Oh brother, Senator George!

[Jennie@ifish]

I haven't read this all the way through... I'm printing it to go read in bed.
This irritates me...

I think I won't ever vote for this guy should I have the chance! He just might be beyond Oregon hope.
Jen

Dear Ms. Logsdon Martin,

Thank you for your email on the current budget shortfall.

This is not an easy situation for anyone. I wanted to take the time to
lay out why I oppose new taxes and how that is not only consistent with
good government but crucial to the long term funding of important
government services in our state. I also hope to address some of the
specific programs and people that may be affected by the Governor's
massive across the board cuts.

Let me start by saying that the big issue in our funding crisis here in
Oregon is not a shortfall for government revenues, it's about a
shortfall for Oregonians' incomes.

For years, Oregon's natural resource industries have struggled under
excessive government regulations, and now the high tech industry is
struggling with many factors that are slowing our economy. Almost
130,000 Oregonians are now out of work and yet, unbelievably, many
politicians are suggesting that raising taxes is the solution. It's an
economic fact: when taxes are increased, people have less money to spend
on their family's needs. When people stop buying, it causes
manufacturers and retailers to lay off employees or to go out of
business. It also eventually creates lower tax revenues--the very
problem that was the cause of raising taxes to begin with.

Increasingly, businesses and industries are being hit with a surge of
state regulations and requirements that many experts and observers
describe as "hostile" to the economic health of our state. Businesses
are relocating to other states where regulations are more
reasonable--where they can afford to hire employees and where they will
not be hindered by unreasonable delays.

The facts are clear. Less money is being collected from taxpayers.
However, even though the media and certain politicians continue to refer
to the problem as a budget "cut," the budget is still significantly
higher than last year's--there is no cut in spending. There is over $3
billion dollars more forecasted for the next all-funds budget next
session than exists in the current budget. Clearly, the current
shortfall from expected taxes has been caused by the fact that Oregon
businesses and taxpayers are suffering economic hardship.

In fact, Oregon Year Round Tax Filers have lost 3.8% in income from last
year. That's right,

the average Oregonian has lost 3.8% in real income. Private families and
businesses have lost approximately $1.5 billion in income per month over
the last year.

That leaves the Legislature with three options: we can cut, we can raise
taxes, or we can borrow.

Let's start with cuts.

In the last legislative session we created $500 million in new programs
that have not been cut during the last four special sessions. If they
are new special programs, then obviously they were not considered to be
needed prior to last year.

Yet the Governor has never talked about eliminating those programs, but
instead has said he will make 20% cuts across the board--including
Public Safety,
Education, Human Services, and the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
(ODF&W).

Everyone knows about the financial problems our local schools are
facing.
This is in spite of an indexed-to-inflation-increase in school spending
of 30% over the last 10 years. Instead of advocating working with local
districts to relieve them of some of the expensive regulatory mandates
they face, the Governor has consistently opposed any efforts at reform.

CIM/CAM is an example. After 10 years of implementation, the program
costs an estimated $500 million dollars annually and it is a
bureaucratic nightmare for our teachers and administrators. It is not
working. We need to identify and keep what is good about the program and
dump the rest of this expensive experiment.

Medical insurance premiums are skyrocketing, yet the Governor will not
advocate for commonsense tort reform to curb the costs on local school
districts as well as human services and businesses.

But perhaps the greatest poster-child of waste is the Public Employee
Retirement System (PERS). It has gone from a reasonably generous benefit
package to one where employees who retire after working their full years
of service often receive 105% of their final average salary. And now the
state's agencies, school districts, cities and counties face a bill of
over $8 billion dollars that they will have to pay with tax dollars
because the system has run amuck. Experts estimate that the deficit will
increase to between $12 - 20 billion dollars in just five years if we do
nothing.

It is critical to the safety of the retirement benefits of thousands of
Oregon's state and

local employees that the legislature do something to stabilize this
retirement system.

Incredibly, the Governor and every democrat legislator--with the
exception of Senator Mae Yih (D-Albany), --refused to support a measure
that would have helped fix this huge, unfair burden on taxpayers.

There are many suggestions for cutting spending before raising taxes.
For example, Representatives Kruse (R-Roseburg) and Doyle (R-Salem) have
proposed a plan that includes eliminating what was originally 3500
budgeted but unfilled employee positions in the state government. This
does not hurt anyone and could have potentially saved $210 million
dollars.

There are an estimated 15,000 ineligible people on the Oregon Health
Plan. Current efforts to bring accountability to the program have been
met with fierce opposition.

In fact, it has been pointed out that when the Oregon Health Plan first
began, it was designed to provide pre-natal care and care for children,
the elderly, and handicapped. Proponents estimated that costs would not
exceed $200 to $250 million and benefits could be expanded or deflated
depending on our fiscal resources. Amazingly the costs for this program
have soared to $2.5 billion dollars and officials have just announced
that the expected increase for the next budget will be $500 million. Any
suggestions that healthy adults should be taken off the system are met
with hostility. The approximately $300 million that could be saved by
this move would almost singlehandedly offset the Governor's proposed
cuts to Public Safety and Education.

Another cost savings would be by eliminating many of the state boards
and commissions that are no longer necessary, which are not providing
cost efficient results, or which are political pay-back positions.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of targeted cuts that can be
made that will not hurt essential services or our schools.

Instead the Governor and his allies are talking about cutting services
where cuts will hurt the most.

The Governor wants to cut the state police. Not just office jobs either,
but cops on the street.

The Governor has threatened to cut funds to senior services--programs
for our most vulnerable citizens and which ultimately help save dollars
for the state by helping seniors remain independent longer.

The Governor repeatedly works to cut funding for our fish hatcheries.
Those hatcheries are not only restoring our fish runs, but they are good
for fishermen, both sportsmen and commercial, who in turn support our
economy.

The Governor has continued to threaten deep cuts to Education and other
important state services, not targeted cuts to government spending we
can do without, but mindless, across-the-board cuts. At the same time,
he added to the massive fleet of state owned SUVs by purchasing a number
of the largest American made SUVs -- Ford Excursions-- for state agents.
Senator Clarno (R-Bend) has conducted in-depth research on the cost
savings of reducing or eliminating the state motor pool (over 8000
vehicles). She found that tremendous savings could be made by reducing
the size of the fleet and leasing cars and trucks as needed.

There is only one reason for the Governor and his allies to make these
threats. They want "option number 2": Raise Taxes to solve the
"shortfall problem." Despite the governor's avowal of non-partisanship,
he and his party have made no honest efforts to work with the rest of
the legislature for any options other than raising taxes.

It's simple economics. Raising taxes will hurt our economy in both the
short and long term. I believe we need to get our spending in line with
revenues rather than continuing to raise taxes to cover out-of-control
spending. Too much is at stake for not only this year's budget, but the
next five or ten years.

The third option is borrowing.

I am normally a firm opponent of borrowing. However, if the governor and
his party refuse to make necessary spending cuts, borrowing through
bonding is the only option left. We need to get through these difficult
times without harming the important basic services that the state owes
the citizens of Oregon but which the Governor threatens to cut.

And yes, we will have money to pay it back next biennium. Even with the
depressed forecasts, we still are forecasted to have billions of dollars
more next biennium in the all-funds budget than we do today.

In conclusion, I will continue to stand for "no new taxes." I do this to
protect the families and businesses of Oregon who are already heavily
taxed. I do this because I know that there are specific cuts that could
be made without hurting essential services. I do this because Oregonians
deserve to keep their hard-earned money for their own needs rather than
support a bloated government.

Sincerely,

Gary George
State Senator

I'd appreciate it if some of us write Mr. George another letter... Better yet, let's make his phone ring.

Gary George (R)
15195 NE Ribbon Ridge
Newberg 97132
503-538-4122
george.sen@state.or.us

[AnglersRental]

Why (just curious) does this irritate you? Sounds like this guy is on our side??

"The Governor repeatedly works to cut funding for our fish hatcheries.
Those hatcheries are not only restoring our fish runs, but they are good
for fishermen, both sportsmen and commercial, who in turn support our
economy. "

What am I missing?

UG.

[Thumper]

Jen:

I am surprised by your feelings about this guy. He is absolutely right. Your governor is playing a huge game and Oregonians are being taken for a ride. Where do you disagree???

[Deepslayer]

If he was in my district I would vote for him!!

[Pete]

I don't know what the solution to the state funding problem is, but Senator George suggests some fairly near sighted savings. He suggests resource industries are struggling under State regulation, but if they had born the full cost of their activities, we wouldn't need hatcheries now to spawn the fish that used to spawn in healthy forest streams. He suggests that tax payers provide less than they used to, but he doesn't recognize the shift that property tax limitation brought, placing the burden on individuals and reducing the burden on businesses. He further jumps on the anti PERS band wagon, suggesting that full term retirees "often receive 105% of their final average salary", but he doesn't say that only a small percentage of state employees make it to the 30 year service mark and very few retirees receive anything close to their final average salary. Oregon spends less per student than most states in the country. Our natural heritage has been devastated by extractive industries. Our roads are in poor shape. We have the highest percent of children living in poverty of any State. After 8 years, the only solution provided by the legislature is to mortgage our future. Why does that sound like a mistake? Senator George is not part of any solution that makes sense to me.

