I was going to wait and see if anyone had watched the debate between Locke and Carlson. Nobody responded on one of the statements that Locke made. He stated that nets don't catch endangered salmon. Well, I know many of us would differ with him with that view or did I miss something?
We all know salmon recovery only has to do with HABITAT stupid (remember that statement from the last election)?
The bad thing about the whole situation is that Locke will probably get re-elected, by the same people that voted down the BAN initiative. When will the average Joe open his or her eyes?
I really do hate POLITICS!!!!
Enough from me already......its a rainin......gone fishing.

------------------
Steve Ng....The FishNg1
99 F-350 Powerstroke 4x4 , 18ft Alumaweld Formula Vee Sled, 115 Yamaha.

I wonder how you explain to Gov. Locke how 11 marked (either Ad clip or left ventral clip) sockeye were caught on June 29 on a commercial gillnet opening in the Lower Columbia. The regulations called for all marked sockeye to be returned to the water. At least 5 of the fish were proven to be Redfish Lake sockeye, if not more. There were suppose to be either WDFW or ODFW personnel on board but somehow they were late and the fishing vessel left without them. Oddly enough, NMFS had allowed a 5% bycatch rate on the the Redfish Lake sockeye (the same stock that they are trying to protect)but did not seem intrested in this situation. It seems funny how you can harvest endangered sockeye in the lower Columbia that are returning to Idaho but you have to release the "healthy" runs of the upper Columbia (Wenatchee, Okanogan, Osoyoos)if you happen to catch one upstream of the Snake confluence. And on top of all the habitat degradation, we wonder why there are fewer salmon and steelhead returning to our streams.


DaveD

Steve,You want to know why nobody has posted any replys to Gov. Lockes statement about nets not catching the nates? Because it would seem that this board is loaded with a bunch of liberal Demo lovers. They're afraid to even acknowledge that their pet Gov. is an idiot!!!! If you people are in love with the fish as much as some of you claim to be then you will vote for Carlson, regardless of his political affiliation.. Hey, the majority of you have already said you will vote for Gore over Bush because of the enviromental issues, than why in the world wouldn't you vote for Carlson?? Don't be a hypicrit(sp?)and vote for Locke because he's a Democrate..

Hypocrite? No, I don't think so. Consider what Carlson has actually said he'd do. Carlson indicated that he would end net fishing. How? That isn't the governor's perogative. Consequently, I don't think much of a candidate who opens his mouth, makes or implies a pledge, but isn't knowledgable enough about the issue (or is knowledgable but is lying - which is even worse) to know he can't deliver on the promise.

The governor's ability to influence WDFW is his appointment of commissioners to their 6 year terms. And this came at the will of the citizens through an initiative. And the very reason was to keep the governor's office from meddling with WDFW affairs. State legislators, on the Natural Resource Committee and Appropriations or Budget Committee are the state politicians who, collectively, have the most clout with WDFW.

And, it probably goes without saying, the governor's ability to influence the federal agencies positions on net fishing is zilch. And treaty Indian fishing, even less.

Now, I don't think Locke has done anything for salmon. And if he's re-elected, I don't expect he will more than lip service for fish either. It's simply not an interest of his. However, I don't think it's an interest of Carlson's either. I think his comments about getting the nets out was just a campaign platitude.

I won't vote for Carlson, because most conservative Republicans have atrocious environmental records. They fight the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act at every turn. I don't get it. Republican behavior, and Slade is an excellent example, behave legislatively as though they themselves don't breathe the air or drink the water. Now I suppose the weathy ones at least can drink bottled water, but they all have to breathe the atmosphere. Yet they don't act like it. Perhaps they favor shorter lifespans?

The upshot is that neither candidate for governor is much of an environmentalist, I believe Locke is more generally supportive of environmental measures, like air and water quality, than Carlson. For that simple reason I expect to vote for ho-hum Locke.

Oh, and water quality isn't a bad thing for salmon.

I don't see anything hypocritical about favoring the candidate who is most likely to support issues I care about. And as far as being a liberal demo, well, I've been sorta' conservative all my life, or maybe that's fiscal conservative/social liberal. But it's the stinkin', slimy righteous far right, Christian Coalition, anti-abortion, poison the air and water, business can do no wrong, we need even more weapons of war (and I do favor a strong national defense, but isn't enough enough?) Republicans who have driven me to voting for Democrats that I most likely would not choose to associate with on purpose. For the major offices it often seems to come down to voting for the lessor evil.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Maybe everyone is sick of talking politics and went fishing, there's alot of fish to be caught out there now.
Every election year it's a choice of the lesser of two evils. Every year the lesser evil seems to get a little more evil. As much as I dislike Lock I shure as heck can't vote for a talk show host that will push for "local control" as in control by special intrest groups who's special interest is getting the ESA salmon listings off their financial backs.
The solution IMO to the incidental catch of listed salmon is to fin clip all hatchery fish and use a method of selective harvesting that allows the release of the endangered wild salmon while retaining the hatchery salmon. Testing of fish traps and fish wheels is going on right now. For the tribes this would be a return to their traditional methods and I am dismayed at their resistance to this change. Even with new methods for commercial harvest and the release of marked fish by sportfishermen there will still be some kill of endangered salmon. Do you want to shut down all fishing? If so why even have hatchery production?
I hate to see any mortality of returning endangered fish. You seem to be outraged by 11 sockeye caught in nets. I have to assume you are horrified by 21-39% of the returning adults killed by the four Snake River dams!

