Pres Candidates & Congressional Ratings on Fish Issues

[Deleted User]

The "gimme a break" post thread turned quickly from the Sandy R. hatchery closure issue to a political debate about which candidates are likely going to be best for our fishing, both present and future. It's an interesting debate if you haven't caught it. I posted there a published summary of a study done by a non-partison political watchdog group base in Maryland near Wash. D.C. that I think deserves it's own thread. 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; taking secial 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 (http://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

[garyk]

Great informational post there RT. Should be very helpful for the Federal races.

What we need is the same analysis for Ore. and WA. state legislature races. For Oregon, as my mentioned on the other thread OLCV.org rates candidates on at least three salmon-related votes.

At the geocities site you pointed us to, I was quite surprised to see that for WA. and OR. it was only Republicans who ended up in the Enemies-of-Fish column.

So maybe the problem with our fisheries isn't dams, nets, seals etc, but Republicans? Then again, we get whom we vote for; so the pointing finger ultimately points back to us the fisherman-citizens-voters who elect these bums.

Vote Pro-Fish

[HOGTIDE]

As I tell my students, it is always important to research and verify your sources before declaring facts or 'truth'. Without substantiation I would be very skeptical of the ratings provided by this afore mentioned 'non-partisan' group. Ratings based upon what criteria? Ratings fitting who's view of how the stewardship of our environment should be applied? Do you think this green friendly "non-partisan" group just may interpret things through the 'left' side of the view finder? Do you want the federal government making local fish and wildlife decisions or should it be left to the sovereignty of the individual states? I am very concerned about any group of citizens that would select a high ranking official based upon his 'pro' statements regarding anadromous fish runs. And,I say this as someone who literally lives to fish. If there were a litmus test for a candidate, perhaps it should be based upon the candidate's view of the importance of human life, first. I would also caution against any statements that would so 'gallantly' shrug off threats, of any kind, to the 2nd, or any other, amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Fish and fish habitat are very important, yes. But they are small potatoes,compared to some of the things our new president will be dealing with. Choose an honest man. Choose a man with true character. If a man constantly super- exagerates(lies)publically, what kinds of decisions and choices will he make within the seclusion and protective power of his public office ?

[garyk]

Hogtide -- Just a quick one here...

I appreciate what RT has posted. THe voting record speaks for itself. Check out the individual bills then decide for yourself.

Rather than trying to say there's something wrong with the data -- I think you're having problems with what it shows -- that the Republicans have been bums on the environment and conservation.

No one's forcing them to vote that way. ITs their choice and the Republican party platform.

[nipper]

Shrub's comments during the last debate on the subject of global warming were downright disturbing (more scientific study is required... yeah, right). They indicated both his non-commitment to and ignorance of environmental issues. Texas has a poor record on pollution, which also points to Shrub's disregard of the environment. I assure you, if GWB gets into the White House, it does not bode well for Northwest fisheries.

Gore 2000!

[nwjetboat]

I'm from Idaho, with a overwhelming Republican majority in our state legislature.
Their enviromental record is apalling. The people recently overwhelmingly, voiced the opinion that dam breaching should not be ruled out as an option for the recovery of our salmon and steelhead, yet when all was said and done. They, (Governor, and Legislature)passed and signed a bill condeming the dam breaching option. Although they are supposed to be our representatives, they ignored what we told them we wanted. What I don't understand is that sportsmen,(and women)can continue to vote for someone who deliberately goes against the majority's wishes, and supports the position of those that line their pockets, while placing the enviroment and wildlife a distant 2nd. Yes, the Democrats have pushed for more gun control, but if the Republicans get their way, the only place we will be able to use a gun is at a range, everything else will be clearcuts, cattle pasture, or open pit mines. As for the lies and exaggerations, can anyone remember GWB's father holding a fishing rod with a spinning reel upside down, and proclaiming himself "The Enviromental President"? Like father, like son. As for Slade Gorton or Sen. Gordon Smith, I think we Idahoans have a trump card with Larry Craig!!! I will vote for Gore and the fish this year.

[This message has been edited by nwjetboat (edited 10-13-2000).]

[HOGTIDE]

garyK... as always,...well thought out advice. I should check voting records and the specifics of legislation voted upon. We all should do this ...keeping in mind that Bill Titles often are very different from their true impact on the environment. I don't want to play apologetics for my GOP brothers, because we do have our problems. But,I believe it is important to keep a full view of the candidates on all of the issues.

Hey...who said George senior reels upside down. I fished with him on the upper Salmon River. He knows how to use a baitcaster,too! It was a bit embarrassing to watch the secret service get him unsnagged, however. Kiddin'...I'm kiddin'.

[DanS]

After RT posted this same thread on the PP board, there were the same type of comments regarding the source of this info by the conservative leaning voters. The info speaks for itself, regardless of the source. Granted, the LCV, Sierra Club, Audobon Society and the like will all show these voting records around to influence you to vote against these candidates based upon their environmental voting record. The only remaining question is, do you feel that their appalling environmental voting record enough of a reason to get YOU to vote against them. For some conservatives, it is. For me it is. It might not be a good enough reason for everyone, but I'd question the sincerity of a vote for say, Slade Gorton, from somebody who said that fisheries recovery is high on their priority list. Of course a vote for Gary Locke would be futile in helping sports anglers, so I believe I'll abstain from voting for governor, and let Gary try to beat John Carlson without MY help, since he does not support MY position in fisheries allocation and recovery.

It's true that the GOP has a pretty sad environmental voting record, to discredit the source of this info is pointless. Vote on the issues that are most important to you. Fisheries allocation and recovery, education, and environmental issues top my list, so I generally vote against the Republican candidates. That's because they don't stack up on at least two of my three top issues. If your top concerns differ from mine, I'd expect you might see it differently, but that's politics.

I'll just say that I'll be glad to see election day come and go, along with the incessant political ads. Blah, Blah, Gore this, Bush that, Slade Gorton this, Maria Cantwell that...blah, blah. I guess all you can do is vote, and then get on with life......and more fishing!!

Fish on........

[Crusty]

I was born in Washingtton and lived there for 20 years when I moved to Oregon. Both are historicaly Democratic States. Therefore, it would follow, that we don't have a fish problem. Right? Riiight!

Hasn't anybody learned yet that politicians are all liars? The greatest game in Washington D.C. is "Vote Balancing". I know, Mr. Lobbyist-with-big-bucks, that you are against this. To help me get re-elected so that I can continue to do your bidding, I have to appear to be for this. However, I have made a careful vote count and I have also received agreements from several other Senators/Representatives from other states that they will vote against this measure in return for my vote on something they want later. I am sure that it won't pass so I will vote for it. Yadda yadda ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Vote for whomever you want but, as Monica said to Clinton, don't expect anything but lip service.

