Just to see what might pop up I typed in "John Kerry Fisheries” The article below popped up. I tried typing the same for Bush but got only articles about reducing environmental protections, opening wilderness areas to logging, reducing Columbia River flows, etc. etc.


NEWS RELEASE

07/31/2000

Senator Kerry Introduces Bill To Strengthen Federal Fisheries Law

Environmental Defense Praises Kerry For Leadership

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has introduced a bill that if implemented would help restore and replenish our nation's troubled fisheries. The 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act expired in October 1999 and Congress is considering bills to reauthorize and amend the law. Senator Kerry is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee's Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee.

Eight of the ten hottest years of the 20th century occurred during the '90s, and virtually every month of 1998 set a record for being the hottest respective month on record. Most recently, the period from January through April 2000 was the hottest such period on record.

"This bill shows Senator Kerry understands that fishery management must change in fundamental ways to avoid repeating past failures," said Doug Hopkins, senior attorney for Environmental Defense. "The bill lays the groundwork for managing entire ecosystems, instead of single fish stocks, and directs fishery councils to solve the problem of excess fishing capacity -- too many boats chasing too few fish."

Senator Kerry's bill also boosts funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service, creates a national at-sea fishery observer program, calls for eight fishery ecosystem plans, reinforces protections for essential fish habitat, and addresses the failure to fulfill the 1996 law's mandate to minimize bycatch.

"New England's fishing communities are suffering hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues every year because overfishing has depleted fish populations and fishery managers have cut back catches to try to rebuild fisheries," said Hopkins. "Senator Kerry's bill offers new hope by telling managers to treat the underlying causes of overfishing, not just the symptoms."

One of the most important provisions of Senator Kerry's bill removes a current moratorium on individual fishing quotas (IFQs) and replaces it with comprehensive national standards. The bill would put this promising tool back in the managers' toolbox and would assure that the significant potential environmental, social and economic and safety benefits of IFQs are realized.

"Senator Kerry deserves high praise in New England and around the US for his leadership in starting the important national dialogue on IFQs," said Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense. "These proposed national standards point to the need to carefully match an IFQ plan with the unique needs of any fishery considering this tool."

IFQs mean each fisherman gets an allowance or percentage of the total catch. When IFQs are made transferable, if a fisherman wants to catch more, he can purchase allowances from other boats. If a fisherman wants to catch less or leave the fishery entirely, he can sell the allowances. The system can put an end to the mad dash for fish, market gluts, and overfishing and help reduce overcapacity.

....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but... but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....b ut....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but.. .but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but

To follow up on this-- I was looking for the context to see where it originated-- I typed John Kerry fisheries into Google, expecting results similar to typing in French military victories. I was surprised.

There are a lot of entries where Kerry and fisheries coincide. Most of them, and all of the ones I looked at, were about commercial fishing. Granted, I didn't do an exhaustive survey, but not once did I see Kerry and sportfishing in the same context.

Could Kerry be one of those Least Coasters who think all fish and meat come wrapped in plastic? Such consideration for commercial fishermen is why we currently have poor salmon seasons in Washington. I can't wait to see it on a national level.

If anyone can find a document where Kerry supports sport fishing and the rights of sportfishers, please let me know. I would love to read it.

Keith

Good point, kj.

As a sport angler, I have yet to feel represented by either party both in state and federal politics. The GOP candidates regularly strive to negatively impact the environmental protections fish need, and the Democrats have shown themselves to be largely whores to commercial fishing interests.

I'm a man with no party.

how about 'the people who hate people' party?

I'm in.

Oh, you're in?

I'm out.

Dan-- What you say about not being represented by any political party is one reason I dislike the mixing of partisan politics and fisheries issues. As a fisherman, I feel very strongly that each candidate and each issue has to be evaluated on individual merits. I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats (and AGAINST both) based on issues that were important to me as a fisherman.

In the presidential race, both candidates offer something for fishermen; however, the anti-Bush camp won't agree that anything coming out of "the Bush Adminisration" (cue evil music) is good for fisheries for a moment. And the anti-Kerry camp think his flipping and flopping are about as close as he'll get to a fish except under tartar sauce.