[ 09-07-2002, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[Hogmaster]

I got the letter too, as I am sure many who wrote to him got it in response.

It is interesting to me, as a business owner, the difference that he points out between the private and publlic sector. When I had to make very painful decisions about downsizing my company, it was not done with a mentality of "cut everything X %".

Rather, a prudent business owner looks at what makes the most sense to meet a reduced budget and makes the cuts there. All departments share the burden equally? Just doesn't make sense.

But what bothers me most is the fact that he points out that we Oregonians as a whole are reducing our incomes even if we are working. I had to freeze the salaries of everyone who works for me and I personally took a much larger cut. Yet inflation, though modest, continues. So he is right, spending power is reduced. State unemployment is at almost 8%. Where are the cuts of non-essential and even portions of essential state programs?

Instead we get brilliant political grandstand directives like "cut the budget uniformly" .

I am a third generation native Oregonian, and have never supported a sales tax. I still can't because I see no way to implement one without the other taxes (income and property) being kept. But it is the answer, if only we could get the reduction or elimination of the others.

Think about it. Income tax, in tough times, reduces the state budget severely, just as we are seeing now. Since the budget is necessarily bi-annual because it is so large, an economic downturn after a big upturn like we just came through inherently causes bloating of the budget. What happens when the hatcheries close then the economy improves faster than projected? The damage is done. The fry are dead or don't exist anymore.

A sales tax treats everyone equally and captures revenue from tourists. Last time I checked we were a big tourist state. Budgets become much more predictable with less fluctuation than an income tax based budget. About 48 other states do it, are we really so much smarter than they? We don't look so smart now...

So how do we force the legislature to trade, not supplement sales for income/reduction in proptery taxes???

[Wright Angle]

I believe 100% the same way that Mr. George does, I just have a hard time expressing it as well, he makes it very clear, he's right on track....

[skrimmy]

Jen, I agree with Thumper. It seems this guy is on our side. I stayed out of the political thread that went on earlier this week, but can't on this one.

It seems that whenever our state government (Kitzaber) runs short of funds, they always try to hit us where they know it's going to either **** us off or scare us. That's their tactic to get us to vote for new taxes for ourselves. Need more money, tell those gullible Oregonians that you're going to cut their school spending, or police, even our hatcheries. Jeez, I spent many an hour on a roadtrip through this state last weekend and I can't believe how many miles of road were being repaved that appeared to be in good shape. Sure seemed like a waste of taxpayers money to me that could have been much better spend somewhere else. I have little doubt that the state wastes many millions in many other areas. PERS (state retirement plan) is a fine one. Wouldn't we all love to collect 105% of our salaries from our employers when we retire? Yep, that's OUR money hard at work.

Another fine example: You want that $4000 lazer eye surgery to correct all those years of wearing glasses? A bit of a frill and not necessary, but many choose to do it for their own reasons. Don't count on your employers insurance to pay for it.....uh, unless you work for the city of Portland that is. The rest of us have to pay for it out of pocket!

When our household budget gets tight or we want to waste money we don't have, can any of us go to our employer and tell them to pay us more? Nope, not a chance. We have to cut something else out to make ends meet.

I personally think it's time that our state government get out of our back pocket every time they run tight on funds and run the state like any other business. It's nearly impossible to fire a state worker and because of this, I'm sure we've all seen examples of how complacent and ineffective many state employees are. It's time for government to run like a real business and cut the FAT. And not in the classrooms, or hatcheries, or police departments, but in Salem for starters. It's not rocket science.

I pay enough in taxes already. Sure, I'd GLADLY pay an increase in my fishing license to help save hatcheries, but like someone said last week, they'd only take that money and spend it elsewhere. Probably hire another uneeded office worker in Salem.

[ 09-07-2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: skrimmy ]

[AnglersRental]

Uhhhhh.... Pete, two questions...

If the government continues to increase spending at a pace that is greater than the increase in the income of the people who pay the taxes, don't we reach a point where the system doesn't work anymore?

In a time where the income of the people who pay the taxes is falling, should the government be spending more?

UG.

[scrod]

George is putting a spin on most issues and out right lying about some. Wake up people. Pay attention and don't be such lemmings. Jennie, you got it right.

[Dan Christopher]

i think he has it right

...you people need to wake up and see what "your governor" is doing...they always fund the pork programs and never make us vote for them because we would vote them down.they threaten to cut are meat and potatoes and not the 30 pies we don't need.but some people will never under stand this,,

Gary George ..you rock and i will call and write tomorrow to tell you to keep up the good work.

[skrimmy]

Scrod, we'd love to hear your spin on it and maybe even some facts? You generalized, but gave no examples or proof. Are we lemmings supposed to roll over and believe what YOU have said without backing it up?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

First- Politicians neither love nor hate. Interest, not sentiment, directs their actions

Second-Politicians are like bananas: They're green when you pick 'em, and
then they hang around in bunches and get rotten.

Third-Political speeches are like steer horns. A point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in between.

Stop repeat offenders…stop re-electing them…

*** Clerk

[STGRule]

I could only hope to get out of PERS what I will have put in. I seriously doubt more than a handfull of people get 105%. My guess is that those people put most of their retirement investment in the stock market and managed to make it through unscathed. I have been conservative and kept most of mine in the fixed rate. For 16 years I suffered that choice and only now has it payed off for me. Yes, I'm tier one. I get a fixed return for 75% of my contribution. I traded that for a pay schedule that was behind private pay for a chance to help what was most important to me. Our state resources. I only did that with the thought of a comfortable (not excessive) retirement and to be able to do it with a good feeling too. I helped.

I would also like to address the pay increases that everybody keeps saying state employees get all the time. I topped out in my pay range years ago. It doesn't matter if I do an outstanding job every year, my pay stays the same. Every couple of years I may get a cost-of-living-increase that doesn't match inflation. As far as I can tell, my inflation-adjusted pay is less than it was 5 years ago.

I love what I do, my pay is okay only because we are a two income family, and I have the benefit of a retirement system that up till this point was an option to eat and have a roof over my head in exchange for less-than-average salary for 30 years. I don't feel a bit guilty for that either. I only hope I live long enough to have made the previous 30 years worth it.

[TideRunner]

Well, I for one, appreciate someone who talks details and doesn't just touch on the prominent topics.

[DF]

I agree with him,
Mainly on the CIM/CAM stuff considering schools, its pointless, it takes up around 2 full school days for the testing when we could be learning... and the truth is coming from a student, no one really try's on these tests. Students most of the time could care less about state testing. Its a waste of money, ditch the testing and send the money from it to running the school day by day when we can LEARN and not rack our brains with pointless "standard" testing
:hoboy:

[Capin' Dan]

Well this guys has my vote. It seems to me like the governor attacks sensitive targets intrying to force us to do his bidding. I for one like the fact that this guy is standing tough and trying to do what is right.

I have seen many different post on here about raising licenses for different reasons as this would fix our problems it would not. It would just give them more money in the general fund. If we want to do this get a enhancement stamp for how ever much and have that go strait to hatcheries. I think that a good way to do this would be to have an enhancement stamp and with that stamp give people a 15 fish punch card to be used on salmon and steelhead thier choice from hatchery stock. How many people really fill their punch cards all the way anyhow. what %??

Just my 2 cents worth.

George go get em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wallyw]

George sounds pretty good to me.

Wally

[Pete]

UG wrote: If the government continues to increase spending at a pace that is greater than the increase in the income of the people who pay the taxes, don't we reach a point where the system doesn't work anymore?

Pete replies: It's all a matter of time frame and focus. Are you considering ALL governments, or just the State? Are you comparing to last year or the last bienium or the last decade?

UG writes: In a time where the income of the people who pay the taxes is falling, should the government be spending more?

Pete replies, again: Governments, State, County and Local, used to have a bigger portion of their income from our corporate citizens, but through the mechanics of the property tax limitation measure several years ago, we shifted the burden of paying for schools to the state and lightened the burden of property taxes on business. Is the income of citizens really falling, or is it just shifting so more get less and a few get a lot more?

[Thumper]

Ooooh isn't this fun!!!! Go Gary George!

[SR1 5]

I might have to move to Oregon to vote for this guy!

[Alligator]

Gary George (R) is the man.

If the people of Oregon would get out and vote (R) this fall, and get rid of the Democratic mind set where "every one else owes me a living" we could get Oregon's economy back on track.

I can see most folks here want our hatcheries but also can understand the clear logic Gary George brings forth in his letter.

Pete and Scrod have you ever worked in the real world? If you take the business out of Oregon there will be No Money for Hatcheries. Its just that simple.

[Jennie@ifish]

It IS fun!
I'm listening....

:smile:
EDIT: and learning....

[ 09-08-2002, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Born to Fish]

I, like many of the other readers, really don't see what Jen is upset about with Mr. George. Unless I'm missing the point. Perhaps looking at his voting record would give a better perspective on his true colors.

