Your posts are becoming contradictory and rambling.