As the election draws near the study results presented below, that Scaly posted some time back, deserve another closer look! Click on the URL below and look thru the intro to see what verifiable data was collected, such as voting track records and stated agendas etc., to rate the 2 Presidential candidates and every member of congress. Then click on the ratings of both candidates, and below that click on ratings of all of Congress, as to how they stack up on helping fish and environmental issues. Take a special note of the Congressmen from Washington and Oregon. This is quite an eye opener for the uneducated voter, as well as some staunch backers of the GOP that believe they are going to help our fish and environmental situations. They are NOT. Take a look at the documented truth:
www.geocities.com/Eureka/Vault/8020/CongressRating.html

I'm not a real Gore fan, but if you care about our natural resourses and you are a fishermen I think after reading this you would certainly lean toward voting in Gore and would NEVER again vote for Sen. Slade Gorton or Sen. Gordon Smith! I already new where the chips fell, but not to the degree that they have! - An additional note for you hunters is the "take your guns away" scare tactic brought forth by the GOP sling against the Demos: They will not attempt to go against the Constitution and take away your right to bear arms, because that would be quite politically damaging to the Demo party. And even if they tried, it would wind up in the Supreme Court where the Constitutional rights would win out. Vote with knowledge and conscience.

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

They wont ever try to ban guns outright they will work on them a little at a time. Right now they are working on 50 calibers. Most of which cost $3000 to $5ooo or more and the rounds are $4 each. None which have ever been used in a voilent crime, but our government in its all knowing wisdom says we dont need to own something that big. Wait till they tell you your boat motor is too big and outlaw it and then we will see who is screaming.
Its too bad we even have partys. People and politions need to vote for what they feel is right not party lines.

Have a good day
Fishhead5

I would caution that the proper research must be undertaken prior to making a firm decision as to what is best for our fish. Before giving credence to the information found in the article "Friends and Enemies of Fish in Congress", look at the organizations that are actively involved in supplying the data, i.e., the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. Both of these groups have track records of an extremely opininated liberal nature that pervades many different issues of the day, including fish!
Another point to take to heart is the fact that you cannot weigh (or vote) for a politician based on just a single (fish) issue. Do the research supplied by other available sources, particularily those sources of a more conservative nature. Of course most sources will be biased to various degrees on key issues however you will generally find that most conservative sources are more to the point with the facts than those that hold a more liberal slant. A key point to remember is the 180 degree shift that both Gore and his running mate have made in order to become more politically correct; and this has been with all issues!
The main point I am trying to make is to look at all sides of an issue along with all sides of a candidate and not just the one side that an individual, a group, a web site, an organization, or a political party wants you to see. Once accomplished it will be much easier for all of us to make the correct decision on election day! Keep those new lines tight...Tom

BtmBounce,

Just remember that the votes they made are the votes they made. The only liberal/conservative issue is whether or not you think a vote against the environment is a bad thing. It doesn't matter if the Sierra Club, LCV, or the NRA is waving the voting record around, it DOESN'T change the way the candidates voted. It just changes which voting record a particular organization waves around. You have to admit that GOP candidates have a poor environmental voting record, the only question is, is that enough reason to vote against them. That choice is up to us. VOTE


Fish on.......

Thank you Dan. A record is a record, no matter who is pointing it out. If we wanted to, we could all find these same voting records in the Congressional Register. And why shouldn't I cast my vote based on the issues (or even single issue) that I care most about?

Let's go find some Nookies!

Bruce

Based upon my previous post above received an e-mail from a fellow fisherman where I was blamed for being 1) a contortionist in writing style, 2) digression into using politically simplistic and stereotyped labels, and 3) derogatory toward a group of sources (amongst other adjectives). Part of my post was a quick dissertation on Gore, who was previously brought up by Reel Truth, and, by the way, RT, I have much respect for your very knowledgeable and informative postings with reference to fish in the Northwest, which I truly look forward to! Digressing? I think not.
I also used the terrible terms "liberal" and "politically correct". Stereotyping? Again, doubtful.
My main point here is to open eyes to the big "issue" picture and not focus on just one. We must carefully weigh other issues with the same import as environmental issues, which are, have been, and will continue to be important to our area. Issues such as foreign policy, taxes, the military, crime, gun control, etc. and where politicians stand on these are also important.
Final note, fishhead5 made a good point with his "little at a time" statement and RT is right when he mentioned the political damage that the Demos would sustain if they tried to remove the 2nd amendment. However the 2nd amendment is slowly being whittled away by an endless supply of "gun laws" enacted to "protect" us citizens. This will never happen all at once for the American populace (and the Supreme Court) will not stand for it. Many of these "protective" laws are not being enforced (talk to your local police force) for 1) many are repetitive of previous gun laws and 2) they are enacted by certain forces to show that "they care".
Again I am mainly asking for those with the interest to do the research and determine the true facts. I make it a point to read as many different points of view on an issue prior to deciding what is correct and what is not. I guess with these postings I have made my conservative leanings more public and that is good but if you disagree with my views, either via e-mail or this forum, try to use facts vice colorful adjectives that really have no meaning. Keep those new lines tight…Tom
One last item: Osprey, another 20 pounder about an hour after you left that I did manage to turn after 150 screaming yards downstream. Took about 15 loooonnngggg minutes but the fight was worth it!