[SandySteel]

One specious "fact" from Mr. George. "This is in spite of an indexed-to-inflation-increase in school spending
of 30% over the last 10 years. "
10 years ago much of our school funding came from property taxes. Measure 5 removed that burden from property owners and placed it in the general fund. So it is no wonder that the amount spent from STATE government has gone up so much.
The real fact is that school funding overall for the last 10 years when held against inflation has been cut.
Another fact that was skipped by Mr. George is that businesses pay 40% less than they did 10 years ago. This is in large part to measure 5 removing the burden of property taxes. What measure 5 did was gave very little relief to the average tax payer and gave huge cuts to the wealthy property owners who sponsored this measure.
All of our budget problems can be almost completely attributed to the passage of Measure 5. A reduction in revenue and the requirement that the state general fund pick up the tab has sqeezed state government too tightly. The only reason we have not felt the pain until now is that taxes on income have, since measure 5, made up the difference because the economy was strong due to the influx in high tech jobs.
Now we are in a situation where Republicans are unwilling to restructure the tax system and Democrats are unwilling to seek restructuring state government to reduce costs.
The fact is folks everyone has a sacred cow. What you call waste is another guy's "extremely important program". I think the average person who doesn't fish would look at your sacred cow hatcheries and say "what a big waste, THIS is why state government is out of hand". I support the hatcheries. But we have to think reasonably about what is and is not a valuable program, as Hogmaster pointed out. We need to figure out the priorities for the state and move ahead. Does saving the hatcheries make the most sense? Perhaps it does. But realize that it is this board's ox that might get gored if the decision is made that they are not a priority. Rallying with letters, emails, and marches on Salem have always been the best tactic to preserve one's own pork barrel programs.

Eric

[SandySteel]

Another question. When tax money gets spent, where does it go? Does it disappear down a black hole? Does it get shipped out of state. Not at all. It goes back into the economy through the pocketbooks of those who work for the state.
But then again there are some folks who think that those who work for the state are simply leaches who don't do their jobs and just sit back and rake in the money. ..........

Sorry for the rant.... as a public employee I sometimes feel under attack on this board.

[Ed C]

I came to Oregon from the midwest 32 years ago and I feel like I've come to heaven.
Just tell me what my income tax surcharge is and I will pay it gladly. Oregon is worth a lot to me. I don't want to see a lot of state cuts in an already hard time. Too many political words. Just send me a bill!

Ed C.

[crabbait]

A fist in a velvet glove is still a fist. This guy is telling you what you want to hear and a lot of you are buying it.

He lost me when he said that the "natural resources industry" had been overregulated for years. What happened to the natural resources industry is that we changed from a sustainable yield system that worked for decades to massive clear cuts under Reagan deregulation. When you cut trees faster than they grow guess what happens? The other major downfall was exporting whole logs. Again a greed based decision that closed mills and cost jobs while we were cutting more trees than ever.

The regulations to high tech industry that the good senator is talking about are the ones that protect our environment. I don't think I want to trade the ecological health of our region for short term economic gain.

The "tort reform" he speaks of in the medical industry would cap the amount that you could recover if a quack doctor maimed you or your child. In effect, it would put a low dollar value on human life and limb while protecting the most incompetent doctors. Sound good to you? Here is an industry that will not expose and expell the incompetents and instead covers for their mistakes and allows them to continue to "practice" then complains because their insurance premiums are high.

I wouldn't touch this snake with a ten foot pole. He is all smiles on one end and a rattle on the other. Senators like George are not out for the good of the state, the ecology or the people. He has two agendas: get re-elected by pulling the wool over the eyes of the people and take care of his big business cronies.

[ 09-08-2002, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Jim]

From an outsider looking in:

It seems that Mr. George took the time to write a letter that outlines in a consice form many aspects that are faced in Oregons budget shortfall. First off, hats off to him for writing such a letter, most don't care enough to do that. Wrong or right none of us truely know as far as political direction, but I always like politicians who think outside the box and Mr. George seems to be doing that. There are many foxes in the chicken house with any government, stealing from the taxpayers putting us in situations like you folks are in. I remember quite a few years back when Booth Gardner was elected Governor here...one of the first things he did was have about 10 of the very top positions in DSHS eliminated, this saved us millions of dollars and DSHS went along just fine without them.
A question for anyone...has any private parties stepped forward and said; Hey! give us the required funding and we will run the hatcheries, I know for a fact they could be ran cheaper and more efficiently than the way they are ran currently....maybe some you need to follow the Toby Keith song and "put a boot up their bass, its the American way.

I'm outta here...all I can say is try to think outside the box to see if their is a solution.

Jim

[Pete]

OK, I've been trying to uncover "the facts" Senator George cites. Here are a few things to consider. 1) Senator George says natural resource and high tech industries struggle with excessive regulations, but doesn't identify what those regulations are. Do high tech businesses move because labor costs are lower in other countries? Aren't citizens now bearing the costs of resource extraction that damaged our streams to the point that we need hatcheries to sustain our fish runs? I really don't think there has been a "surge in new regulations". 2) Senator George says "Less money is being collected from taxpayers." But without looking at the total picture, this is meaningless. Local, state and federal taxes all have to be included in any real examination of tax burden. And it would be helpful to say what we mean by "taxpayer". Does this include corporate tax payers? Are we talking about an "average individual" or about a "median" taxpayer? Without defining the terms, this is a squishy statement that further begs the questions, "Who are you talking about?". 3) Senator George says "yet the Governor will not
advocate for commonsense tort reform to curb the costs on local school
districts " ... but this makes no sense. Torts are private actions for negligence. What negligence suits are causing schools to incur expenses? Are there really that many? 4) George said, "Senator Clarno (R-Bend) has conducted in-depth research on the cost savings of reducing or eliminating the state motor pool (over 8000
vehicles). She found that tremendous savings could be made by reducing
the size of the fleet and leasing cars and trucks as needed." But here's the truth, Senator Clarno initiated a study in 1995 that has not yet completed it’s work. From Clarno's own press release: “… there currently is not enough information regarding cost savings, the state is not yet inclined to contract out more of the fleet. I am confident my investigation into the operation of the state fleet will show a significant benefit to the taxpayer by contracting out to the private sector".

[ 09-08-2002, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[GutshotApe]

Gary George may be good at letter writing and seems to make sense. However, that's not good enough all by itself - you need to be able to convince others to influence events in Salem.

George reminds me of Jim Weaver graemlins/berry.gif , a 12-year US congressman (mid-70s to late 80s) from Eugene. Weaver, a left-wing democrat, was quite popular in SW Oregon and had no trouble getting re-elected (until scandal brought him down) and he had a lot of ideas that his constituents apparently liked. But, as with George, was a pariah graemlins/icon_argue.gif in his own party, let alone the other side, and was an ineffective representative.

I don't live in Gary George's district and don't know what he did to annoy the other 29 senators, but I've heard he is political dead meat :depressed: in Salem.

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[Straydog]

:hoboy: Good long letter the Senator had a staffer whip up for him...

It is encouraging he responded in length and detail, however.

What scares me more than some of the spin he presents is reading many folks say "he's got my vote!" based on one letter..... come on people, know that campaigning is a full time job wheather he is up for reelection or not, people in his party are.

While I agree with his take on the CIM and CAM testing, that is about all I can buy into at this time.

Reading his letter and some of the repsonses reminds me of a big part of how we got where we are today....... Sleazmore comes up with an idea to limit property taxes with no mechanism to support schools, says he is going to save us money and everyone jumps on board. Sad, sad sad.

One of my mantra's is "Vote!" I think I will change it to "get educated and then vote!"

Do not base your voting decisions on campaign letters. Check voting records to see that they are doing what they say... they know most make knee jerk decions and vote based on just a letter such as this.
Project Vote Smart is just one source of info I am aware of.

Alo, find out just what regualtions he is talking about and what he plans to do do about them. There are many, many that would take us right back to the '50's and 60's in terms of resource extraction and land ******. I am betting Sen. George is in that camp.

Also, on a similar note and as an example of ugly poliitcs...... there was a whole lot of huplaa about the President choosing to speak in Medford,Oregon of all places. Many are saying "golly gee whiz we have let the forests get so bad by not logging that the Pres. even stops and takes notice"....... the rest of that story is that during the last campaign, when GW was mererly a candidate, the Southern Oregon Timber Association, the same one that will tell you resource regulations have put them on the brink of bankruptcey, ponied up $500,000 to get to talk to GW during a campaign visit to Portland......if you think that speech in Medford was "free speech" think again.....

There is a war being waged on the progress we have made in protecting and restoring the Habitat of our fish and if we let them win, we are going to be wondering how to finance even more hatcheries or refining our golf games, one or the other. graemlins/eek13.gif

[Grant Scheele]

God I hate politics! I am so confused and I don't know what to believe and who to trust. :depressed:

[Jerry Dove]

I have known Gary George and his family for many years. They are farmers and hard working folks, also a member of Tillamook Anglers. Gary will always tell it how it is. Somtimes it takes him a long time to get to the point, but a lot of us have that problem. One thing you can all take to the bank with you, Gary George is all for Hatcheries, and he will not LIE to you!!!!! trust me. Jerry

[Thumper]

Pete remarks that Senator George says "Less money is being collected from taxpayers." But Pete doesn't believe it.

Yo Pete --- Oregon's income tax supplies most of the funding, and that income tax is down a bunch. Using the nominal 8-9% rate (which is what 80-90% of you pay) a shortfall of $800 million in the state means that the income of Oregonians is down about 12 times that much, which is about $9-10 billion.

