http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2000/2000L-03-10-06.html
This legislation by Rep. Gilchrest looks like a positive direction to go. I'm sure special interest groups will make sure it goes nowhere. What do you think the chances of Slade Gorton co-sponsoring a bill like this would be?

[This message has been edited by Keta (edited 11-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Keta (edited 11-05-2000).]

In my estimation Gorton would go along with Young and not endorse the bill in any fashion. Gilchrest is the reason some Republicans still hold out hope that they may at some time in the future have green republicans that understand the cost to the enviroment of the far right that is running the partys enviro policy now. I would be able to vote Republican if I lived in Gilchrest district.

Native son,
I have read this article several times, and every time I seem to have different thoughts about it. The need to fix the fishery problems because it is costing tax dollars is an interesting view. I don't know what to think about having to pass a law ,the Sustainable Fisheries Act, to try to get the NMFS to do it's job. Then when that doesn't work, draft new legislation to enforce the prior legistlation. This is odd coming from a Republican. If it gets NMFS to do their job, I'm for it. It seems to me that it would be better to get the politicians out of the pockets of the corporations that the NMFS is supposed to be regulating. How can we as citizens be in such a deep state of denial that politicians taking millions in political contributions are not pulling the strings for the donors of these millions. The fishing companys get what they want in regulations and when a fishery collapses they get bailed out with more millions. The same thing can be said, in various forms, for all the other resource related industry. There has got to be a better way.