Crusty

[Phish_on]

once again, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is excluded from the analysis ...

hmmmm

[dww]

RT, you write well, I am sure you debate effectively but your party line on gun control is in my mind a little off base. "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." The Anti-gun agenda is long term. No, Gore will not in one swoop take away our rights. Will he try to protect them? I think not.

[Deleted User]

Crusty, and others, that bring up arguments to counter the credibility of studies such as the one I've posted to start this thread have some valid points, except where it counts most. We all know they are liars JR. It goes with the territory. And how do we know they are lying? Yup, it's when their lips are moving. But we aren't talking about lip movement here! It's like Dan S. said, it's about the much more accountable pen movements!!! How they have voted on the environmental and fish issue initiatives, referendums, and laws are on record in black and white with their signatures on it! So yes, quit watching their lips move and look at how their pens moved! And unless you are a head in the sand conservative, or a liar trying to deflect the importance of these issues to us, you will see how utterly obvious that the Republican agenda, almost across the board in entirety, is to maximize profit potential and reduce taxes on corporations and and very wealthy campaign contibuting constiuents; unfortunately at the cost of the environment, hatcheries, and wild fish! The Democratic agenda is clearly to spread this country's wealth more equitably and to protect the environment and fish as best possible! That's it. Undeniable.

[OneLastCast]

Hey RT:

Just got in from sniffing another cow and noticed you were still spouting the metropolitan views to the masses.
Now, not only have you called me a cow sniffer but you now say that I am either a "head in the sand conservative, or a liar..." because I don't want to get on my knees in the Lincoln Bedroom with Al Gore.
God how I love political discussions, they are so quiet and demur. From the comments and insults that you have hurled I see that a rational discussion is out of the question.But, campaign financing and good old Al slipping his wife the tongue, aside. Lets look at a few things.
Any one who quotes, argues, or otherwise bases their beliefs on any special interest group blatherings, whether it be the Sierra Club or the NRA, without checking the facts, needs to at least put their head in the sand because the view has got to be better than where their head is now.
My head is at least in the sand.
I checked the "2000 LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ACTION FUND CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT PAGE" (boy, that sounds pretty impartial to a cow sniffer like me) and looked at the comparison of Bush vs Gore. Hey! Surprise! Bush lookes like he keeps all the worlds washers and dryers underneath those jacked up cars(leaking oil) in front of his mobile home.
I am glad that a good stalwart democrat like Kitzhaber was instrumental in getting the Willamette River declared a SuperFund site. Now that is a comprehensive environmental water policy if I have ever seen one.
And I see that Gore "supports wilderness and parks protections.....(and)purchasing more land for national parks, wildlife refuges and forests" just like Clinton did. But who did he purchase them from? The ranchers in the Steens? I don't think so. I like to fish but I also love to hunt, there is little enough public land available without creating more refuges or national parks where hunting is not allowed. You would think the democrats would at least have the decency to talk with the locals.
Gun Control....in the debate Al stated that he doesn't want to register guns he just wants to license them so we can all carry around a little card with our name and picture on it. It appears he has the same problem with definitions as Wild Bill does.

The whole question revolves around do we want to give up our freedoms and let the government dictate what we should have and do or do we want to keep what little say we have in how our lives our governed intact.

We can join the democrats battle for political correctness until we achieve the national mediocrity.
Or we can fight for what little freedom we have from government control.

The choice is ours..if you chose Al more power to you. But the key is we still have a choice. Vote your heart, not your neighbors.

[Crusty]

Hey RT,

"The Democratic agenda is to spread this country's wealth more equitably..."

I can't believe you said that and apparently support it. That's stupid at the least, Marxist at the worst. As it stands now, the top 10% of the wealthyist pay 55% of the taxes. How much would you have them pay? How many people does Bill Gates employ? How many working people are invested through their union retirement plans in stocks which depend on the health of corporations?

It is not up to the government to "spread wealth". It is up to the individual to strive and grow. That is what our country is based upon. And, I may add, our country is the most successful, the best fed, and has the highest standard of living of any country in the world. I am not embarrased by that, nor do I feel the least bit guilty.

As a model for the rest of the world, why should we think that we need to bring ourselves down to their level through socialism? Wouldn't it be better to give them a visible goal as to what an emphasis on individual achievement can garner and therefore encourage changes in their political expectations? Don't you think that it would be better to raise them up as opposed to tearing us down?

If you're a Socialist, say so. It's your right and I certainly respect that. But, in the meantime, I am neither a "head in the sand conservative" nor a "liar" and I resent the implication. IMHO, based on many years of working within government, anyone who engages in single issue and/or partisan politics is too naive to have any credibility.

Crusty

[Timber Man]

What the hell is wrong with you folks?Cant you see that Gore is damn near a socialist!!!Is this what you people want?I think maybe a little more reseach needs to be done by you Gore lovers and find out what he really wants to do with the people in this country.A person needs to look at the big picture not just who might be better for the fish.Gore has his way you wont be able to own or drive a car to go fishing.As far as taking our guns away if this happens RT do you really think it can be fought in supream court give me a break once that is done we will have no rights left.WAKE UP GORE LOVERS.TM

Bush for president


[This message has been edited by Timber Man (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Deleted User]