Keta,

I appreciate the logic of many of your ideas. I was pointing out a specific case that captures many of the ways fish/harvest management SHOULD NOT be done. Steve was asking how Gov. Locke could state that commerical harvest does not catch any endangered fish. I simply pointed out one of many cases where commercial fishing does indeed catch endangered salmon. However, I certainly don't feel that is the only problem with the Columbia/Snake river systems. By the way, the mortality experienced by downstream smolts far outweigh the impacts of adult salmonids through the fish ladders. Keta, I agree, lets go fishing.

DaveD

I'm voting all Rep.What most dem.want is total government control.I'm voting what I think is best for me and my family.Alot of people here are voting for a guy that claims he will save the fish and he is a proven LIAR Gore.You wont have to worry about fish if Gore gets in you wont have a car to drive to your fishing spots or a gun to go hunting.TM


BUSH 2000

I wonder if any of you have read Carlson's press release regarding his four-point salmon recovery program. Point 2, concerning nets, reads as follows:

2) Remove all nets - tribal and commercial - from our state's rivers (all freshwater) and compensate for loss of income.

Please note the emphasis on rivers and freshwater. Now, does this sound like any kind of net ban to you? I think that we all realize by now that the ability of Washington's governor to change tribal fishing programs is absolutely nil, so he wants, in effect, to eliminate non-tribal commercial fisheries in the rivers of Washington state. How significant is that outside of the lower Columbia River? Sound like more smoke, mirrors and outright deception to me.

steelyhorn and TM,

You want to hear it from me? Fine, Locke is a spineless weasel, and Gore isn't much better. Now let's hear YOU give an hopnest opinion of Carlson, Slade and Bush. Or better yet, let's hear about yourselves. Tell us you're not subsidized by that "big government" when you drive on those Forest Service roads, or on the pavement to get to the FS roads. Tell us how your families aren't subsidized by public education, fire and police departments, public utilities, and public transportation. Or maybe that doesn't count??

In our next lesson, please tell us how your smaller GOP government finds time to get into my bedroom and my doctor's office. Then you can follow up with a lesson in what socialism REALLY means (you can teach that lesson, TM). Until then, let's let those running for office blow the hot air. Otherwise we could be in trouble when the hot air system from Roy meets the hot air system fron the east side.




[This message has been edited by Dan S. (edited 10-17-2000).]

Dan S.-I guess you believe in big government that takes takes takes.Since you know so much about the forest sevice road systems you tell me were the money comes from.And as far as police and fire I bet you think the money to support them comes from government.Come on wake up....TM

TM,

Give me a break. There is no "government" and no "us" when it comes to money spent on public-use items. We ARE the government. Any money spent by IT, comes from US. And it doesn't matter if that money is spent on things like fire and police departments, paid for by local governments with local tax dollars, or by the Federal gov't when it comes to Federal taxes paid by US. These "expenditures" can be actual cash outlays, i.e. paying a contractor to perform a highway project, OR they can be "deals", subsidies, or tax breaks given to say, Boeing when they build a manufacturing plant, or to farmers whose prices are artificially held up by the "government".

"Big government" isn't bad when you're a wheat farmer whose government "protects" you from foregn grain suppliers, or if you're a sugar farmer who is given a direct subsidy to produce sugar. "Big government" isn't bad if you're an employee at Harley-Davidson and the "government" puts a tariff on foreign motorcycles so you can drag yourself out of bankruptcy, against free-market forces (you're a capitalist, aren't you TM?). "Big government" isn't bad when you build your house in the Mississippi floodplain and have no insurance, and the Mighty Mo floods. Then FEMA, a "big government" program steps in so you can get a low or no-interest loan to rebuild the house you should have had insured. These are all expenditures that "big government" makes to "Promote the general welfare". You remember that line, don't you.

The question is, would you rather see your tax dollars spent on rebuilding some poor woking stiff's house, or would you rather it was given in the form of selling BLM land to a mining company for $2.23/acre? Then they can mine it, sell the extracted goods, pay the officers of the company enough to retire, declare bankruptcy, and the the "big government" will pay to clean it up as a "Superfund" site.

