Dan-- What you say about not being represented by any political party is one reason I dislike the mixing of partisan politics and fisheries issues. As a fisherman, I feel very strongly that each candidate and each issue has to be evaluated on individual merits. I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats (and AGAINST both) based on issues that were important to me as a fisherman.

In the presidential race, both candidates offer something for fishermen; however, the anti-Bush camp won't agree that anything coming out of "the Bush Adminisration" (cue evil music) is good for fisheries for a moment. And the anti-Kerry camp think his flipping and flopping are about as close as he'll get to a fish except under tartar sauce.

That's unfortunate, in my opinion, because if Bush wins, then anything coming from the feds will be "wrong", and if Kerry wins, the same applies, but only the voices will be different. The polarization is unlikely to change over the next five years, and once again, fish will be the losers because folks tried to force their political views onto issues that transcend parties.

And Dave--I also did a Google search using the parameters for Bush. What I saw in two pages was a lot of anti-Bush sentiment from environmental presses-- not exactly a balanced group, as I'm sure you'll agree. What I didn't find was any mention of the positive (my judgment here) news stories about projects that NOAA has begun or is doing that are fish-friendly. There are dozens of such projects currently underway or in planning. Perhaps I didn't scroll far enough or used the wrong parameters. However, if Bush gets the blame for things that happen on his watch as many on this forum have declared, then conversely, he should get the credit for the good things as well.

My $.02,

Keith