First of all, please excuse the way I worded my post John. The comments I meant directed at you were the look at where their signatures went and not what comes out of their mouths during target campaigning. The "head in the sand" and "liar" comments weren't meant specifically for you, they were targeted at the "others" that are hard core right wingers or those that just can't see what is really going on. You made a similar blanket statement about political liars in your post prior to mine. I'll overlook you calling me "at least stupid" because of your anger at misunderstanding my post (as explained above). You also make some valid points about avoiding becoming a socialist society; and no, I'm not a socialist. My stance is one of keeping a reasonable balance of power within our society such that the very powerful wealthy in our country can't push the envelope further into abusive unfair oppression than it already is. And spreading the wealth to me is keeping the playing field level for all, not increasing taxes on the rich. Hell, I'd be thrilled if we could just get more corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, instead of muscling us around with threats of taking their jobs to other places that won't tax them! (so that already overpaid executives can have their 3rd Mercedes and their 3rd vacation mansion). Reaganomics started this country into a push that ended up with the biggest separation between the haves and have nots in this country's history. Now after 8 years under a Demo Pres we have what you said "our country is the most successful, the best fed, and has the highest standard of living of any country in the world". I don't believe in the opposite end of the spectrum socialist views either, but I really don't see a socialist state coming to this country anytime soon! Instead we have rampant oppression, despite a standard of living average that is higher than other countries. If you want some documentation of this I could give you volumes, but it would take over this fishing BB. Thus it's best we stick to the original subject of this thread; who will be better for the environment and fish. - And Al, you're fun to post debate with. I like your style http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif . I can only take comfort in the fact that Gore will stick his tongue where it's supposed to be. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif That's one less thing to distract us from what's important; unlike the case with Bubba. And because we differ politcally such that you took enough offense to my "head in the sand" words as to tell me my head, and essentially other liberals heads, are up our @$$E$ in such a nice kind of way; hey, no big deal. The only question I have for you is do you really feel like you've lost your freedom under a Demo Pres in recent years?!? Have you looked around the world enough to appreciate what great freedom you actually have? I do agree with you that hunting in national parks be allowed, just as fishing is. But have seasons when the people and animals have dispursed into a more natural state during the tourist off-season, of course. - BTW Timber .... as I stated clearly, I'm not a Gore fan let alone a Gore lover! He is just the lesser of 2 evils (as they say in politics) for the majority of the U.S. population. He is also certainly better for the fish and environment; what this thread is about! The guy I respect is Ralph Nader. Always have. How many unscrupulous corporations and politicians, that actually harm and kill people for more profit, has he exposed? And changed things for the better for all this country's consumers (regardless of party or portfolio)? Lots! It's unfortunate he has no chance of winning and only can take more votes away from Gore than Bush. That's because he can't gather enough campaign contributions from special interests. -- Hey, aren't political discussions fun? Ah ... maybe a little. It sure doesn't lend for being popular among a lot of people. But I don't care as much about that as I do about taking a stand for what I believe in. - RT



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

[Steve]

Hey RT, talk about politicians, Crusty was the driving force in closing the Clackamas River above McIver park to Rivermill Dam to sleds....I forgive him...but don't forget...that was when he was Mayor of a small timber town...

[Deleted User]

Hmmmm .... interesting Steve. Thanks. Did he tell any lies during his GOP Mayoral race? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif (jk JR - kinda). - That cut me and my sled out of fishing that hot area! And I couldn't hike back then. Now was that socialism by JR to reserve that area for the less fortunate that couldn't afford sleds http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif ? Or just special interest, for JR and friends? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif ...... Guess what? Good for him. I met John at the Ifish party and he's not only a fun guy, but you can tell he's a good guy too. Just be careful when expressing your views around him, in case they differ from his! He might call you "stupid or worse". - RT




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

[fishhead5]

Gore is not the better of two evils. If gore were to have his way we would not be fishing in rivers. To stand in a river and fish means that we would be destroying it. We would be polluting the river by leaving hooks, line and sinkers in it. Where would we take a leak? Did you know that gore has a undying devotion the earth goddess Gaia? Read his book it will scare the bejesus out of you.
If you like taxes vote for gore.
In 1978, he voted against a $16.3 billion cut in individual, corporate, and capital gains taxes. The tax cut passed362-49!
In 1981, he voted against Ronald Reagan's proposal to reduce the highest marginal tax rate from a sstaggering 70% to a slightly-less-less staggering 50%. The proposal passed 282-95.
In 1990, Gore actually proposed to increase the alternative minimum tax rate from 21% to 25%. The motion was rejected.
In 1991, Gore introduced legislation to hike the tax rate to 46% by raising the highest rate to 35%, then adding a surtax of11% on incomes above $250,000.
In 1992, Gore voted against tax relief for farmers.
In 1993, as Vice President, Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote that doomed tax relief for the middle-class families. After promising such reductions for the middle class during the 1992 campaign.
In a study by the Tax Foundation the Clinton\Gore administration has raised the taxes of average Americans by 11%. The typical family now works more that four months to pay its tax bill.
I think I'll vote for Bush
Fishhead5

[Phish_on]

you are scaring me ! eeeek !


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

[wildwild]

It seems that many of the people here cannot read.
The question was which of the candidates will be better for fisherpeople and the environment.
As I lved in Texas for nine years I am qualified to say that if you vote for Bush you will be voting for a candidate that has a long and verifiable record of being pro industry and anti- environment. If your concerns are about abortion or taxes or any other issue fine. But to argue that he has not been a detriment to the environment in Texas would be to prove your ignorance. The data that supports this is neither left nor right, conservative nor liberal, Republican nor Democrat. But is a measurable amount of toxins now being released daily in the air and water of the state of Texas. It is a far greater amount than when he took office.
Dennis

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

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

[Deleted User]

OK, that does it! Will someone volunteer to tell these two extremist bums they are going to have to officially withdraw from the Presidential election. Immediately. ..... Anyone? ..... OK, fine, I'll do it. - We the concerned citizens of these United States of America do hereby declare Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush to cease and desist as candidates for the office of President of these United States. We also call for emergency conventions by both the Democratic and Republican Parties to elect suitable moderates as Party replacement candidates no later than Oct. 25, 2000. That will leave just enough time for televised debates, yet small enough time frame so as not to allow them to spend so much on campaign ads as to more than equal an amount that would feed and shelter all of this country's homeless people for a year. Now Ralph has a chance too. --- Do you suppose that jokin' around like this will earn me a visit from the Secret Service? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif ..... Nah http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

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

[PeterMac]

Ever wonder why there aren't more people clamoring for the job??

I wonder if there aren't some very very qualified people out there that would run for pres if canidates didn't get raked throught the coals so badly?? I am not talking about voting records here either, just as human beings. What a sh%$ty thing to have to go through! Their family friends, etc. Uh, Mr. canidate, I understand that once when you were in college you were at the same party where someone was smoking pot, is that true? Is it true that you knew your wife, in the biblical sense before you were actually married? Didn't you indeed have an unclean thought, once? And how about that parking ticket?? You must be a druggy perverted bum!!!!!

Who in their right mind would ever want to run for president???? I mean, since Jesus isn't around, as far as we know, there isn't anyone that can stand up to the public scrutiny!

Just a thought.

[fishhead5]

Are we having fun yet? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Deleted User]

LOL PeterMac! That's right on. Didn't used to be this way. The scrutiny comes via the 2 Party's "dirt digger" investigators that has become part and parcel of the system now. Ugly! It also comes from a majority of us Americans in the form of increased TV ratings when the news agencies deliver the "goods" http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif . And their investigative reporters can sometimes gather titilating things that the 2 Party's gumshoes haven't yet hand delivered to the media. What a downturn in politics and priorities! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

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

[cureless]

I don't know what to do,

Bush is going to tank the enviroment.