So the Democrats would like Oregonians, who have lost nearly $10 billion in income due to the recession and the war, to pay more income taxes so the state's spending can continue to skyrocket.

And some of you think that is a good idea???

[pirk fan]

"For years, Oregon's natural resource industries have struggled under excessive government regulations, "

I think that one line shows Mr. George's true colors. Most of those "excessive government regulations" were put in place to redress the problems natural resource extraction industries have created for Oregon's natural resources, including fisheries. Overharvest of timber, mining, agriculatural practices and other damages to riparian and estuarine systems come to mind.

Republicans are a kick in the pants, they never accept blame for economic hard times which occur under their watch (I believe that both state and federal governments still reflect Republican domination, despite a Democratic governor (who at least professes to be an outdoorsman). And the solution to all our woes seems to be, don't pay any taxes for anything, keep all the money in the private sector, and let business do whatever makes money.

Funny how all these "excessive" regulations seemed to slip through the Republican watchdogs.

I'm not convinced that any extraction based industry has the best interests of sportsmen at heart. Mr. George clearly thinks that, at the very least, we're willing to trade off our passion for fish, fishing, and the out of doors for nebulous jobs in extraction based industries which already approach maximum utilization, and are so mechanized that any real increase in jobs is problematic.

Oregon's fisheries once resembled those of SE Alaska. Salmon in inconcievable numbers once spawned in all the coastal rivers and most inland ones. And if extraction of natural resources, in combination with damming every possible river, hasn't caused most of the problems with our fisheries, why don't we still have fish runs like SE Alaska. Where did those fish go???

Ocean groundfish problems - over extraction by "excessively regulated industries", or a plot for world domination???

Sport fishing revenues are somewhat unique, we are taxed and licensed to pay for our sport. I think we (and I include commercial fishermen in this) should be paying 100% of the bill for hatcheries and other enhancements which support fisheries. On the other hand, I think that government should keep their fingers out of the revenues generated by license sales and taxes on sporting goods, allocating 100% of those dollars to the purpose for which they were created.

Now stepping off the soap box

[AnglersRental]

Pete, please consider:

"Are you considering ALL governments, or just the State?"

Yes, I dont really care where the money goes... Salem, Washington, Tigard, its all no longer avalible for my house payment, kids education, etc... Often times it is given (redistributed) to people who are a lot less deserving (in my opinion) than my own family, church etc... I believe that government needs to provide services, am willing to pay for those services, and am willing to be generous to those in need. However I would expect (in a dream) that government (or at least its elected leadership)would be as prudent and frugal with our tax dollars as I would be with my own personal paycheck. Often this does not happen... and does not happen in to the tune of disgustingly HUGE amounts of money.

"Are you comparing to last year or the last bienium or the last decade?"

Compare the 2003-2005 budget with any and or all previous budgets... adjust for population growth and inflation, and I believe we are spending more in terms of real dollars than ever before in the history of this state. If true, I am against this.

"Is the income of citizens really falling, or is it just shifting so more get less and a few get a lot more?"

Pete... have you been on the river a little too much lately? Recession, September 11th, Power crisis, huge layoffs, Consolidated Freightways, Boing, Fugitsu, Aluminum Industry, Freightliner, The big railcar manufacturer in northwest Portland, and a slew of others I havent mentioned. A lot of people are out of work. A hell of a lot. The largest group of people that are currently not hurting and are the government employees. When you say "a few get a lot more", the government employees are the only ones I can think of currently in that catagory.

Bit of advice, a lot of the anglers you see fishing around Portland during the week are layed off and unemployed. I wouldn't repete the previous comment amongst the Portland area guys. You might get busted in the chops! There are a heck of a lot of people hurting out there right now, and I imagine the previous comment might set a few of them off.

Finally for all you people still whipping the Ballot Measure 5 dead horse, the point which you never seem to get is the government took property taxes too far... and the people got fed up, pi$$ed off, and voted for Measure 5.

We are in the same scenairo with income taxes, the "government" is taking them too far, people are similarly pi$$ed, and hammer is going to fall.

If not this time, sooner or later. If the legislature passes an income tax hike, it will never survive the ballot. If they dont send it to the ballot, there will be a new income tax version of Measure 5, and people will vote for it. And there will be something new to cry about. I just hope we don't lose the hatcheries as a result. Don't people ever learn?

This is why I am advocating that we be proactive and that people put pressure on ODFW to target cuts away from hatcheries.

The cuts are going to happen sooner or later.

We can put pressure on the leadership of that agency to send those cuts to nonessential areas. If this is not done we will fight this battle over and over and over and over again. And one of these times we will lose.

UG.

[ 09-08-2002, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[TheRogue]

I'm "lucky" enough to have Mr. George as Senator from my district......haven't heard a peep out of him since he began his ill-advised crusade against the Oregon Dept. of Transportation. He showed his true colors then. He's a fat cat, plain and simple, living in an area that's rapidly growing, and he doesn't like it. Face it, NOONE get elected to state offices nowadays without their own great big pot of money, or support from someone with a great big pot of money. Gordon Smith "loaned" himself millions to get elected.

Sorry a little side tracked. I lump anyone in the entire George (Gary, Larry, Gary's wife, etc.) family with anything from Sizemore.....I completely ignore them, regardless of what they say, which is too bad, 'cause they do have some interesting ideas. Political families just smack to me like a "royal" family, and pretty soon they consider themselves royalty (Kennedy??).

Hey, we've even got the Bunn's out here in Yamhill county!! :depressed: :depressed:

TR

[Thumper]

Well spoken, UG

[TheRogue]

Pete, Crabbait, SandySteel..... http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

UG....
This is why I am advocating that we be proactive and that people put pressure on ODFW to target cuts away from hatcheries.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Are you going to be exactly like most of the "no taxes" crowd, and say cut things, but don't define what needs to be cut?? That's one of the most frustrating things about this crowd.....they say that the state shouldn't be doing lots of things....but they won't identify those things. There is an excellent article in the Sunday Oregonian today, containing interviews from both sides. A quote from Mr. Simmons, a conservative House Republican, "The devils are in the details and it is extremely difficult to make cuts when you see how things are interrelated" Another by Ben Westlund (R) House Budget Chairman, "People don't fully understand how lean this government is".

So many are trashing Mr. Kitzhaber, but think of this: He is basically the ONLY one in this entire mess that doesn't have anything political riding on it. He's not running for re-election, he's not running for another position. Everyone else is so worried about what their "big money" backers are going to do.....regardless of what the people want them to do!!

Democracies are great. We can vote for who we want. We can have these public Internet discussions. We can complain about what we want....even EVERYTHING. We can also pack up and leave the state if we don't like the way things work.

TR

[GutshotApe]

Pirkfan - I'll get up on my soapbox now.

As one who worked in the "extractive industry" (timber) since before the state forest practices act was passed, and who has seen the evolution of that act with its increasing protections meant to protect other resource values (clean water being #1 priority), I believe that we can have our cake & eat it too. :wink:

Most people who are anti-forest mgmt. have a very superficial understanding of the concept both in theory and practice. Properly conducted, sustained yield commercial forestry can provide good jobs, tax revenue, and forest products while still not harming (in many cases helping) other forest outputs such as fish, deer, elk, etc. Sure, a fresh clearcut is ugly - but only for a few months. And, clearcut/burn forestry comes closest to mimicking natural processes in westside forests. Natural plant succession soon turns the cutover area green with deer & elk food and rapid reforestation turns it into a young, growing forest in short order. Trees grow and they get bigger every year. Trust me. :smile:

Most people cannot visualize what a clearcut will soon look like (they apparently believe it's a permanent condition) and they also cannot imagine that the green, timbered hills of the coast range were "ugly" clearcuts only a few short years ago.

There is a way to solve the current hatchery crisis and ODFW's chronic funding problems - the legislature could pass a law to dedicate a portion of the earnings from the Tillamook & Clatsop state forests to ODFW. And then pass laws prohibiting enviro interference (pipedream?)

That 300,000 acres is a green gold mine just waiting to be put to productive use. A reasonable logging program could solve a lot of our problems. But, I don't count on it happening anytime soon. People are suing to stop what little happens there now. The American public has been thoroughly brainwashed by the enviros and there are just too damned many lawyers graemlins/berry.gif out there looking for a case.

Maybe if present trends continue with Oregon's high tech jobs going overseas (after all, it's a global marketplace and if you can't compete with Taiwan, too bad) people will eventually see the light.

The only true, unique economic advantage Oregon has are our forest soils and forests. Yes, streams in pristine untouched forests may produce more fish than streams in managed forests but not by a lot and not its not necessarily so in every case. Studies on the HJ Andrews Exp Forest near Blue River prove that in some cases clearcutting to the stream's edge actually results in more and larger trout, salmon smolts. etc. :grin:

I think many people are opposed to forestry primarily due to what they see and the interpretations they make. An old forester once told me "The average flatlander doesn't know what he's seeing when he sees it." :whazzup:

Truer words were never spoken. :cool:

OK, I feel better now and am stepping down off the box.