That's unfortunate, in my opinion, because if Bush wins, then anything coming from the feds will be "wrong", and if Kerry wins, the same applies, but only the voices will be different. The polarization is unlikely to change over the next five years, and once again, fish will be the losers because folks tried to force their political views onto issues that transcend parties.

And Dave--I also did a Google search using the parameters for Bush. What I saw in two pages was a lot of anti-Bush sentiment from environmental presses-- not exactly a balanced group, as I'm sure you'll agree. What I didn't find was any mention of the positive (my judgment here) news stories about projects that NOAA has begun or is doing that are fish-friendly. There are dozens of such projects currently underway or in planning. Perhaps I didn't scroll far enough or used the wrong parameters. However, if Bush gets the blame for things that happen on his watch as many on this forum have declared, then conversely, he should get the credit for the good things as well.

My $.02,

Keith

Thanks, Aunty; that looks like a lot of work unless you've got those links tattooed somewhere handy.

There are some good things in your post that impressed me. I did like the fact that Kerry used a quote from the American Sportfishing Association on the value of our sport in the JohnKerry.com piece. That shows that he recognizes the value we sportfishermen have in the economy.

I was disappointed in the emphasis on commercial fishing, but that's a no-brainer given that Kerry is from Massachusetts, a heavy commercial-fishing state. But one of the benefits from emphasis on restoring commercial fisheries and controlling overharvest is more fish-- a good thing, assuming sport fishermen have a chance to take a whack at 'em.

However, several of the items I looked at were more election rhetoric, and that is something I disagree with-- if for no other reason than some of the items, such as monies obtained from the Department of Commerce, can be claimed by the Bush camp as well. Does this mean that both sides in this election are in agreement on a fisheries issue? And when we look at the announcements of funding, it's simply a matter of spin-- Kennedy and Kerry signed an appropriations bill and announced it. Bush undoubtedly signed the same bill when it came by him as well (or the federal government wouldn't be running right now)-- does this mean all parties should get credit? Like I said, election rhetoric. It does mean something, though, that they recognized the PR value of signing the appropriations bill.

While Kerry seems to be strong on environmental protection and commercial fisheries, I didn't see much but the JohnKerry.com thing about sport fishing.

I would feel a whole lot better about Kerry if he didn't have the strong PETA connection and hadn't used that "every tree is a chapel" line in his acceptance speech. Both of those items throw up red warning flags.

Is it worth my time to provide you with links on Bush's attitude and accomplishments in regards to fish and fisheries? If so, I can probably squeeze some time in tomorrow to dig some up.


Again, thanks,

Keith

In his 20 years in the Senate JK sponsored 2 bills that actually became law and both concerned fisheries issues in Mass

...and dumbya has done what???


oh yeah, actually damaged edfforts to conserve.

more proof of his bumbling incompetence.

....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but... but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....b ut....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but.. .but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but....but....but....but.....but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but

If you're still interested in this subject, Aunty and I have continued the discussion on the "Bush Supports Fishing" thread.

What is one thing Bush as done that improved any fish population or fishing i general either as president or as Govenor of Texas????

Huh??? I can't hear you please speak up...

Prepare to be called a name.

That's what happens when you lay bare the truth for these.................................people.

to be fair I have not seen anyone here get called a name that did not call someone a nmae themselves.

I do not think anyone can make a case that Kerry or Bush supports fish. I do think that we have better chance under a republican govt. than we do under a Democratic govt. of determining our own fate and balancing the rights of property owners and natural resources.

your ideas are idiotic is not the same as you are a douchebag, douchebag.

A DB is as a DB does. Libs think that sterotypes come out of thin air and have no basis in fact from observation and common knowledge. Sterotypes exhist for a reason they are generally true. A DB exhibits certain behaviors as you have proven.

Dictionaries exist for a reason too. Ever consider using one?

You mean stereotypes like these, right?

'Black people hate the water"

'Gay men are pedophiles'

'Mexicans are lazy'

etc

See you in Hell.

------------------------------------------------------------

Excessive use of marijuana causes paronoia.