Gore is going to make me drive some new not invented yet electric car
(RT better get that hot rod sold)
Try towing your dual axel sled with one of them jobs!

If the Demo's won't be able to ban guns then can I say the Repubs won't get so far as to destruction of the enviroment.

So the NRA/PETA are both the same coin just opposit sides?

Funny way to see the world, I think I will go down to the coast and fish tidewater.

[fishhead5]

Are we having fun yet? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[fishhead5]

Are we having fun yet? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Deleted User]

OK, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring. But first allow me to make a few confessions, to circumvent the gumshoe follies. .... I drink alcoholic beverages only on occassion .... I have smoked a little marijuana many years ago .... I stole 2 candy bars during my youth ..... I've had sex with more than one woman (not at the same time though; darn it) .... I've passed air in an elevator full of people and turned around and gave a dirty look at the guy behind me ..... oh geez, I can't drag my family thru that stuff! I withdraw. Besides, I only had $3.75 in my campaign warchest. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif .... http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

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

[RW]

HereHere to PeterMac! He is 100% right. Who in there right mind would want any elected office anymore. The day before you are elected you are a hero, the day after you are a lying, dirty rotten idiot, scumbag, thief. And I am sorry to see many of the ifish seem to agree... Who do you think these elected people are? They are you and I! They are moms and dads who want better for our community, not just "themselves". Why don't some of you quit ******** and run for local or state offices and see how it feels to go from hero to zero in no time......

Now onto the topic. It is not the worst of two evils, it is who WE picked in the primary election that WE now vote for in the general election. My vote is going to Gore, why. He is human and admits when he has been wrong, he cares and you can see that when he is in an informal conversation. He knows there must be balance in everything we are and do. I do not agree with everything Gore says and does and I am sure there will be votes he takes that I will be angry about. My basic bottom line is women's issues, balance in environmental issues, health care and family wage jobs. I truly believe he is running for the Presidency for the right reasons, like working for and with us. GWB I think, is running for the glamour and not for us. My two cents!!!!!!! RW

[Ed]

My wife is downstairs watching the debate. I can't watch the Mariners and Yankees. I even fixed dinner tonight. This election is really getting personal. I am just glad that the president is just one man temporarily participating in the institution of the office of the presidency. Our fore-fathers recognized this. That's why they built the oval office; no place to hide when the pres screws up. Rest easy America, America is here to protect you http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[garyk]

Glad you all kept the political fires stoked while I was away.

Now that Bush/Gore have been thoroughy debated..

We really need to focus on Oregon Legislative races. The Legislature along with making laws, approves the Governor's appointees to Commissions like ODFW, DEQ.

The Legislature also sets the budgets for these same agencies that are important to sportsman.

Nothing happens without the bucks. There've been threads about no enforcement from OSP of fishing regulations. OSP has suffered major cutbacks - believe they've nearly halved their game officers.

The presidential race is important but for fishery issues so much depends on the State Legislature.

[Deleted User]

I had mentioned before that I would try to avoid political debates, but I couldn't help myself. I had strong beliefs backed by documented evidence to offer to those concerned with our fish and environment. I have gotten only 1 e-mail that took exception to my posting replies in this thread. And 2 members who have taken exception to me in reply posts here. Both normal in political debates. That's part of what discussion BB's are about. However, when I've had my quotes twisted, unfairly exagerated, or taken out of context I feel compelled to clarify things; on both sides (which I may need help with from the others involved). BTW, this is no big deal, just straightening things out. -- The 3 members took exception to my quote "unless you are a head in the sand conservative, or a liar trying to deflect the importance of these issues to us, you will see [by the documented voting records and ratings placed on the net within the URL I posted to start this thread] how utterly obvious the Republican agenda is...". As I mentioned to one in a following post, please pardon my wording. However, many honest conservatives know this is true and will see and admit to the validity of the studies posted. It's their agenda and they believe in it. Thus, that was not a blanket statement that all Repub.'s are liars with their head in the sand! Now a couple members took it this way and countered with some not so benign slams back at me. That's OK, I can defend myself; which I appropriately did in reply posts to them. The two members are OneLastCast (Al) and Crusty (John). Al's reply was that I was hurling insults and indicating that his head was in the sand. If he felt like the target of my statement then perhaps he felt the part? He also did the "twisting words out of context" thing by claiming I called him a cow sniffer. I had never even communicated to him when I tonque in cheek (post) asked some local coastals who refer to inland people as flatlanders how they would feel if they were refered to as cow sniffers. That simple. Geez Al, at least try to debate honestly! And his main reply essentially was that anyone, me included, believing a study like the one I originally posted was credible has their head up their @$$ (in so many words). This despite the fact the study was based on credible documentation of the bill signing track records of the politicians themselves! Crusty's take was similar in that he took my above quote as personal to him. I explained in reply that it wasn't. And for my posted credible opinions John replied that I was "at least stupid, and at worst Marxist"! Turns out that John was a Republican politician, as Mayor of a timber town! And remember his quote BEFORE mine that "all politicians are liars". So this leaves me wondering why the e-mailer accused me of being "nasty and mean" to these guys? And didn't mention the actual mean things they said to me? Did this member read all of the posts carefully? Was this person staunch GOP? If not, the posts can be read again, and the accurate review is right here in this post. Maybe it goes with the territory of being moderator for this BB that someone could hold me to hypocritical standards? I don't see my role as one to withhold my rightful opinions here. -- And I'm getting tired of politics! - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Deleted User]