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[scrod]

Skrimmy
I really don't think I will convince anyone, just voicing my opinion. I think his approach to state economics is kin to Reaganomics and we all know how little trickled down to the average Oregon working family.He has voted repeatedly to shift the tax burden to the less fortunate families and away from successful corporations. The recent failures of business have been due to poor management not state taxes as he would say. His environmental voting record is dismal. I'm no treehugger but were taliking fish habitat after all. Finally, throwing such rehashed rhetoric at hatchery funding when we all know it to be an economic stimulus to counties that desperately need it is really evasive. When you check the voting records against what is personally important to you and your families some of these fine legislators look different than their words suggest. After all it comes down to people not political parties.

[Stew]

"For the past several years we have been permitted to harvest 1 wild steelhead a day, 5 per year, from the north Umpqua (below the fly water) and from a portion of the Rogue. And, I think the commission recently voted to open several more SW zone streams with the 1 & 5 wild steelhead rule beginning in January.

Yes and that decision along with a lot of ODFW decisions is regrettable.

[TheRogue]

Shane S.

If you've never been to that area, and seen the numbers, well, you just don't have a single CLUE what you're talking about!!!!!!!!! Not to start the wild vs hatchery thing again, but come on....are you saying no wild fish should be harvested, anywhere?? There is an extremely viable wild winter steelhead population on the South Coast. Catch rates in the winter time from December to March often run 5:1, 7:1, or even 12:1, WILD to HATCHERY!!!

I grew up fishing those small streams...Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Elk River. These winter fish have never been in any danger since I was a kid....although they did take a beating in the 50's and 60's from ****-poor logging practices. My first steelie from Hunter Creek was a 13lb chromer on a 5ft Ugly Stik with a size 1 Blue Fox and 4lb test...you're darn right I kept it!!! Will I run down there and hit every one of those streams so I can kill a fish?? Heck no, and neither will most anyone else.

Sorry just venting....... :mad: graemlins/berry.gif :mad: graemlins/berry.gif :mad: graemlins/berry.gif

[Jennie@ifish]

Jerry--

Good to hear that he is a member of TA, and for hatcheries.
Other than that, however, I still have things that unsettle me about his thinking.
I'm not going to get into a public debate about it. There are just too many different views and different things being discussed here.
I'm always open for another viewpoint, and always ready to listen.
Jen

[ 09-08-2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[crabbait]

Politicians who are "for" hatcheries so that they can completely **** the rest of the environment are not our friends.

Straydog, I think you got it right. Monoculture tree farms are good for nothing except the timber industry. They are also a sitting target for any timber pest or disease that preys on that tree species.

I am all for sustainable yield forest practices and cuts that are of reasonable size and far enough from stream banks. Clear cutting is cheap for the harvester but devastating to the forest from many perspectives. What do you think happens to the small streams that run through the middle of one of these miles square clearcuts?

[GutshotApe]

Crabbait - Clearcut & burn forestry mimics nature in western Oregon forests closer than any other silvicultural method. These forests evolved with long periods of growth with occasional, intense fires that killed most of the trees. The few that lived seeded the burned area, sometimes with up to 5,000 or more Doug.Fir seedlings/acre. Now, that's a monoculture. And, a commonly occurring, natural one.

And, I have some idea of what happens to little streams in clearcuts. In August 1991 I ran a water temperature test on 10 small tributary streams in the upper Siuslaw drainage. I put recording thermometers above & below 1/2 mile reaches that varied in shade cover. Some had oldgrowth, some pure alder, some mixed 2nd growth & alder, and one had no tree buffer at all. It had no fish (due to an impassable falls) and under the 1991 rules (since tightened) no buffer was required. So, it was logged right across and all the trees were taken. During the 2 week test there was a heat wave with 104 deg. at the Eugene airport. That creek with no buffer strip was the coldest creek of all 10. It never got over 59 deg. while some of the others got up into the 70s. How can this be? :whazzup: The creek got heavy shade from ferns & salmonberry bushes that easily survived the logging (plus groundwater inflow?). The other stream temps. generally correlated with the degree of shade provided.

Not saying logging is pretty. But I am saying that logging isn't as bad on fish and fish habitat as it may look to be. :smile:

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[Stew]

Yes Rogue I do have a clue what I'm talking about. Wild steelhead and coho are listed in the ESA and should not be allowed to be killed. Remember it is my opinion and while I respect your right to disagree I don't think there is any need for you to be insulting.
Ask yourself why you have the need to kill one of these wild fish. Do you need the meat? Is it a trophy your after? I see no logic in killing a wild steelhead.
The Tillamook bay fall chinook are mostly wild fish and are not considered an endangered species. That is why they are harvested but in the same watershed the wild steelhead and coho are considered endangered and you must release them.
My opinion is that there is no logic in killing a fish that is protected in so many streams throughout the region.

[TheRogue]

They are NOT considered Endangered OR Threatened in the Rogue Basin (except for the Illinois), or the rest of Southern Oregon (and the Smith River in Northern CA). That is a proven fact, numbers bear that out. Since these fish are endangered in some places, does that mean we shouldn't harvest anywhere?? Does this include places like Alaska as well??

I apologize for the attitude and the comments, I just get pretty fired up over things like this. I acknowledge science.....I agree that the best thing for Columbia River fish would be to tear out the dams....I just don't believe it's worth the cost to society. Along that line, I believe when it's a consenus among AREA biologists that the populations can sustain a limited harvest, to allow it to continue.

On top of this, other than a limited plant on the Rogue and Umpqua, there are almost NO HATCHERY winter steelhead planted down there. Small streams such as those I mentioned basically become catch and release only except for that small window of opportunity for fall chinook (which are wild as well).

ODFW never should have given in to the Feds over shutting down those smaller streams. Local bio's had all the data needed to back up ODFW's position, but, they were steamrolled by the Clinton administration with threats of funding reductions, etc., unless these were closed down. They managed to cut a deal to keep the Rogue and Umpqua at a 1 per day, 5 per year fishery.

Hey, what were we talking about, anyway??

kyle

[ 09-08-2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Jerry Dove]

Clear cuts are bad for fish, deer and elk??? Think back 20to 25 years ago before the tillamook Forest grew to maturity. We could catch all the fish we wanted, kill the big Black tails, and 7&8 point bull elk. Gee where are they now? They must be hiding in all those big beautiful trees. Oh well life goes on with out hunting and fishing I guess. BS. Jerry

[Stew]

No problem Rogue. It's just my unlearned opinion that these wild fish are a precious resource and I think we need to do all we can to see to it that as many of them are able to spawn as possible.
Unfortunately while we do all we can to try to protect them you can drive up above Cascade Locks and buy wild steelhead from roadside stands.

[AnglersRental]

Reply to: TheRouge

Please read my previous posts in the "ODFW LIES AGAIN" thread:
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=015026
---------------------------------------------------------
"Boys and Girls,

The post by Crashin Bait illustrates my point perfectly. If ODFW was willing to make cuts to Landowner services ($293,000), Marine / Interjuristictional Fisheries ($267,000), and Administrative Services ($339,000) in March, they should be able to make those same cuts now. The hatcheries wouldnt be in danger. Those three cuts alone total $899,000. The "shortfall" is $877,000. Done deal.

We, as anglers, can put the pressure on ODFW to make cuts that will not result in the loss of the north coast fisheries. WHO HERE THINKS ODFW SHOULD MAKE CUTS TO HATCHERIES BEFORE MAKING CUTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES?? That is what they are saying (threatining) that they are going to do. Wake up!!

Call, write, email The ODFW, and Lindsay Ball Let him know that we, as a group, will NOT support him as director of the organization that cut the north coast hatchery program. He is a political creature, I am sure that he remembers what happened to the previous director... He is a political animal and WILL listen if enough pressure is applied.

Be polite, be courtious, and make sure that he knows that if ODFW cuts hatcheries over administrative services and or other programs, you will be calling your legislators, canditates, etc... demanding a new director. One cannot exist long at that level of state government without the support of such people, ask Jim Greer. We can remove that support if we are willing to take action. Let Mr. Ball and the commisison know that we know this!

Phone:

ODFW, Office of the Director (503)872-5272

Email:

Lindsay.A.Ball@state.or.us

Remember not to leave the Commission out of this either. Contact them as follows.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/AgencyOrganization/commissioners.htm

THANKS….. UG."

[ 09-04-2002, 07:24 AM:
--------------------

YOU STAND CORRECTED?

[TheRogue]

And, do you think that perhaps there are people who benefit from those programs who might feel JUST AS STRONGLY as you about keeping them?? And what about the deferred maintenance of these hatcheries?? I completely support the hatcheries....but they have to be funded completely!!

We know how bad off the Marine fisheries support is in this state....let's junk yank out the rest?? Maybe let the ocean completely go?? H.S.I.S.

My kids have to go to bed...I'm outa here.

TR

[ 09-08-2002, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[AnglersRental]

I believe that those cuts are more appropriate than hatchery cuts.

Anyhow, contrary to your inference, I did suggest cuts that could be made at ODFW rather than the north coast hatcheries.

Are you really suggesting you would rather have unspecified "administrative services" than the north coast hatcheries?

If so, I stand corrected.

UG.

[AnglersRental]

To be more Specific:

"Landowner Services: Programs to mitigate for wildlife damage or improve wildlife habitat will be cut to save about $293,000. Two vacant positions will be eliminated. The cuts will result in reductions in habitat improvement materials such as seed, fencing and fertilizer."