RA3-- Probably most of the respondents are tired of dodging cow pies.

Cut and paste this: http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/ then scroll back through all four years of releases. The logic on this board is if it comes from the federal government during Bush's administration, then he's responsible. There's a lot of very good things in this list.

When you've done that, go to Johnkerry.com, find the search engine, type in "fishing". Read that -- it won't take long.

Next, go to GeorgeBush.com. Go the search engine, type in "fishing" and read what's there. Ignore Bush's lack of eloquence in verbatim copy and really read what he says with an open mind.

Keith

No kj, if that were the logic on this board we'd blame Bouche for 9/11.

Sorry, Aunty-- I can't follow that. I have seen it stated here, though, that if something bad happens in regards to/with/for/by the federal government, then Bush is at fault--the "his watch" thing. If indeed that is the agreement, then the good that happens under "his watch" is his responsibility as well.

But I've stated my personal views elsewhere, that we shouldn't make politics and fisheries issues bedfellows because we'll all lose no matter who is in office.

H20-- Personally, I blame just about everybody for 9/11 going back for a couple of decades. I was on one of the hottest shallow-water, light-tackle silver bites I've ever had with Alaska-type action virtually within sight of my house on 9/11. It took me quite a while before fishing really seemed relevant.

Keith

this place needed a breath of fresh air Keith, thanks for showing up.

I agree wholeheartedly about the blame for 9/11, we should either share it as a nation or shut up. Its a bit irritating to me how many people forget the FIRST terrorist attck on us soil, and it struck the same damn target. Its as if it never even happened. We failed to learn the lesson...

I'm pretty sure we still haven't learned the lesson and are going to pay the price again, probably sooner than later.

I hope the result is far less spectacular. I nearly quit fishing after 9/11, certainly I quit posting about it.

H20

"I agree wholeheartedly about the blame for 9/11, we should either share it as a nation or shut up"


Whooooa there doggy! Do you forget your post of just a few weeks ago blaming American Imperialism and Jewish zionist for 9-11 Or are you just trrying to get a brown ring arouns your nose here?


Oh I forot it's Ok to play both sides when you are a liberal.

No, a moderate sees both sides.

A wacko sees their side only. They can be found in both parties.

Hope this helps.

Quote the post genius and the surrounding text.

Better yet just read it again, this time try comprehending.

"US imperialism, yes.

It starts with cleaning up the mess we made in the middle east after WW II. First step: Admitting that its even our problem. Until we in the 'republic' take responsibility we will be fighting the war on terror."

Seems pretty clear you blame the Us for the terrorist actions. Kind of like balmeing the wife for the husband beating her ,yes? Little different than "everyone is to blame"

Never once have you said that the terrorist where to balme for their actions.

Spin it Biotch!!

...and the question was?

You have to pay attention to the question before you have any shot at comprehending the answer.

Its called listening, you should try it sometime.

The term dumbya....I like it

anyone got a 'WRONG!' tally goin for Elvis today?

someone's wearin the sombrero if you know what i mean.

funny H20 how when you get called out everyone else cannot read or comprehend. Maybe you should use more lyrics and inane cuts from insignificant new beat era icons in your post so you can claim a higher artistic and intellectual level as the reason you are so misunderstood. Or just buck up and say you said it and Crawdad home from there.

I'm not touching this today except to say unequivocally that you are a liar.

Everyone that reads here knows it, for a FACT.

Post my words in answer to a question I was never asked?

Hell will just be that much warmer for the piously reightous.

H20's second line of defense when cornered I am done with this topic outta here.


It's real clear H20 and You said it.Like I said Spin it Crawdaddio!


"US imperialism, yes.

It starts with cleaning up the mess we made in the middle east after WW II. First step: Admitting that its even our problem. Until we in the 'republic' take responsibility we will be fighting the war on terror."

Damn, Elvis. I gotta come in here late at night just to 'splain things to youse?

H2O said: And he previously said:
Notice the use of the word we. To us Americans that means all of us Americans. Since WWII. That would include Dems, Reps, and in between. He even threw in the term republic. So to those of us that understand cohesive unity, his statements make perfect sense. To those out there that are afraid of a United America, it's incomprehensible.