Hey Al ... I mean OLC, I am back to mellow again. You were right that I was handling our debate fine. What set me off was an e-mail from an Ifish member that chastised me for being "nasty and mean" to you guys! After reading what you guys called me it was hard to believe! Thus the clarification post. Unecessary on my part? Probably. We have since communicated a resolve to it. --- Now, back to some more fun debating http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif And yes, the following is in a lighthearted vein. You too, right? - In your first reply to this thread, second sentence, I quote you, "not only have you called me a cow sniffer but ...". In debating Al, one must be prepared to espouce either the truth or not leave a trail of evidence http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif . One must also avoid the changing of statements or undeniable inferences with forked tongue. You undeniably inferred that the object study/ratings brought out by this thread was partisan and only those with their head up their behind would give them credence. In your latest posts you refer to them as "one set of facts". Thanks for your candidness, but you lose valuable debating team points for admitting they are facts. And they are! As for your "Lets look at your sentence", I will reiterate the truth in nicer words: Any Repub. that denies documented facts about obvious GOP agendas, such as was exposed by the fish/environmental study ratings post above, is either unware or less than honest. In other words, an educated and honest conservative would recognize the study to be correct. They would try to change the subject though. But it's in the record books. Now those are less nasty and mean words I figure http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif ? So Al, are you just unaware? Have you learned anything yet? Even though you twice appeared less than honest about the cow sniffer thing, I peg you as a reasonably honest guy. We'll see. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif So awareness is the challenge. Hmmm. .... OK, if you..nah .... hmmm .... let's try an example of the agenda principle; If an initiative were brought before a Senate vote, which was worded to require American industrial corporations to spend millions of dollars to reduce their dangerous pollution emissions to reasonable standards, which way would conservative Repub. Sen. Gordon Smith vote on that bill? Which way would liberal Demo. Sen. Ron Wyden vote? ..... OK, have you written the answers down on paper (which you will be honest about, right)? The correct answer is Smith = NO, and Wyden = YES on that proper and important bill. Did you get it right Al (I don't know your real name OLC, but since you are used to me using it, like I had to get used to you using cow sniffer, I figure you know who I'm addressing; let us know at least your first name next post)? If you did the answer right, you are on your way to awareness http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif . Let's try another: If a bill hit the Senate for a vote calling for a mild tax increase to save NW salmon hatcheries from extinction (or removing a dam somewhere), which way would Sen. Smith vote? Which way would Sen. Wyden vote? That's right Al, you got that one! Smith = NO WAY, and Wyden = OK. See, I knew even an independant http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif like you could answer that one. Now that you are aware Al, I figure you must see the overwhelming likelyhood of total validity of the study ratings in question. Hollow discredit attempts cannot change the reality! - BTW, did you tell your Mom that I called you a cow sniffer? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif - RT

[Crusty]

Oh crap, I was gone a couple of days and this grew. Steve, you're a tattle tail. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
And besides I don't think you had your sled then. At least if you did you never invited me out on it. While I have never fished the salmon side of the hole, I used to watch the sleds backtrolling right in front of 20 or 30 bankers and figured that someone was going to get killed. The head of ODFW was fishing with me one Sat. morning when it happened and that was all it took.

Al, I too am a registered Independant. Gave up lock step party politics in 1968 when I got out of college and started to think for myself. I am in favor of less is better when it comes to govm't (Libertarian), guns (Conservative), and I'll spend my time and my money to help those that need help (Liberal) but I don't feel that I have the right to spend your money (Conservative again).

If I voted on the single issue of fishing, I'd vote for Nader. (Gore has refused to commit on the Snake River Dams - Nader said he will take them out.) However I don't vote on single issues.

I want smaller and less intrusive government, a President that follows the rule of law, a President with some dignity, a President that supports the military, less taxes, the right to bear arms (without registering same), a self investment approach to Social Security, and either schools that work or a voucher system. I also want my vote to count as opposed to voting for someone who has no chance to win. I will vote for Bush.

Cheers,

Crusty

[DanS]

I posted this to Timber Man over on the PP board, but I'll paste it here because I believe it's relevant. Now I'm done discussing politics on this BB too.

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 Federal 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........

[garyk]

Wow. Great post there DanS. I sure hope you're NOT through with politics 'cause your kind of analysis is needed to cut-through and counteract the propaganda that so many folks swallow.

Your right, the government is us and we are the government. For this reason I could never understand how folks abided by the government-bashing that started with Reagan and has only gotten worse since.

Given today's balance of power, I view the government as the counterbalance to excessive corporate influence.

I'm Pro-Fish and I Vote





[This message has been edited by garyk (edited 10-18-2000).]

[OneLastCast]

Hey Crusty
It is good to see you back. I was starting to feel like the only one in the barrel. I seem to agree with your political inclination more than following the dogma spewed out for the masses.

Hey RT
Glad you have been able to bring it down to a simmer. Let me see if I can bring up the heat a little.
You are absolutely right in saying that I said you called me a cowsniffer. I perused earlier posts and saw just that. I tried to call mom but she must have been in the barn.
You are also absolutely right in that I inferred that the object/study ratings brought up were partisan. If you did not infer that I would have had to be a little more direct. If you don't think that they are partisan than please e-mail me about the great fortune you can make in AMWAY.
Yeah they are facts. Also when did Al Gore quit beating Tipper. Did Al quit? Yeah, he probabaly never started, but what do the "facts" say. I would think that we would want to know if he ever started.
As far as your comment "An educated, honest conservative would recognize the study to be correct", let's see, I hold two college degrees, I have testified before the Oregon State Senate Judicial Committee, I have been to countless County Commisioners and City Council hearings so I must be somewhat educated, so that leaves honest. Therefore I must be a liar.(Wait until I tell you how big the fish I caught was).
Doesn't it interest you in the least bit that all the unacceptable politicians in the study are republican? Do you just accept that all of them are wearing black hats? Do you think that any of the bills they voted no on were attached as riders to other bills like a democratic mandate to provide a chicken a week for every pot in the nation? Thats what I mean about ALL the facts. It is easy to make a list. It is difficult to provide all the information.
I will not cast my vote in a vacuum.
Senator Ron Wyden... I voted for him and have been impressed with his work.
Senator Gordon Smith..I voted for him and did not have a problem until he went against the assisted suicide bill because it went against his conscience. I did not vote for his religion. I thought he was going to represent me. He did not.
If I vote Gore/Leiberman what am I going to get??? Very little that I want. Will they represent me? I think not.
I am aware. I am aware that it is difficult to not follow the masses. It is difficult to buck the lock step mentality (as crusty says)of people who think they know the true reality. But I also am aware that I do not vote the opinion of my neighbors I vote for myself.

Cast your vote for yourself and your beliefs, but please make an educated vote. Get all the facts you can.