"Marine/Interjurisdictional Fisheries: Travel, administrative support in Newport, and a contract will be cut by $150,000. Additional cuts of $117,000 will be made for administration support staff."

"Habitat Analysis: One position to conduct geographic information system computer analyses will be eliminated and travel reduced to save $141,000."

"Additional cuts: One vacant administrative support position will be eliminated to save $82,000. Several temporary administrative cost reduction measures totaling $257,000 were also approved."

Total cuts: $1,040,000 - Needed to save Hatcheries: $877,000 = Deferred maintaince (extra): $163,000 & PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

VACENT POSITIONS? ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT? TRAVEL?

-OR-

NORTH COAST HATCHERIES!!!

I think my choice is clear.... Uglygreen

[ 09-08-2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[crabbait]

Jerry - I don't see anywhere that anyone said that clearcuts are bad for deer and elk. The right sized clear cuts are excellent for deer and elk. Any clearing that allows light to the forest floor and provides for new growth is great for deer and elk.

The same effect can be had without turning miles of forest into a bulldozer wallow. To a clearcut operation, anything that is not sold by the boardfoot is trash and it all gets trashed, thrashed, churned and burned, including any small streams that happen to be in the way.

I am all for sustainable yield forestry. In places that other methods are not economically feasible, then clearcuts should be used, but not for entire ridges all at one time or entire watersheds. Smaller clearcuts can be beneficial to wildlife, the economy and ecological.

[ 09-08-2002, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Straydog]

Jerry,

Please remember, what is good or bad for one watershed or forest may not be the same for all forests.

I respect your opinion concerning the Tillamook forest. I know little about it.

That however, does not mean that no clearcutting has been deterimental to fish habitat.

[ 09-08-2002, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[bigshark]

I hoped that we could all take one step back and not accuse one another of partisan thinking. It
seems to me that we have some issues that should be considered above such bickering. But, unfortunately people don't change and we will all pay the price for it if we allow ourselves to be divided. Good luck all.

[GutshotApe]

In the coast range, one school of thought is 20 to 40 acre clearcuts scattered over space & time allow for logging efficiency and maximize deer/elk habitat :grin: .

Another theory is that clearcuts should be huge - 10,000 acres :shocked: or more to resemble & mimic the huge wildfires that used to burn up the coast range and western cascades. :tongue:

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[Stew]

Key statement in the letter from Sen.George

"For years, Oregon's natural resource industries have struggled under
excessive government regulations"

Pretty telling as to where Sen. George is coming from isn't it? :rolleyes:
Maybe this sounds redundant but BECAUSE there was not enough regulation on the natural resources industry we have become hatchery dependant to the point that these proposed closures will devastate Tillamook county. There is very little wild fish habitat that we can restore anymore and a harvestable wild steelhead run is probably not possible. We need the hatcheries! The governor and legislature have the solution but insist on the ridiculous political posturing they are doing. Meanwhile we all will suffer.
Sorry but Sen. George would not get my vote and neither would Gov. Kitzhaber again if he were able to run.

[ 09-08-2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Shane S ]

[Straydog]

Good post TheRogue....

It must be that Rogue river water running through your veins. :wink:

Am I the only one that is disgusted by the fact that our R party has screwed around and played politics through four sessions attempting to blame everything on Kitz. and making cute statements like "we will raise taxes when pigs fly" and now, in the fifth freakin session are saying "gosh, I didnt realize all these budget issues are interconnected, I guess we better look at raising taxes"!?!?!

Welcome to reality Legislature.... what took you so long and so much time wasting to have this revelation!

I know the answer..... partison politcs and nothing more. I read the article today and was struck that the whole theme was the tough spot our "leaders" are in politically and what political ramifications the decisions will hold. Did you see any mention about what might or might not be best for the people of Oregon?? Nope, it is all about which party can remain in power.

They be playing a big chess game and we be the pawns..... are we having fun yet?


Also, you said something in another post about political families thinking they are royalty.... our local royalty in So. Oregon is the Atkinson family (Perry and Jason). They are responsible for the canabolism within the party in So. Oregon in my mind.

[ 09-08-2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

Gutshot,

I am not sure what an "average flatlander" would be but I can show you miles and miles and miles of monoculture tree farms that some would call "forests".

It aint so. Yes, responsible logging can and should take place but we cannot rely on the industry to monitor itself. It's track record is way too obvious.

Many of the old clearcuts in So. Oregon are now single species monocultures..... in many, that single species is Scotchbroom. These are not healthy forests that have sprung up in old clearcuts. They may be conucopias of harvestable trees, but that is much different than healthy forests..

[GutshotApe]

Shane - One last post before I go fishing:

For the past several years we have been permitted to harvest 1 wild steelhead a day, 5 per year, from the north Umpqua (below the fly water) and from a portion of the Rogue. And, I think the commission recently voted to open several more SW zone streams with the 1 & 5 wild steelhead rule beginning in January.

Unrestricted logging & mining hurt the fish. So did overharvest and building dams, even dams with fish ladders. Probably the biggest negative, overall, has been poor ocean conditions :depressed: since about 1977. These factors are changing and conditons for fish are improving.

I will agree with Sen.George's contention that resouce-based industry is somewhat overregulated in some areas. He's right.

Due to heavy fishing pressure, you're probably correct about not being able to harvest a wild steelhead in north coast streams at least not any time soon. Elsewhere, without elbow to elbow fishing pressure, the wild fish can and do stand a limited amount of harvest. :wink:

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[TheRogue]

UG.... of those you posted above, I just have a hard time believing that you don't think at least two of them are EXTREMELY important!!!

If you've followed anything saltwater related lately, you know what horrifying possibilities are rearing their ugly heads concerning harvest closures on the Pacific Coast. ONE of the reasons for this is the almost total lack of $$$ for monitoring and research over the years. Now is definitely NOT the time to completely pull the rug out from what little marine program we have.

As for habitat analysis, well, I think it's a no brainer.

Even your first one, the landowner program....don't suppose there's a few eastside landowners dealing with a few hundred elk this winter that don't give a rat's a** about hatcheries....all they know that the darn elk are eating up their alfalfa right out of the barn!!

I fully support these hatcheries, I've bonked enough fish that came from them. I'm just trying to get across that there is a bigger picture....and we need to realize that when we're coming up with funding. I'd gladly pay another $20 per year for my salmon/steelhead tag....would you??

TR

[AnglersRental]

Reply to: TheRouge

Those are the choices I would make.

Assume, for a moment, that you can not have everything. Perhaps you can tell the rest of us which choices YOU would make? I understand you think these programs are important, Are you telling us that you would chose those programs over the North Coast Hatcheries?

Regarding the tag increase that is already a done deal as well, read the previously mentioned thread for the full discussion on that topic:

http://www.ifish.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=015026

"To keep existing staffing and facilities during times of increasing costs and required payments and mandates, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission supported fee increases to fill a revenue shortfall and raise an additional $10.14 million in the 2003-05 biennium. Resident hunting and fishing licenses and some of the most popular resident harvest tags would increase by $5 in January, 2004.

The Commission recognized during their discussions that the adopted proposal generates $1.6 million more in revenue than what was presented at recent public meetings. However, with the continuing budget crisis in state government, the panel expressed a desire to be proactive and insure that hatcheries, field biologists, enforcement, and landowner assistance programs remain funded. Etc..."

UG

[TheRogue]

To be honest, yes, I want everything, because these all DESERVE to be funded!!

You still have not addressed the issue of deferred maintenance. This is not just paint and a little trim. I believe we're talking over $1,000,000 worth of things which either need done RIGHT NOW, or are coming very soon.

Sorry, but I'm all for the income tax surcharge....and yes, I realize that with my income bracket, we'll pay some big extra $$. I feel strongly enough about ALL of these things that I can resign myself to the impact of extra tax dollars.

Keep up the civil discussion http://www.ifish.net/ubb/icons/icon14.gif , these types of discussions can get mighty ugly!!

TR

[ 09-09-2002, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[GutshotApe]

I heard from a knowledgeable source that a $9 surcharge on all sport fishing licenses would at least keep the 4 hatcheries open, and maybe take care of the deferred maint. too. Would be effective 1-1-03 :smile: .

That would make licenses about $29. Compared to the price of a one-time round of golf, a skilift ticket or a tank of gas for the SUV, it would still be a BARGAIN! :wink:

For equity, the commercial fishermen would need to pay their fair share too - don't know what that amount would be. :whazzup:

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[TheRogue]

that would work for me.....

[skrimmy]

Scrod: Good point on the voting records. Seeing as over the years, we've all learned that many if not most politicians say one thing and do another, I suppose the proof is in the pudding - and that's their voting record. Since this is a fishing board and not a political debate board, I think I'm going to heed BIGSHARK's post about the political bickering. Hey, we're all fishermen (and women) first and foremost, and it's Fall Chinook time, so I'm going to start putting my energies in that direction! I'd be more than happy to pay the added $9 for my tags to support the hatcheries. I'd even pay more than that for those ODFW folks who are reading this board and making recommendations. At least that's a tax that we have a choice in making. I'm certainly in favor of "use" type taxes. At least it gives us a choice.