And you said:
May I point out that never once has H2O said they weren't to blame. However, in our world we have a thing called personal responsibility. But I've learned the Bouche camp doesn't worry about that sort of thing.

thanks gh.

elvis-

Link that proves your an idiot.

The question posed to me by plunker was:

"stlhdh2o

Do you think the world would be a better place with the fall of the US republic?"

My complete answer was:

"Not exactly, Plunk.

US imperialism, yes.

It starts with cleaning up the mess we made in the middle east after WW II. First step: Admitting that its even our problem. Until we in the 'republic' take responsibility we will be fighting the war on terror.

Fighting the war on terror should be our primary focus as a nation. It has not been, we've been too busy in Iraq. Should any president that makes a mistake that big, one that threatens our national security so egregiously, be given an opportunity to screw it up again? Even worse perhaps? Were another terrorist attack to occur on US soil in a second Bush term, would he try to blame Clinton?

...and is the thought of Kerry for four years THAT overwhelmingly bad in comparison to what we've seen out of Dumbya?

Should the ranks of Al Qaeda treble before you rate his presidency an abject failure?

Fall of the republic? Heck no, aim low. Start with the presidency and work to change certain aspects of US culture slowly over time.

I'm so radical."

Funny, I'll bet you are the onlyone that reads that thread, including your right handed compatriots, that doesn't see your ass being handed to you every time you open your gob.

Now Mr. Reading Comprehension...where THIS tangent started was when you posted this:

"Whooooa there doggy! Do you forget your post of just a few weeks ago blaming American Imperialism and Jewish zionist for 9-11 Or are you just trrying to get a brown ring arouns your nose here?"

Note the derision as you misquote me.

Note that in this same thread YOU called ME a douchebag.

Note your inability to spell simple words like 'around'.

You are a virus with shoes. Thank god for you though, if it weren't for morons like you giving the republican party a skidmark the election might be a little closer this fall.

**crickets**

GH,

Let me help you a bit.

First off you left out a very telling part of the quote.

"Do you think the world would be a better place with the fall of the US republic?"


"Not exactly, Plunk.

US imperialism, yes."

1) In most of his post he accuses the US of being imperialist specifically Re: the Iraq war. So he is calling for the fall of the republic specifically the republic under GW which he sees as imperialist. But he goes on later to call us imperialist since WWII.


2)"It starts with cleaning up the mess we made in the middle east after WW II. "

He can only be pointing to the creation of Isreal here. Cleaning up the mess implies that Isreal is the problem in the middle east and must be eliminated or as he put it cleaned up. A key requirement of Al Queda as well.

3)First step: Admitting that its even our problem. Until we in the 'republic' take responsibility we will be fighting the war on terror."

His remedy is for us to take responsibility for making them attack us. We created the atmosphere via conditions to set up culpability for our own attack. Our role in the middle east and our Imperialism being to blame.

GH thats all straight out of the Whabbi demands made via Bin Ladden.


"May I point out that never once has H2O said they weren't to blame. " So if I only used the "N" word to discribe black people you would assume I loved them because I never said I did not? Same logic . Its very clear who he blames.

We can play word games all day long it's clear to any sober person that he simply blames the US for the whole mess based on it's imperailism and openly supports the far left platform . Which in turn by default supports the contentions of Al Queda.

For the most part, but with a softer touch ,GH you do the same.

You seem to be the master of word games, Elvis. Your convoluted interpretation of the english language is bizzarre.

spin it biotch

No GH you want to parse words that only fit your view. As noted above when you single out a few words and define them outside of the context of that post and of all the post H@0 has made. (like We and Republic) Notice how h20 himself in his last post in defending his statement shifts to GW and the election and completely ignores defining his intent of his own statement.

No, Elvis, you can't seem to read english without embellishing everything out of context. Your absurd analogies and ramblings off topic and down irrelevant tangents is your signature trait.

I have noticed, though, that your spelling and grammar has improved tremendously with your last few posts. Got some adult supervision there, or laying off the 'shrooms?