Sincerely:
OneLastCast

[Deleted User]

Hey Dan, I feel your pain when you say this is your last post on politics! I felt the same way when I said I was done, but I can't stop! With what you've written the last few weeks on both BB's during this important election campaign, did you know you are my local hero? Ralph is my national political hero. As our best and most issue educated spokesman we would certainly like you to stay with us! Take a couple Advils and a brew like some of us do to deal with this crap; at least until the election is over. We can still post plenty about fishing, and after the election likely only about fishing. I hope! .... Hey, get hold of me when the rains bring the 'Nooch/Sats up to that "fish on" level, and I will do the same about the Tillamook scene. Thanks much Dan! Hang in there bud. -- And Al pal http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif. Are we having fun yet? Yes. I'll come back for more later, but I want to leave you with one disagreement and one agreement to your latest post. Remember what I said about boning up for debates due to the trails you leave? Your trails are leading to a pattern of you claiming things that aren't even there in a losing attempt to discredit a very credible politically damaging revelation about the Repub. agendas; particularly toward the enviro/fish issues. So it appears now that it wasn't the awareness thing. Hmmmm .... so that isn't sand flyin' off your neck .... you need to go back and take another look at the study/ratings because you are wrong in claiming that it was an across the board assertion that all the Repub's were characterised as blackhat enemies of the fish! Go back and see that a number of Republican exceptions to that were listed; and given due credit for pro enviro/fish track records. [Edit: Here, I did it for you; first section, last(7th) paragraph: "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"]. You read that right; they even advocated voting for some Republicans! ..... The thing you did say that I agree with is that you will vote for who will do you the most good. That is how a majority of people will vote (if they actually know which candidate that is). Some will vote with conscience as a factor; and those people could swing this election. - RT - Edit: http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif On to page 2 ..... http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif




[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-19-2000).]

[garyk]

OneLastCast,

I don't have the gift of expressive writing that you do so I'll keep it concise:

1. The bills shown in the ratings, are not 'riders'. Riders are referred to by a section number. The bills shown are actual bills.

2. You ask if we shouldn't be surprised that only Republicans are wearing the black hats in the fish votes? Well, no they're voting the party platform.

The question I have is who took the 'conservation' out of conservatives in particular and the Republican party in general? It's a relatively recent phenomanon.

From this discussion, it seems that some folks who like the Republican philosophy seem to have a hard time accepting that the current Republican platform has no plank for fish or conservation.

[Deleted User]

Please review the changed last post on page one. .... Make a mental note that on the 40th post of a thread that it will be the first on page 2, which you can click on at the beginning of a thread or at the end of page one. - Another reminder: Ifish policy is against a string of non-sense expletives deleted (try your one liner again with proper wording sir). Thanks. - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-19-2000).]

[OneLastCast]

Hey RT.......Mellow Out
You are going to give yourself a heart attack. Besides getting everyone to grab their pitchforks and light their torches and gather in Crusty and my front lawns.
What is a debate if you don't have anyone disagreeing with you. I thought you were taking the discussion well but it looks like you have been sitting there brooding on it.
Lighten Up.
But let me make a couple of comments.(I promise I won't say anything about anyones ancestors)
First off I am an registered independent because I don't want to have my views or decisions made by any one group or party. I will make my own decisions thank you.

My comment regarding the placement of a person's head regarding accepting one set of facts used two examples. These were what I think of as being several of the extremes...The Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association. The far left and the far right. Both groups have the right idea but get a little to fanatic about it.
I did look at the website you were waving around but they did not give me enough information. ie..Gore is the leader in the effort to combat climate change while Bush opposes the Kyoto Protocol......Why does Bush oppose the Kyoto Protocol..as a matter of fact why did the United States Senate oppose the Protocol? I think there are a lot of facts that are not shown. And without knowing the whole story one cannot make an informed opinion.The same thing can be said for all the issues and I am not about to make any decisions from the Reader Digest version of said issues printed by an obviously biased party.
Now for the fun part. (and I really have been having fun)
Lets look at your sentence "unless you are a head in the sand conservative, or a liar trying to deflect the importance of these issues to us, you will see how utterly obvious the Republican agenda is..."
This sentence implies that unless one sees how"utterly obvious the Republican agenda is" then one is a liar or has their head in the sand. Since I don't see the "obvious" then according to you I must be a liar or have my head in the sand. Your latest claim is"many honest conservatives know this is true and will see and admit to the validity of the studies posted." Again since I don't know this is true does that make me a dishonest conservative? Maybe even a liberal?
It appears that this bovine sniffing thing is bothering you. Since I have only posted several times I used that to remind you who I was. Mellow out.
By the way what was dishonest about what was said? Did I say you called me a cow sniffer? I don't think I did but either way it doesn't bother me. You can be as Nasty and Mean as you want to be and I promise I won't tell Mom.

Sincerely:
OneLastCast

PS Who the hell is Al?

[Crusty]

DanS (RT's Hero)

Regarding your post: Great first and last paragraphs, the rest was pretty much social garbage. Your premise is that "'Big Government' is a GOP catch-phrase (sic) that actually means nothing." I don't think so. Let's use your examples.

Second paragraph, your reference to farmers:

Why should my money be taken from me to pay some farmer (more than likely a corporation these days) not to grow corn to feed the pigs he is getting paid for not growing? That's Big Government. As you point out, that is our money.

Second paragraph, your reference to FEMA:

Why should my money be taken from me to replace a house some fool built or bought in a flood plain? If private companies won't insure you, that should tell you something about your site location. That's Big Government. As you point out, that is our money.

Second paragraph, your reference to "Promote the general welfare":

You are aware aren't you that "promote" and "provide" are not synonymous? Madison, in "The Federalist", was quite specific about this. Unfortunately it has become a catch phrase that many politicians have used to provide pork. That's Big Government. As you point out, that's our money.

Third paragraph, your reference to "poor working stiff" in relation to FEMA.

Have you priced waterfront property lately? Not a lot of "poor working stiffs" on the banks of our sounds and rivers. That's Big Government. As you point out, that's our money.

Third paragraph, your reference to selling BLM land.

You are aware, aren't you, that under Gore's "re-invention of government" he sold the public Teapot Dome oil reserve to Occidental Petroleum? Further, do you know that Gore's daddy, the late Senator Gore, was Armand Hammer's bagman? Armand Hammer, the owner of Occidental Petroleum, bragged about it. Occidental stock currently forms a share of the Gore wealth. Oh yeah, the stock is held in trust - administered by his mother. That's Big Government. As you point out, that's our money.

Fourth paragraph, your reference to GW's friends:

Reread Occidental Petroleum note above. Also consider that:
1. Any "surplus" simply means that we are being charged too much for the services we receive.
2. There is no current surplus. It is a projected surplus figured by folks whose math skills historically have been questionable.
3. Put a dollar in front of a politician and it will be spent.
4. Gore has already promised enough new or expanded federal programs to use it all.
5. As an aside, were you aware that the recent release of government military oil reserves meant to relieve fuel oil costs were handed out to Clinton/Gore friends? Jesse Jackson is now an oilman. (He has said in the past that "black is beautiful. I guess that is what he meant. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) Further, there was no provision that required that the oil be for the use of the U.S. Some of it is already heading for Europe. That's Big Government. As you point out, that is our money.