[AnglersRental]

I have said many times that I support a fee increase. I dont really care if it is $5, $9, $20, etc... Just as long as it is used for the intended purpose. The fee increase already adopted by the commission was supposed to result in full funding, including defferred maintance.

These cuts are just being used as a hammer by ODFW and other agencies to push the tax surcharge or tax hike. I thing we will need to agree to disagree on that topic.

Such things really annoy me, it is most dishonest at the most basic level. Besides it is unrealistic to think the tax surcharge or hike is going to fly. The legislature doesnt have the guts to do it without a referral to the ballot where it will fail....Thus back to the cuts - where I think it is assinine that we should create a new problem to solve an existing one.

Gotta go get some work done, generate some more income for the state to tax, see ya all later.

UG

[pirk fan]

gutshotape,

I too grew up in an extractive industry - in my case agriculture. The family farm (and it's still in the family) was about 50% habitat (timber and brush) when I was a child. My father was of the opinion that if it wasn't earning money it was wasted land, and now there is about 5% wetlands and 95% agricultural monoculture. Funny, but he's gotten a little environmental in his old age, even allowing owls to roost in the barn, although he still defends his decisions to clear the land. I think he misses the deer and pheasant hunting we used to have though. I found little to keep me on the farm, and have gone on to another and regretably more urban life.

You just can't get back what you destroy in this world, better to protect it in the first place. I sure wish that 50% was still there, but it was his land and his decision. I'm not inclined to be so cavalier with public lands - they belong to all of us.

I'm just not buying the Clear Cut/Fire correlations. I've seen true old growth forests in a riparian setting on Prince of Wales island in Alaska. They're just incredible - 4 days of rain and the creek we were camping on didn't rise or change from it's gin clear color. The forest "duff" was so thick that when you walked off regular trails you sank in above your ankles in thick beds of needles and other debris. It acted like a sponge and soaked up what was a steady heavy rain. The creek was just stuffed with salmon - literally stacked up like cord wood. Pinks and chums at this time, but cabin logs indicated that the stream also supported runs of silvers, and sockeye in incredible numbers. And not a hatchery to be seen.

I think it's telling that some of the best coastal fisheries are on rivers which still have areas of dense forest - albiet not necessarily old growth. And some of those in the most trouble flow through lands heavily denuded by logging and impacted by agriculture - the Alsea comes to mind, intense hatchery production just can't bring back the runs of silvers that once occurred there.

And you know what, if fires were such a threat to our forests, my great grandfather who homesteaded the farm in the 1850's, wouldn't have taken the route down the Columbia because the Cascades represented such an impenetrable barrier. Forest industries would have us believe that forests just can't exist without "management", but in fact they were doing just fine before Western Civilization came along.

Senator George's letter is an opportunistic plea to get back to the "good old days" of unrestricted extraction of resources that belong to all the public in a time of hardship.

Ok, off the soap box again

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

GutshotApe…

According to Linsey Ball / Director ODFW, There currently exists nearly a one hundred million dollar backlog of differed maintenance on Oregon’s hatcheries and rearing facilities. At this time there is no plan to address these repairs in the current proposed budget while at the same time additional expenses continue to ecru with DEQ requiring that these facilities meet the same water qualities standards that all of us must. Mr. Ball does not have a long term solution to this problem and throwing good money at it in the short term will more than likely be a waste…

It is time we set long term goals for our hatcheries…

[GutshotApe]

Pirk fan: Well, that's all forest mgmt is - agriculture with a 50-100 year cycle instead of an annual cycle.

And I agree that pristine untouched forests are better fish producers watersheds than heavily logged-over ones. But, these fish are adapted to large-scale disturbance and in fact need some erosion to replenish gravel beds. But, I bet there are lots of small SE Alaskan streams that were logged up, down and thru that still have lots of salmon. In Oregon streams are protected by buffer strips of trees and other measures.

It may seem that there is no oldgrowth left if all you see is northwest Oregon. I've seen most parts of the state and there is still a lot of mature and OG timber. Over 15% of the state is in federal protected status of one kind or another and most of this acreage is old growth timber. When you consider that over half of Oregon is either sagebrush or ag lands, the amount of officially setaside federal timber equals about 1/3 of the total forested area. Then there are the 100' to 200' buffer strips along thousands of miles of streams on private timber lands. This acreage (a big number I'm sure) should be considered as "ribbon wilderness" areas because little or no logging or other mgmt is allowed. Lots of big old growth trees along streams, that's for sure.

Yes, forests don't need people. But one way or another, stand replacing events will occur whether its another Columbus Day storm, another Tillamook burn (Biscuit fire?) or a logger with a chain saw. The question is: Does society want occasional large destructive fires that cost a lot of money to fight or does society want a continous but relatively low level of disturbance that makes use of forest products and could power a stronger segment of the local economy. Either way the end result (over the very long term) is about the same with respect to overall forest health & condition and output of other things like fish & wildlife.

It is currently popular to be in favor of "allowing fire to return to the forests" and to periodically burn out underbrush & fuel load with low intensity fires. That doesn't work so well in westside Douglas-fir region forests. Works fine in pine forests but not here.

*** - I don't know what the overall long term solution to the hatchery problem is :hoboy: . If you like hatcheries then more long term thinking, planning & funding is needed. If you don't like hatcheries, then just let things continue and they will start falling down due to old age :sick: & neglect.

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[GutshotApe]

One other thing: In an earlier post I reported that I'd "heard Sen. George was dead meat in Salem."
In all fairness, that may not be totally accurate. In the current session (began January 2001, still at it) I heard George got sideways with & crossed swords with Senate Pres. Gene Derfler. I think I read that Sen. Derfler is retiring and won't stand for reelection. So, it could well be that with new senate leadership, a re-elected Sen. George could effectively represent his constituents in the 2003 Legislature.

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[Straydog]

Gshut writes:
"Pirk fan: Well, that's all forest mgmt is - agriculture with a 50-100 year cycle instead of an annual cycle."

In my opinion, Gshots quote clearly illustrates a big part of our problem.

As long as we hold the extremly narrow view that functioning forests are nothing more than crop lands, we will never find the middle ground needed to get past the current forest management debate. :smile:

[ 09-09-2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[plugcut]

I think the Hogmaster is right on. WE do need to find a more stable tax base and Income tax is not it. A sales tax is a much more stable funding base and 48 other states can't all be wrong. YES some of those states are facing budget shortfalls too, but many for far different reasons. OUR 's is simple we have the highest unemployment and we depend on income to pay for goverment.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Crabbait, I like some of what you have said here.

Gutshot Ape, can you show me where someone would find information indicating that most of Oregon was made up of mono-cultures of Douglas Fir before the timber industry began replanting. As I remember from Plant Ecology courses, most of Western Oregon was mixed conifer, with some Oak/Doug Fir scrub. Maybe my memory is bad but....

UG..."Boys and Girls,

The post by Crashin Bait illustrates my point perfectly. If ODFW was willing to make cuts to Landowner services ($293,000), Marine / Interjuristictional Fisheries ($267,000), and Administrative Services ($339,000) in March, they should be able to make those same cuts now. The hatcheries wouldnt be in danger. Those three cuts alone total $899,000. The "shortfall" is $877,000. Done deal

Keep in mind that ODFW has been directed to cut money from GENERAL FUND programs. Not sure if any of your examples fit the bill.

[GutshotApe]

Straydog - I almost went back before posting and inserted "commercial" before "forest Mgmt" - that's what I meant. I value unmanaged wild forests, too. I think the only fair, workable compromise would to put some % of the forests into wilderness status where nothing happens, even fire suppression. We could have another % in 300-year rotation stands. And yet another % in high-intensity commercial forest production. Its all a matter of balancing these categories and right now I think the public forests are tilted way too far in the preservation direction and I don't think the gain is worth the cost. "Intensively managed" forests produce more deer & elk than mature timber and can produce healthy wild fish runs too. People's impressions of logging are mostly a reaction to the aesthetics of clearcuts. We need to get over that and try to look at the long term picture and the effect on society of forest policy.
GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[CATCH AND EAT]

Not that you care Jen but I think you are wrong on this one. Sorry, can't agree with ya on this one. Big surprise aye? :smile:

[garyk]

Wow, what a mixed thread.

GSA, I sure admire how you can so sincerely defend an industry that almost singlehandedly pushed north coast salmonids to the brink of extinction.

Your comment -- "But, these fish are adapted to large-scale disturbance and in fact need some erosion to replenish gravel beds."

Partially true, one watershed would experience a major disturbance, but the next valley over would be undisturbed. Now that's not the case.

The whole north coast has been reduced to a very young (&lt;50 year) forest. The streams have been simplified through the elimination of, and future recruitment of, large woody debris which is so essential to healthy salmonid habitat. The degradation is so widespread that there are very few remaining intact examples to serve as a baseline.

A little erosion isn't a problem - but there's a huge amount of it nearly everywhere.

P.S. Senator George is nothing but a shill for developers, vote the bum out!

[GutshotApe]

Straydog - A wise old forester once said "Son, when your raw material is everyone else's scenery, you've got a problem".

Millions of people need to be educated - or we need a benevolent dictator to just set policy :grin: ! I'm betting we get neither.

