''The same approach is being used, I think, to gorilla market the Bush administration as an enemy of the environment. That isn't necessarily the case. His administration is making changes that offend folks who would like to see wilderness locked up and rivers closed down. These people aren't conservationists by definition, but protectionists. There's a big difference there. Speaking as someone with a background in the natural sciences, I will stand up and say that not all logging or mining is bad. Some here apparently think it is. Not all roads into roadless areas are bad. Not all petroleum extraction is bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed."

kjackson,
I read the above statement as implying that people who are against Bush policy are also against all logging and mining. This implies that they are radicals or extremist. The only purpose that I can see for a false statement like this is to solicit an emotional negative response toward a group of people you disagree with.

"If you define what you mean by "environmental movement" and "anyone of any standing", I'll try to find a quote or two. None come to mind at the moment, but then I tend to turn off diatribe (if I recognize it as such) unless it gets my knickers in a twist as some of this stuff has."

Ah, the define every word game. You can use any definition you feel comfortable with. I don't think you will find any quotes from anyone here on this board or from environmental groups stating " all logging and mining is bad", as you put it. Could it be that quotes don't "come to mind" because they don't exist rather than being some " diatribe" that you "tun off".

Salmo-- Thanks for the correction; there goes my life-long record of being absolutely right all of the time! Seriously, I'd forgotten about the Supreme Court challenge...and still don't remember anything about it. It could have happened while I was living in Montana or when I was too busy fishing.

FNP--Hogan's decision still stands until it's overturned on appeal. HOWEVER, the policy that is coming out of it is up for comment, and you can have an impact on that. That part of this isn't over. I'm still reading and re-reading the draft policy to see if I can de-code it. I'm still looking for the portion that says that hatchery fish and wild fish are of the same stock....on the quick read that I gave the policy draft I didn't see it. But it could be there.

Keta--Your first quote was of my opinion-- as you will notice with the phrase"I think". I'm not tagging anyone as radical or extremist-- that was your reading and not my intent. Nor am I trying to influence anyone's feelings in regards to people--ideas that I believe are wrong are another matter. When I see an issue I care about, where incorrect information is being bandied about, I sometimes jump in with the idea of providing accurate info.

As far as the definition game as you call it-- all I want to do is find out if we're on the same page before I spend any time pursuing quotes that might or might not exist. You're the one who brought up the idea of quotes-- can you find any with the same restrictions that say logging/mining/resource extraction are good?

Back to work,

Keith

FNP,

I'll try to explain a possible reason why NOAA didn't appeal Hogan. Justice (DOJ) handles appeals for all federal agencies - they don't know about any specialty like fisheries; they're govm't lawyers.

NOAA is composed of several types of members. Managers who manage things like budgets, administrative secretaries who get a lot of the work done, keeps staff supplied with pencils and computers, etc. Technical folks, scientists, like the oceanographers, the meteorologists who predict the weather and track hurricanes, and biologists who manage whales and fish, etc. And then there are policy people. Recall that the root of policy is politic, i.e. policy folks are political appointees or work directly for political appointees. The decision to appeal or not appeal Hogan is not made by the secretaries; nor is it made by scientists, altho scientists who are in management may recommend an appeal. But the decision that counts is made at the policy level, someone who is a political appointment. D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator (not to be confused with administrative assistants) is a political appointee. He is in the unenviable position of performing NOAA Fisheries management and conservation functions, which may at times be at direct odds with the policy intent of the President who appointed him. The Regional Administrator, or the other political appointees he reports to, decide what court decisions the agency will appeal or not.

Hope that helps.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

kjackson,
I'm sorry,I think I may very well have missed the intent of your comment. All I can say is I have been dealing with a barrage of Bush supporters that have, in my opinion, been indulging in a concerted effort to pin the label of environmental extremist on any person or group that objects to Bush policy. I'm sure you can tell that I am one who is very discourage by the path that this Bush administration is leading our country down. Add to this the new wild/hatchery salmon policy that I consider a punch below the belt to something I have a passion bordering on insanity for, wild salmon and steelhead, and I guess I have become a hothead. I apologize for the misplaced rant.

Keta-- No problem and thanks for the reply. I do understand where you're coming from.

I'm not trying to re-open this, but I feel strongly about mis-information on environmental subjects (that I know something about) no matter who spreads it. And that's one reason I tend to jump on "Bush is a bad guy" threads that don't seem to be logical or accurate. It's not that I'm an avid Bush supporter, but just because his administration proposes something on the environment doesn't make it a bad decision. It doesn't make it a good decision, either. Each proposal should be evaluated on its merits in my view.

I'm interested in your spin on the NOAA Fisheries policy draft-- not to debate its points necessarily-- but more to find out what you've found objectionable. The several readings I given it tell me that it makes sense, but I'd like your spin.

Thanks,

Keith

I think if you go back and read the news release from a few days ago you will see that the federal government has 30 days to respond....not one day. As far as I know they have not done so and will be coming out with plans in June.