Big Government does indeed exist. It is not just a GOP slogan. In fact the GOP, hand in glove with the Democrats are guilty of promulgating it.

Fourth paragraph, where to cut:

What I am about to say applies to everyone of us.

My family is my responsibility, not the government's. I have and will always somehow pay for the needs of my elderly parents and minor children, assist my adult children if they need help and contribute to those charities or individuals I deem worthy. My retirement is also my responsibility.

I will do this through private insurance, cash outlay and existing government programs that are available to me. If those government programs were to cease tomorrow, it would still be my responsibility and I would still cope.

I acknowledge the fact that my present and future standard of living is my responsibility, and that it will be based solely on what I have earned, the choices I have made, and unforeseen events that may happen. I further acknowledge that there will be those who have both higher and lower standards of living than I. I will help those who are destitute if I can do so without significantly lowering the standards for those who are my responsibility, but I make no claims against those who have been smarter or more fortunate than I and therefore enjoy a higher standard of living.

I don't see anything in the above three paragraphs that can be disagreed with. So, you want to know where to cut? Go back to the original Constitution before the attorneys, politicians and social engineers began to work on it and delete every program and expense not specifically authorized. Talk about a surplus!

If that is impractable or impossible, take your money away from them. Grab every tax cut and loop hole possible. Vote for those who promise less. They won't pay off the debt anyhow. Keep your money for your family.

Cheers,

Crusty

[This message has been edited by Crusty (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Deleted User]

So, does that mean you won't vote for Al Gore, John?



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

[Deleted User]

Hey OLC, you live on river front property. Wow, talk about tough decisions! What's the snowball's chance? Or should we just pour salt on it?

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

[DanS]

Well gee, Crusty, you're quite a humanitarian. Let's just say I feel a bit more for my fellow human beings than you do.

No lower-income people in the Mississippi floodplain, huh? I'm not talking Mercer Island waterfront here. Should they have carried insurance? Yes. But the point is, they weren't insured, so now what happens? In my perfect world, we fellow Americans give them a leg up by paying enough taxes to fund a program like FEMA. ONCE. You get flooded again, and that rebuild is on you. So what happens in your world? Do they all get better jobs and work harder so they can pay a mortgage on a house that no longer exists, AND buy a new house to live in? Not that it couldn't be done, but that's asking a lot of an individual. I know it's also asking a lot to pay the tax burden we all carry. But if you'll look in the archives for the "Blessings" post RT put up, I'm sure you'll find that even with the taxes we pay, we still are pretty well off. Those who make in excess of 6 figures a year REALLY have little to complain about. What DO they complain about, not being able to buy that 4th Mercedes, or that 3rd vacation house? I guess with the way I feel about paying taxes, I'll never know.

What you didn't do is differentiate between our 2 candidates. Bush and Gore (and Cheney)are both heavily involved in oil, from a financial standpoint. Only one of them wants to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge for more. You think Occidental might see some of that oil?

If you consider helping out your fellow American to be "social garbage", that's your business. And don't call me a socialist, unless you're prepared to use the correct definition of the term. I'm not a socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative, or any other label you might want to hang on me. I'm just a guy who's going to vote for Gore because I think he'll do a better job, that's all.

I appreciate your point of view, Crusty, I just don't agree with it. No hard feelings......

Fish on......

[Deleted User]

After reading the compelling "Enviroment" thread posted by Fisheads5, and the ideals of others here and elsewhere, I posted the following reply there (thought it appropriate here too):

I've got to say that from my left leanings that I have humbly been brought closer to the center from reading the many heartfelt stories of landowners and about the right leaning ideals of good people; such as John over in the "Pres Cand. & Congress. Ratings toward Fish" thread, and Marie, Roy, and others here in this compelling thread. (I'm still a little left of center though John http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). Yes, habitat needs protecting and healing! But people are important too!! I need more biologist's input, but I don't know why a 100' buffer along rivers isn't adequate. If not, how about a compromise of 150' (200' sounds excessive)? I agree that cows should no longer be given access to rivers. And if the lawmakers tell NW farmers to build fences along the buffer line to abide keeping them out, I will be there to help them. I have the financial means (probably to quite the suprise of my conservative advisaries) to give a significant money contribution to local farmers, who can demonstrate the financial need, to build those fences. I have a bum ankle, but I have a 4 wheel drive Bronco that I will bring to carry supplies and whatever I can do with it to help. We have a large and growing Ifish family in Oregon, and now Washington, so I ask all of you members to be there for these people if and when needed in any way you can help! -- And get out there and VOTE.
---------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

[Crusty]

RT,

What's going on? A post I can't disagree with.

My ankles are fine. Fire up the Bronco.

Crusty

[OneLastCast]

Hey RT

Just got in from trying to fill my allotment of deer tags and noticed your question. Sorry but I don't understand where you are coming from and/or what your asking. Please clarify.

Sincerely
OneLastCast

[Deleted User]

Welcome back OLC. Did you bag your buck? -- Let's see ... while you were away I pointed out in the last post on page one that in the study/ratings publication you missed the paragraph where they listed several Republican Senators and Representatives with track records of supporting fish and fishermen. And they wrote we should support, thus vote for, those Repubicans. Quite a difference from your 'after reading' take that they characterized ALL the Repub.'s as blackhat enemies of the fish so they must be unfair biased liberals; posting those facts. So, given that you live on a river and like to fish, that seemingly would leave you with tough decisions. whether to vote for enemies of those fish, proponents of freedom to abuse habitat, and friends of the rich (riverside property owners), that is the Repub. platform? Or should you reconsider your vote based on how your environment, river, and fish, and people will be better taken care of where trulely needed? ... However, also given is that you choose not to recognize the factual study for whatever your reasons; I don't care why anymore. Because of that, I essentially asked if there was a snowball's chance in Hawaii that you would reconsider and vote for Gore (just in case any of that message of the ratings got thru to you as a fisherman)? -- Anyway, while you were away, I came a little toward center's way; but that's not to say, that I don't pray, to vote left of it on election day. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Truse?

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

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-22-2000).]