Go ahead, vote for your GOP boys. Get your 50 bucks a month in tax cuts. Then, think about all the money GW's friends got when the surplus is gone. You can call me chicken little if you want, but we've seen the results of increased spending and decreased tax revenues before. If you don't mind leaving MORE than 5 trillion dollars of debt to your kids, then fine. You say you want less taxes, I say show me the money. Tell me specifically where the decresed spending should come from. The military, DOT, DOAg, Interior Dept, Social Security, Medicare? And then where? Military pensions cut? No drug coverage under Medicare?

It's not the size of the government that bothers me as much as the incompetence of the government. Less federal employees to Ron Reagan meant firing 60% of all inspectors of Medicare fraud, which only cost us $40 MILLION PER DAY. Now that's "Big governemt" spending from a smaller government. Ask your candidate where they stand on that issue.

"Big Government" is a GOP catch-phrase that actually means nothing. A small government can waste your tax dollars just as well as a big one. And don't try to claim the big government hasn't done anything for you lately. Until you want to pay the actual costs for your roads, utilities, your first mortgage (No FHA programs here), and everything else, don't be so quick to condemn the government as a whole.

I'm sorry this rant went on so long, but I'll tell you this; I'm finished with political discussions now. Really. Do what you will with your vote, but at least get educated about your candidates and where they stand on the issues that relate to you. Spare me the party catch phrases, and discuss the issues. Until I make upper 6 figures, the GOP has nothing to offer me, personally. I'd trade 100 bucks a month to lift the burden of debt from my kids, keep SS and MediCare solvent, and work to keep our environment from being significantly degraded. Funny that neither candidate has proposed to offer NO tax cuts, but rather increase accountability for how Fedral money is spent. I wonder why? Didn't we just start at this point.................?

I'm done now. If I see you on the river TM, we'll share a brew and talk about things we love about being on the water. Vote smart.........

Fish on........

This is for Timber Man you say if Al Gore wins that he will take your car and your guns.I tell you what if he wins and takes away your car.I will carry you on my back any place you want to go.If he takes away your guns and you can't hunt I will show how to hunt with a bow. What will you do if the Bush whacker gets in and you can't breathe and you can't drink the water because he did away with the clean air and water act.Or how about when you goto retire and social security is gone.Wake up unless you are a among the top 5% in income a vote for Bush is like putting a rope around your neck.

For the GOPers out there espousing the loss of personal freedoms....

You do realize we have had 8 years of a democratic administration in the White House (more in the State). I don't know about you, but my tax rates didn't go up appreciably during this time period. No one tried to take away my gun. No one tried to take away any freedoms, constitutional or otherwise.

8-years in the White House (and State) was won by substantially moving to the middle, along with a lot of folks and politicians.

Why use the same old left/right paradigm? Could it be because your just don't take the time to find out?

Skydiver---wake up if he gets in you will be living in little communes that you wont be able to LEAVE!!!!I"d rather be dead!!!as for bow hunting I've been hunting with a bow for 20 years there is nothing you can show me!!

Is this guy serious????? Stuck in little communes that we can't leave??

Obsessed--in the last eight years I have had three of my weapons become technically ILLEGAL overnight and with the stroke of a pen.(2nd ammend) The BATF knows about every weapon I own(4th ammend) and the taxes I pay (just fed income taxes not ssi or medicare) have gone up almost ten thousand a year. I will never need social security and you wouldn't either if you made a few plans and took responsibility for your self. I know the truth can be a little harsh but that doesn't change it to fiction. I and many of my friends and family have been NEGATIVELY impacted by the last eight years of clinton/gore and we hope this is the last year of them both!

Wit

Take responsibility for myself? Hmmm, how do you know I'm not taking responsibility for myself. Didn't know or think I was an irresponsible person. Guess I should add even more to my 401K. Thanks for the personnal attack. Maybe I should be concerned since your the big gun owner.

Obsessed- not an attack. I should have used the word "won't" in the place of "wouldn't" I beg your pardon sir. Glad to here that you won't need it either. Now wouldn't you like to have some of the money to invest on your own and maybe be better off in the future? Just a thought. I know that 15% of my pay could do much better than the <2% SSI will pay.

Salmo- The way I understand Carlsons proposal is that he would offer compensation to net fishermen to not fish. I would think that this would be perfectly do-able if the legislature would fund it. Buying out licenses has been done in the past, has it not. I promise I'm not picking a fight here, the idea has just piqued my interest and you are probably more knowledgable on the legal ramifications of this sort of thing than anyone here. I would probably donate to a fund to help buy the nets out of the rivers.