In light of the promotion of Kerry as good for fishing, here's something I came across while doing research on other topics.

To give you context, it's from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the past, in case you're not aware, there have been movements to increase restrictions on hunting and fishing in refuges. In the Umatilla Refuge south of the Tri Cities, there was an attempt made by the USFWS to stop fishing on refuge waters, which include a large chunk of the Columbia River and some popular and productive areas for salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, walleyes, smallmouth and panfish. This happened in the Clinton era, not that this is an issue.

Here it is:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

News
Release July 22, 2004

   
  THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO ADD 10 NEW HUNTING AND FISHING PROGRAMS ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES AND WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS  


The Bush Administration plans to open new hunting and fishing programs on 10 national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota as part of its annual Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. With the changes in this proposed rule, there will be 325 public hunting programs and 283 public fishing programs on national wildlife refuges.

"With this proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will have launched over 60 new hunting and fishing programs on national wildlife refuges since 2001, enhancing access and opportunity for millions of Americans to enjoy their favorite outdoor traditions,@said Service Director Steve Williams.

"By providing greater recreational access through over 60 new hunting and fishing programs on national wildliferefuges, the President is expanding the number of citizenstewards--hikers, anglers, bird-watchers and hunters-- who will visit,enjoy, and help care for these vibrant public resources," said James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality.

The Service is proposing to add the following refuges and wetland management districts (WMD) to the agency's list of units open for hunting and/or fishing: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in South Carolina; Mountain Longleaf NWR in Alabama; Red River NWR in Louisiana; Cypress Creek NWR in Illinois; Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, Waubay WMDs in South Dakota; and Devils Lake WMD in North Dakota.

In addition, the Service is also proposing to expand recreational hunting and fishing opportunities on seven refuges in Nebraska, Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina.

In 2003, there were 2.2 million hunting visits to national wildlife refuges and 6.6 million fishing visits. By law, hunting and fishing are two of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses on national wildlife refuges, and individual refuges are encouraged to provide opportunities to hunt and fish whenever they are compatible with the refuge's conservation goals. The Service annually reviews hunting and fishing programs on national wildlife refuges to determine whether to add, modify or remove them.

 

President Theodore Roosevelt established the first national wildlife refuge in 1903 when he ordered Pelican Island, a small shell- and mangrove-covered island in Florida=s Indian River, to be protected forever as a "preserve and breeding ground for native birds." More than a century later, the refuge system has grown to nearly 100 million acres and includes 544 refuges BB at least one in every state BB and more than 3,000 waterfowl production areas.

National wildlife refuges provide unparalleled outdoor activities, including fishing, hunting, environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and photography. Many refuges also offer opportunities for nature hikes, birding tours, and other activities. There is at least one national wildlife refuge within an hour=s drive of most major cities.

The full text of the Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations can be found on the Internet by visiting http://refuges.fws.gov and clicking on the link to "Policies and Budget."

Newly Proposed Hunting/Fishing Programs at National Wildlife Refuges:

Sportfishing: Waccamaw NWR, South Carolina; Red River NWR, Louisiana; Cypress Creek NWR, Illinois; Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, and Waubay Wetland Management Districts, South Dakota; and Devils Lake WMD, North Dakota.

Migratory Bird, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting: Waccamaw NWR, South Carolina; Mountain Longleaf NWR, Alabama; Red River NWR, Louisiana; Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, and Waubay WMDs, South Dakota; Devils Lake WMD, North Dakota.

Proposed Expanded Programs at Refuges Already Open to Hunting and Fishing:

Migratory Birds: Crescent Lake NWR, Nebraska; Cross Creeks and Tennessee NWRs, Tennessee; Big Oaks NWR, Indiana; Savannah NWR, Georgia and South Carolina;

Upland Game: Trinity River NWR, Texas; Big Oaks NWR, Indiana; Big Branch Marsh NWR, Louisiana;

Big Game: Trinity River NWR

The proposed rule announcing the new programs, modifications, and administrative changes was published recently in the Federal Register. The public comment period is open for 30 days and will close July 30, 2004.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the nearly 100-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

Aunty, Aunty, Aunty... You didn't answer that you would read a thing, so I didn't respond... why should I spend a few minutes or an hour trying to get you to change your mind when you didn't express interest and it's obvious to me that you won't vote for Bush even if Kerry died tomorrow? If you said you were interested, I would have shifted some of my work around for you.

The one item I posted I happened to run across when I was looking for something else; since Dave Vedder was doing his bit for Kerry by touting a commercial fishing bill (yes, I know it will have impact on sport species but it's primarily about commercial fishing) I thought I would balance that a bit with something that Bush did for SPORT fishing. That being said, it is still more than Kerry has done for SPORT fishing, where our discussion began. Or is there something in the links you posted that I missed?

If we follow the logic of the forum that Bush is responsible for what happens on his watch, then here's some Northwest items you should know about that you should give Bush credit for:

Drafting of a recovery plan for bull trout in the Puget Sound basin (just finished)

Extension of ESA species protection to another ESU in the salmon/steelhead program

Continuation of ESA listing for salmon and steelhead stocks DESPITE what many folks on this board said he was going to do after the Alsea River decision

Initiation of the clean-up of the Clark Fork River

Continued funding for removal of the Elwha dams (this is the issue that caused me to vote for the removal of Slade Gorton from the Senate)

An evaluation program that studies the best way to control double-crested cormorants (it has application here but is currently being run in the Great Lakes in upstate New York and is one of the primary reasons for the resurgence of the fishery there)

Continued funding for all federal hatchery programs

Funding for the mass marking program (Norm Dicks pushed this one through, and you may thank him, as I do, for that) that Bush approved

Some federal funding for Fish First on the Lewis River

Every appropriations bill that Kerry takes credit for since Bush became president, Bush signed

And the list goes on

Yes, Bush and his administration have made mistakes in fisheries in the Northwest. If Kerry is elected, he'll make mistakes as well in all likelihood.

