Hypocrite? No, I don't think so. Consider what Carlson has actually said he'd do. Carlson indicated that he would end net fishing. How? That isn't the governor's perogative. Consequently, I don't think much of a candidate who opens his mouth, makes or implies a pledge, but isn't knowledgable enough about the issue (or is knowledgable but is lying - which is even worse) to know he can't deliver on the promise.

The governor's ability to influence WDFW is his appointment of commissioners to their 6 year terms. And this came at the will of the citizens through an initiative. And the very reason was to keep the governor's office from meddling with WDFW affairs. State legislators, on the Natural Resource Committee and Appropriations or Budget Committee are the state politicians who, collectively, have the most clout with WDFW.

And, it probably goes without saying, the governor's ability to influence the federal agencies positions on net fishing is zilch. And treaty Indian fishing, even less.

Now, I don't think Locke has done anything for salmon. And if he's re-elected, I don't expect he will more than lip service for fish either. It's simply not an interest of his. However, I don't think it's an interest of Carlson's either. I think his comments about getting the nets out was just a campaign platitude.

I won't vote for Carlson, because most conservative Republicans have atrocious environmental records. They fight the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act at every turn. I don't get it. Republican behavior, and Slade is an excellent example, behave legislatively as though they themselves don't breathe the air or drink the water. Now I suppose the weathy ones at least can drink bottled water, but they all have to breathe the atmosphere. Yet they don't act like it. Perhaps they favor shorter lifespans?

The upshot is that neither candidate for governor is much of an environmentalist, I believe Locke is more generally supportive of environmental measures, like air and water quality, than Carlson. For that simple reason I expect to vote for ho-hum Locke.

Oh, and water quality isn't a bad thing for salmon.

I don't see anything hypocritical about favoring the candidate who is most likely to support issues I care about. And as far as being a liberal demo, well, I've been sorta' conservative all my life, or maybe that's fiscal conservative/social liberal. But it's the stinkin', slimy righteous far right, Christian Coalition, anti-abortion, poison the air and water, business can do no wrong, we need even more weapons of war (and I do favor a strong national defense, but isn't enough enough?) Republicans who have driven me to voting for Democrats that I most likely would not choose to associate with on purpose. For the major offices it often seems to come down to voting for the lessor evil.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.