I bought & logged 15 acres in 1993 where I since had a house built & now live. South-facing ridge with moderate slope, had good stand of 50-70 yr D.Fir with scattered 100-yr fir trees. With a stand like that, if the ground's not too steep and if the residual aesthetics are important, you CAN log carefully, getting out 90% of the volume without ruining everything else. My logger did it because I told him to (and we could use a rubber tired skidder). Cable thinning on steep ground is possible - but not easy and has its own set of problems.

On my place we thinned and clearcut small 1/2 to 1-acre swaths in strips. I piled the slash in over 150 piles and burned them. Then I planted about 2,500 D.Fir and 100 red cedars. Still looks like a forest (left all the oaks, *****apin, madrone, dogwood, maple etc. and many pole-sized fir - and a few big ones too), young trees coming up all over the place, and plenty of wildlife. In fact, it's a beautiful place, one that from a distance the layperson would swear was practically virgin forest :whazzup: .

I hope I live long enough to hit it again in another 15 years :wink: .

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[AnglersRental]

Chnookie...

Since all the cuts I have mentioned are cuts proposed first by ODFW in March 2002 when asked to makeup a similar but larger general fund shortfall of 2.1 million, there is no reason to believe that these are anything but general fund supported programs. The situation is exactly the same. However, even if it wasn't, I will bet and give odds that if Lindsay Ball wanted to make such cuts, a way to transfer the dollars would be found. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

Fool me once - shame on you.

Fool me twice - shame on me.

UG

[GutshotApe]

Garyk - I don't think logging deserves all the blame for diminished fish runs - loggers had a lot of help from others. And I'm not defending the bad old days when there were no rules and anything could and did go. I'm defending modern forest mgmt with all the protections that are in place to do such things as provide for large wood in streams. But you can't fix 100 years worth of history instantaneously. Slowly but surely, because of the new logging rules, riparian areas are recovering. :smile:

As for local disturbance only - not necessarily true. All the pre-settlement fires weren't huge but some were. In the 1840s a series of big fires called the Nestucca Fire burned the entire coast range from the Umpqua to the Nestucca, from the coastal strip to the Willamette valley. Yeah, there were unburned islands here & there and they became the seed source for the stands that make up most of the Siuslaw NF. An OSU grad student, Bob Zyback, has studied old coast range fires, mapped them, and is trying to get the word out graemlins/1zhelp.gif .

Nobody can definitively say what the natural, average fire cycle is in the coast range. I've heard 90 years for the central coast area. Probably longer for the north coast. The point is, western Oregon forests developed over the centuries with fire as a constant companion. Now we have 3 million people (ignition sources) in Oregon so the actual fire cycle has no doubt shortened.

Logging won't prevent forest fires but fires in managed forests are usually smaller and controllable. Managed forests produce jobs & products and tax revenue. Unmanaged forests produce few jobs, no products and no revenue. Both types of forests produce fish & wildlife but in varying degrees. Because of large uncontrollable fires, unmanaged forests cost society instead of contributing to society.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :wink:

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[GutshotApe]

I see the computer thinks I wrote a bad word. OK, try "chinquapin". :grin:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Garyk

I agree with GutshotApe, in my opinion logging may have had some impacts but I believe it was over harvest that that had the impact you note. A good example would be the ocean rock fish fishery that has received so much attention lately. There was no logging, no dams, no farming, just commercial over harvest.

[kodiakfisher]

WOW Jen way to drop the bomb stir the pot and leave.

Pretty interesting all the same. Some spin the letter positive some spin it negative. Poor guys in Salem I feel sorry for them. If they spent all the money to get every possible fact and source we would complain about them wasting taxpayers money.

If they don't we complain about them not citing enough facts or being misinformed. geez!

Kodiakfisher

[NoLimit]

Mr. George makes sense to me, even on the North side of the Columbia.

[Jerry Dove]

Boy it is late, 10,31PM. Just read all of the above. some good and some bad,and some that have not a clue of what they are talking about. No time to go into great detail. Just a couple of things. Clear cuts do not take in miles in the Tillamook. Check the new program at ODF. ODFW fee increases, we went the extra increase to cover maintenance at the hatcheries. Good fishing; and good night. Jerry

[Jennie@ifish]

I didn't mean to start a war! :smile:

I just had a knee jerk reaction to some things he said.
I am not very knowledgable about politics, and I have learned a lot by reading. I love to learn! I apologize if it was at someone's personal expense.
Perhaps I was quick to judge, perhaps not...
I still have not learned enough to know the truth.
Will I ever?
Jen

[Crusty]

Not unless we increase funding enough to provide a lie detector for each legislator's desk Jen!

Crusty

[Capin' Dan]

wow Jen your're human. I know trying to sort this out is difficult. I have read and heard so many different reason about the decline of our fish here is my .02

some blame the farmers, some the ranchers, some the loggers. i will have to say in the big priority's of life that we must eat and clothe ourselves and a roof over our heads is also great so if it comes down to the last salmon in the stream do we starve and go homeless or do we let evolution take its course. I'm not saying do nothing but hatcheriesw at least give us the best return for our sportsman dollars. If they are no fish to keep then they will really have a budget shortfall.

[GutshotApe]

Chinookie - i've got a bookcase full of forestry books that I've had since getting my forest resources (mgmt) degree. And I've got 30 yrs experience, mostly in large-scale reforestation, some after large wildfires and some after logging. Both the books and my experience agree about young Douglas-fir "monocultures" being normal.
You're right - Oregon was never a single age class monoculture from border to border. But the coast range and western cascades were a mosaiic (sp?) of older, younger and in-between even-aged stands dominated by Douglas-fir. Most of these natural stands resulted from fire followed by natural seeding, often (usually) at much higher densities than you would plant seedlings at.

The Indians burned off the valleys annually and some of the foothills. These areas went thru a period of brush domination but absent more fire would eventually succeed to conifers.

GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[Straydog]

Gshot,

I agree with your idea of finding the balance and making specific designations as you have laid out.

Now all we have to do is convince millions of others.

You are right in your observation concerning the visuals of logging. As a faller friend of mine says, "just like war, logging is ugly but necessary at times. There ain't no pretty way to do it."

For the record, I live on and manage a small (8 acre on creek with my Brother owning the adjacent 8 acres) woodlot of my own in the Jones Creek watershed out side of Grants Pass. It is a mix of Doug fir, Cedar, Yew, Pine, Maple, Madrone, Oak, Dogwood, Mt. Mahoganey a little bit of Manzanita. and a ton of poison oak. It was logged in the past, probably the 40's or 50's but I am not sure. Doug fir is predominate, but it is far, far from the monocultures I see in many of the hills all around the Rogue Valley. :cheers:

[Straydog]

Capn Dan,

You bring up a very important point and that is that there is no one thing we can blame on the decline of our fish. It is many, many things.

I certainly hope anything I have written has not made people think I am blaming only logging for our problems.

I absolutley believe past logging has contributed greatly to our problems however it is by no means the sole reason we are struggling to keep fish in our rivers.. :smile:

[GutshotApe]

Straydog - I certainly have no problem with anything you or anyone else said. I recently retired from a job where for the last several years I've not been able to write letters to the editor (which I'd done a few times previously) or comment publicly about political issues. So if it sounds like I'm on a crusade to promote logging, I'm really not. Just venting 7 years worth of frustrations, I guess. This is my first experience with internet sites and so far its a blast. Especially if you've got nothing to do and all day to do it. Can't fish & hunt all the time!
GSApe graemlins/program.gif

[Bounty Hunter]

You guys can nitpick the points all you want. At least Senator George was man enough to address them (or have his assistant address them).

I'm sorry if it's beating a dead horse, but I agree that we shouldn't have to pay more just because the government wants to spend more while the economy is suffering. I am willing to pay more for my fishing lisence because it is well worth it, and it would go for a specific program that we are aware of. However, a income tax increase is a joke.
There's a lot of fat that can be trimmed out of this government as several previous posts have pointed out. Across the board general fund cuts is one way to do it, but frankly it's the pathetic wuss way to do it. The governer is showing his true lack of leadership by delegating the responsibility of making the hard decisions, and every program in the state is going to pay for it.

I'm not ashamed to say that I will also be one of the ones moving across the river to get out of the People's Socialist Republic of Portland (or Moscow on the Willamette as it's sometimes called). So feel free to raise those OR taxes all you want because you won't be getting mine for much longer. :grin: :tongue: :grin:

[ 09-10-2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Bounty Hunter ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Bounty Hunter

Regardless of your opinion of our Governors “wussyness” it was the republicans who indicated that their interpretation of state law required the Governor to only make across the board cuts and not pick and choose. During the first round of proposed cuts this spring the governor did select specific programs to be reduced in an effort to balance the budget. The republicans reciprocated by threatening to take him to court for not making across the board cuts.

[TheRogue]

The governer is showing his true lack of leadership by delegating the responsibility of making the hard decisions, and every program in the state is going to pay for it. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">OK, one more time......the governor can NOT make specific cuts BY LAW, only across the board. The first time around, when he threatened to do it, the Repubs promised to take him to court over it!!!!

[TheRogue]

***....ya beat me to it!!!

[Hoosier Daddy]

Gutshot and UG, thanks for your replies and explanations of what you were saying.

[Bounty Hunter]

Alrighty then. Point well taken. He is now less of a wuss in my eyes.