Gun owners read this.. Gore is a threat to the 2nd amendment http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/20000901-AntiGunGroups-001.shtml

Well back to fishin'

Dan S, well said. And by record and history, I will be voting against ole Slippery Slade Gorton. Restoring Salmon and Steelhead runs does matter. Though he will smile and give you the run around about it. Those Elwha dams must come down. thanks, and release wild fish!

Btm Bounce, Nice reponse. I 'second' your opinion. Suedo-statistics, can be easily compiled by groups with a definite agenda or political afinity. Politicing can be an emotively loaded and deceptive business if the public doesn't have a clear view of all of the issues on the table.

Golly whiz, ReelTruth, when're you gonna learn not to offer facts, even from a sport fishing advocacy organization?? Liberal agenda? Phoney data? Our fish are going to be "toast" soon; time to invest in golf courses and bowling alleys.

Gee Scaly, maybe I should have learned from the first time you posted that study/ratings URL. You're right, people have a hard time accepting as truth things they don't want to hear! Hogtide, those weren't whittled statistics. Those were facts based on the voting track records of the politicians rated! And on merritous bills, no 'riders' attached. And their signatures are in the record books of the halls of Congress. What more could you want for truthful revelation?!?

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

How about Every fishing, hunting, gun and environmental related vote they made? A complete record would be much more telling. I haven't been to your stat page but picking and choosing certain votes has long been a way of "slanting" a record for the purpose of advancing an agenda. Politicians often vote "for" and "against" everything they can in order to please everyone. The only hard part is timing it so that what you really want to happen gets passed with one bill or another. And you can't say that the compilers of that info don't have an agenda and it ain't just fish!!!

Huh? ...... You haven't even read it and you are an expert on it's dynamics? ... The study "agenda" was to reveal which ones support fish! It was based on the candidates and Congressmen's own bill signing track records; which are signed and kept on public record in the halls of Congress. Go to an internet search vehicle to find Congresssional records, and see that this study I've posted is based on facts! They even support some Republicans because of their track records! (first section, last (7th) paragraph). Since you haven't even bothered to read this study/ratings and admit it reveals more about you than I figure you'd want people to know. Whew! Pass the salt.

went to your site and guess what....I was right. Horribly slanted. Hand picked votes. I guess alaska is a really bad place for fish because both reps are enemies of fish. The problem with you lefties is that you are so predictable. Perhaps I will compile a list of the enemies of your paycheck in congress.......Anyone who can claim that the sierra club is non-partisan and without an agenda might also say the same for the NRA???? Just trying to educate the people about the benefits of gun ownership and teaching safety courses.......

Wit45, first of all I appologize for being so negative mouthy sounding to you, and some other's whose opinions differ from mine. I went back and read some of them and I could have been a little more civil. It's just that politics can so easily get people heated up, as you assuredly know. -- As for the study being slanted: one more time, don't focus on the messenger of verifiable truth. Apparently you missed the paragraph I suggested you read that shows non-parisanship, so I will copy and paste it here. ..... "Notable exceptions to the Republican pattern were Senators Chaffee, Jeffords and Roth, and Representatives Saxton, Shays, Boehlert and Gilchrest - all of whom voted consistently for fish and the interests of fishermen. They deserve the support from fishermen and conservationists". -- They asked you to vote for those Republicans. - RT

All of whom run unopposed or against sacrificial lambs every election. Chris Shays has elections like McDermott. 80% reelection. The support is not gleeful in my opinion and I dare say that the sponsor orgs. have not donated one red cent to the reelection campaigns of those few republicans. I stand by my analysis that the votes were hand picked to reflect the view of the study sponsors. Two small pieces of evidence are the sheer quantity of the fish related votes these folks have made in the last 4 years that are not included and the bill descriptions on the site.

Gee, does that mean you won't be voting for any Demos?

As a matter of fact I will, Tom Campbell. I know he calls himself a GOPer but he was a Demo just a few short years ago. I will support any Demo who thinks like the Dems of yesteryear. "ask not what your country can do for you" and the like. I won't support freedom grabbers of any party. Am I the only one on the board with copies of the federalist papers???? or the constitution for that matter.

You may be, 45cal. You seem to be unique in many ways...

Hey, wit45cal, I wholeheartedly agree with your choice of Tom Campbell and no, you are not the only one who has read the federalist papers...and the Constitution; what a magnificant document! I do keep a copy of the Constitution with me at all times in small pamphlet format that fits into a front pocket. Once a person begins to carry that document it will continuously be used for answering questions and/or for reference purposes. And no, it is not a living document, that is, one that changes its meaning with the changing of modern times. The meaning of the Constitution stays the way that our founding fathers intended; and that is what makes the document so valuable and a truly outstanding tool!
Keep those new lines tight...Tom