Would you guys lay off of salmo? What he did was provide his opinion and commentary regarding what people said on the issue of tribal gill netting.
Agreeing or disagreeing in a debate is completely acceptable, as long as you can present your side in an educated and informed manner. Blindly ranting about something without at least making an effort to read up on the facts will not win anyone over, and only serves to help you see your name posted on a public forum.
Saying "(we) can't have opinions anymore guys" simply because someone put down a thought-out and eloquent position in the debate is silly. CERTAINLY you can have a differentiating opinion. I'm sure that salmo would fight for your right to have that opinion, as he seems to be a very educated individual.
Maybe some folks didn't make it through his comparatively long post, so I will repost the last paragraph:
This post may be flame bait, but I have a point. It is not to defend treaty Indian fishing, although I could see it appearing that way. Most of the treaty Indian fishing bashing that I read on this BB seems to come from emotion based far more in ignorance than on facts. There's nothing I can do about your emotional reactions, but I'm willing to try to help all of us substitute facts for ignorance. I don't know all the facts, but I have studied the Boldt Decision and many of the subsequent decisions. (An aside - I was furious about the decision when it was issued, until I read it.) I've talked to lawyers and biologists, and none have ever indicated that there are any problems, legally or biologically, with the decision. Maybe that is why it hasn't been overturned. That is not to say there aren't a lot of problems associated with its implementation, chief among them being the perception of unfairness. The upshot is that this BB is an excellent forum for learning and intellectual discourse. Separating facts from opinions and emotions is an important step in furthering that cause.
In a nutshell, he was pissed about it when he first heard about the decision too. Then he did what many of us haven't done: he sat down and READ IT. He talked to lawyers (if there was something wrong with it you KNOW that a lawyer would find it and pick it apart) and biologists (they aren't the bad guys, folks. They're very intelligent people most of the time make excellent decisions) about the decision and found it, for the most part, well-written and bulletproof.
He's offered to provide to us his insight on what is in the Boldt decision, and maybe what he has to say is more than we all claim to know. Don't condemn Salmo because he has an educated opinion, and that he has the intelligence to be able to put it into words. Instead, one-up him. Go do some "book larnin". Form your OWN educated opinion, and present it BETTER than he did. You will do your cause a greater service by writing intelligently than simply posting on emotion and slamming those who disagree.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]
Previous Topic
Index