[OneLastCast]

RT:
No, did not get my buck. But the rut still has not happened yet.(for the deer, yours for Gore appears to have started long ago)

First things First.....GARYK(and you just listen in RT)
Good post, the best I have seen yet. You are absolutely right in that the bills are not riders. I meant to say "riders attached to the bills"....good catch. And as far as Republicans voting the Party Platform I think good old Gordon Smith showed us how that works with the suicide bill (I hope Lieberman doesn't do the same thing with Palestine). As far as liking the republican agenda. As an Independant I don't don't necessarily support anyones "agenda" I just weigh all the factors and decide what is best for me. I support Gore in abortion, I support Bush in gun control but the big thing is I support LESS government intervention in my life.
I do not need the ODFW putting my social security number on my fishing license, I do not need cameras in the intersections of Miami Florida and Seaside or Portland Oregon recording what I am doing, I do not need OSP having the ability to use Infrared cameras to photograph houses to see if they are growing pot, I do not need the State Of Oregon deciding that if I want to sell RT a rifle that I have to fill out a character check ( would you pass RT), I do not need the government asking little children to turn in their parents if they happen to smoke a joint(they used to use that technique in **** Germany), I do not need the federal government to shoot a mans wife and child because he has a weapons charge against him(posession of a sawed off shotgun) ie Ruby Ridge.
In the past year I have had three governmental agencies tell me I have not met their requirements. (DSL, DEQ, FEMA) I have managed to prove all of them wrong, but only due to cancelled checks, logic, and the wonderful post office requirement of "Return Receipt Requested" (just pay the money). What did all that hassle cost me? A Large Amount. The government did'nt care. Do I want more government control? Forget it. I think I can make my own decisions. I don't need an omnipotent protector that takes my money and my rights.

As I stated before, you can give all the decision making ability to the government and we can spin our way to mediocrity. Yeah, mediocrity, the government makes our decisions, we give up our rights to be "SAFE" and we do all that is possible to be politically correct. Someone, sooner or later will finally yell that the emperor has no clothes.
Some people want to keep spending all the money that is paid in taxes but please realize that any "SURPLUS" means that the government just charged you too much. If Fisherman's Marine or GI Joes charged you too much would you be ********? Why aren't you ******** now to the State of Oregon or the FEDs???

And RT are you talking about rich landowners?
I bought this property in 1992 while making $11.50 an hour. I drove an old clapped out Nissan pickup that needed to be replaced and I watched all those people come to the Nehalem Valley with their hot boats and trucks. What did I do? I bought this property for $21,500, on contract, continued to live poor and drive the old Nissan. So now you consider me rich?....Ask your self what you have done with your money, what decisions have you made. That's the neat thing about our country, we should be responsible for our own decisions. Why should those people that make the "wrong" decisions be rewarded by the Government? Why should I sacrifice and work my ass off for what I want and then pay for all the people that made different choice? I did not chose children (of course some of you may not have either), I did not chose high wages, I did not chose driving that new boat, etc.

RT...I base my vote on more than just fish. I understand the desire you have to keep what you love. I still think that any information from one source is biased. I still think that it is to easy to sell our soul to the government just so we feel safe.
And I still thing that we had better be responible to ourselves. The nice thing about a small town is you can not hide. Everyone knows what you did last night and if they don't they will make something up. Either way you have to deal with it. No one is there to protect you.

Be Responsible For Yourself

OneLastCast

[OneLastCast]

RT

One other thing.

There is no need for a truce. I learned quickly that there is no way that anything will get through that thick head of yours.

But, next time your down the NorthFork( below Erickson's before Aldervale) ask everyone on the bank if they only want OneLastCast.

If your ask, I'll help you moor your boat and bring you up to the house for a drink. I should have some Perrier around somewhere.
Maybe the staple of Nehalem...Hamms.\

Double set

OneLastCast

[Deleted User]

Well OLC, my head isn't all that thick. At least no thicker than yours judging by the difficulty your having getting the facts of the ratings study thru your head http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif. And I wasn't privy, albeit a bit assumptious, about your atypical riverfront property owner portfolio. So it's not about the conservative vs liberal tax issues for you as much as being concerned about losing your freedoms to intrusive government. OK. I understand that. You are afraid the Gov. will over legislate your property rights, or your hunting rights. While I disagree with lowering the progressive tax rates on the most wealthy because of their unfair power based advantages enabling them to earn more per amount of work, even per amount of production in some some cases, I do agree with being against too much Gov. intrusion. Interpretation of "too much" is what's tough to solve. We should remain as free as possible up to a point where Gov. needs to stop those that will significantly hurt people or irrepairably damage important environment. And the environment and fish issues as a factor for voting decisions is what this thread is about; although I'm not suprised it has gone beyond that. I'm getting tired of repeating my opinions here, so hopefully OneLastBlast for OneLastCast: When conservative Repub.s get voted in on national and state levels, such things as most of the middle class, the economy, social security, the environment, and fish runs and fishing opportunity over the long run will suffer measurable negative impacts. When liberal Demos are voted in, such things as after tax corporate profits, after tax individual income for the upper echelon wealthy, some small individual freedoms (such as hunting in national forests needing protection), and some small property owners motis operendums will have negative impacts (in some cases unfairly so). Since you said you will vote for who you think will do you as an individual the most good, all you have to do is decide who that is. Just remember about that Hamms "made from sky blue water"; it won't be if GWB gets elected http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif . - Out


[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Deleted User]

I just want to say this is very intriguing! Very compelling indeed. I think you all have some very good points to share. What were we talking about? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif ... Oh ya, those 2 extremist bums. Hmmm ... what can I say? Oh, I know. I get sooo upset when you guys argue this way! Can't we come to a compromise agreement? I have an idea! ... Nevermind, I just feel kinda awkward saying it here. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif Do you think we should put this to a mock vote? Sorry, I didn't mean to say that. ... What do you guys think about the weather change that's supposed to come? If we get a huge amount of rain I think it could put some runoff mud or silt in the rivers. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif HEY, that's not to point any fingers at any industry or person of course. And God will guide us. We all have our reasons's for doing what we do. Right? Well, right? I have another good idea here but ... nah, maybe after the election. Maybe sometime. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif I just wish all the cows and fish and people could all be happy. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thank you very much. - Labotomized Moderator
-----------------
Thought I'd give an opinionless offenseless post a try. Hey, it's really fullfiling, and nobody will get mad at me. I like this. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Crusty]

Visualize this:

Crusty ROTFLHAO

Crusty

[OneLastCast]

RT

Read your post and who in the hell do you think you are?

Now that that is out of the way... the wind hasn't really picked up yet and we got about 0.77' of rain over night so the rivers should be in fairly good shape. All depends how much more we get.

NWS is talking about 25 to 30 foot waves hitting the beach at approx. high tide today. Not a good day to fish the jaws or the bubble.

OneLastCast

[OneLastCast]

Forget the weather report it just started to rain like the proverbial cow and the flat rock.

OneLastCast