As for the "leading scientists" BS (sorry, but that's what it is)-- you can find a leading scientist to tell you the earth is flat if you look hard enough. I don't know how many scientists you've worked with (I've worked with a bunch in a former career), but they are just like you and me-- each one has his own opinion and can back it up with irrefutable proof, even if that proof is obviously incorrect. Just remember that "leading scientists" in the environmental movement told us that wood and logging debris in streams was wrong and had to be removed... we're now putting some of the same material back in rivers because it's important rearing habitat. "Leading scientists" told us that spilling water over dams led to nitrogen narcosis in salmon and steelhead smolts-- whereas now a different flock of "leading scientists" say we must spill and that nitrogen saturation problems are a red herring trailed by those who want to forget about spill.

The point I've made before is that you shouldn't make fisheries and politics part of the same argument-- partisan politics and natural resource issues just don't mix... the issues are too long term and if you get into the Republican/Democrat thing, the fish lose.

My $.02,

Keith

Hey, Aunty,--

Links for some of this will come tomorrow. However, for every appropriations/funding bill where federal funds are appropriated, GW has to sign the card. I'll try to find a link to the constitution if you need it.

Many of the rest can be found on the USFWS website.

As for leading scientists-- I didn't make that claim-- it was yours. Show me a group of "leading scientists", and I'll take a look at their credentials to see if they are indeed leading and if they indeed have reason to speak about GW's environmental stance. Just because a person is a scientist doesn't make that person intelligent, founded in the scientific field you're looking at or credible. That goes for those for or against GW.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory-- the items I've listed as points where the Bush administration can take credit are real. Some were started under Clinton, and perhaps even under Bush No. 1, just like some of the other problems we have with the economy, the Middle East, Iraq and other good points or bad points that are currently on the table for resolution. If your prejudice is so strong that you (and here I'm talking the generic "you" not you specifically) aren't willing to look at a fact and say yes, Bush should get credit for that, then nothing I say will dissuade you. All the rest will be hot air-- and that can come from both sides.

Keith

Just a little tidbit of facts tossed into the debate: Bush was being blamed by Aunty and her cadre of Kerry worshippers for stopping the Bonneville dam spill this summer...the BPA plan...sell power instead of helping the fish. All the doom and gloom posts can still be searched and retrieved. Anyway the spill will go on this summer thanks to the courts. Bush didn't try to push the BPA plan. Real results in the real world.

Kerry is one of those "Big Hat...No Cattle" guys....all talk....he is going to save the world and provde almost a trillion dollars worth of new entitlements...on top of that he is now going to save all the fisheries in the Northwest too? Man he is a great guy!

GW Supports states rights and limits the control of the feds in what should be state issues. In every case brought up the state goverments follow the will of the people for the most part. The liberals want control at the federal levels and the conservatives want the decisions based where they effect. for some reason the libs ignore the many levels of control of environmental law and refuse to recognize that it is in place. city, county, state, fed for enforce ment. Fed state,county,city for adoption.

AM

Are you high? All of these involve the states

"The Klamath issue, Columbia River spill, the hatchery/wild decisions, the weakening of clean air and clean water acts"

All of these issues revolve around local impact of federal decisions.

So then the cattle raised by those ranchers diverting water from the Klamath can't sell their beef outside California?

The fish that we're trying to save can't be persued by anyone outside our own locale?

That's a drag that no one outside our own little state or community can enjoy, or have any stake in, our natural resources.

GH

That is an ignorant take on the issue and how the process works.

lets take Steelhead and Salmon runs in Wa. and Oregon as an example. Both states are under the same Federal guidelines re the species. Why the difference in health of runs? Does either state prohibit out of staters from using the resource?

The will of the people in each state is different. Wa. has been more business friendly than Ore has when it comes to isuuses that impact fish. Same federal guidelines different outcomes.

Does he?

How does he feel about Cali's Medicinal Marijuana Law?

How's he feel about state laws that allow gay marriage?


He only supports state laws that jive with his federal agenda. GW believes in state laws that HE supports.........and he'll propose a federal law to override those he doesn't.

DanS,

He is wrong on both of those issues. He is being pushed by middle America not the case with fish.


AM,

Answer the question. Why so much disparity in opportunity for the sportsman between Ore. and Wa if the feds have all the answers? It's not about the intent of the laws but the interpretation ,application and enforcement which comes down to state, County and city laws. they cann adopt the federal impact laws as minimums or make them harsher but not less.

BTW,
The two largest impacts on the species came from tfederal decisions. The Columbia and Snake river dams and the Boldt decision based on interpretation of another Federal work the Stevens treaties. The states have been in the crosshairs mitigating a dwindling resource between all the groups you have mentioned ever since.

Ralph Nader is by far the most anti-war, enviromentally and fish friendly canidate running.

He's also the only canidate running that is on record saying that we should have never invaded Afganistan or Iraq and removed Sadam from power.

Mr. Nader is also the only canidate running that says if elected he'll withdraw
troops immediately from both Iraq and Afganistan.

Ralph Nader seems to be the ideal candidate for all the tree, fish and terrorist huggers.

I did not realize this was the AM forum or that asking a question was a insult.

Answer the question AM . You will never control the content to fit your myopic view of the world so deal with it

"I'd like a debate with someone who doesn't toss insults in lieu of debate."

Trade mark of a lib say one thing do another.