Goharley

I think plunker's got your number and you know it!


Plunker:

You said;
I couldn't agree with you more!

Cowlitzfisherman

I don't have a number.

If Bush's policies either do or do not favor fish recovery..........then who the hell SHOULD be bashed over it? Colin Powell?

Californians... What the hell do they need to run air conditioners for anyway... Damned Electricity hordes...

Asians... That's where all the forests and fish eggs are headed for anyway...

Indians... for not putting up a better fight when the whiteys came in and took over and cut all the trees and dammed all the rivers...

Hell just bash me... for posting this... I havent been flamed in a while...

Grandpa,

I noticed that rather than describe how you reconcile your mutually exclusive political support with your stated concern for the fish's environmental health, you found it more convenient to attack my posts as "politically biased ramblings." I can only consider yours to be political zealotry after all, and apparently communication between us isn't possible after all. Hmmm, I had my hopes, tho.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo...all is not lost....I just don't have time right now to be less sarcastic. I will say that I can and will be more specific soon. I was trying to show how bashing sounds and don't necessarily ascribe to it. You have some good points as always but I think you and others may try to put too much blame on an individual (Bush) out of convenience when you know full well our problems with the environment and salmon recovery are much more complex. For example, I would not blame Clinton for anything to do with salmon nor would I reward Bush for same. I would blame Gary Locke though. I can point out why Bush defended the dams and still agree with breaching some of them. Hopefully you can see that.

By the way....sole is not a word that simply means the bottom of your shoe. GEEZ

We caught alot of Sole at Pilot Point the other day....Maybe if I take off this cumbersome aluminum foil " Bush Disaster Reflector" off my head I could think better. I'm thinking of getting an oxygen bottle tomorrow so I'm prepared when Bush causes all the oxygen on earth to escape through the ozone hole. I think I'll plant a bunch more trees in my yard too so I have collectors items for my grandson..afterall Bush is going to cut down all the trees.

i thought it was funny the RAND co. said that removing the snake river dams would be beneficial to the region and salmon... and they're pretty darn conservative...

I gues Im the exception,

I care for the environment and our wild fish, I advocate Wild Steelhead Release and their conservation.

I also care about our country's freedoms, like fishing, hunting, right to bare arms and carry a concealed weapon. (lets face it guns dont kill people, people kill people)

I care about our countrys safety and strongly feel that pre-emtive military strikes on our possible ememies are very justified to keep the United States Safe.

I supported the War in Iraq, and support the reasons why we are still there and how we got there. I support going into any other country that might be of some threat to us. I think its worth my life or any other AMericans life to maintain our way of life.

I care about the ethics, morrals and good honest working people in our country. I think its importannt to tell the truth and not cheat or steel.

In neither right or left, I think im right in the middle.

I gues I could say there are more important issues than fishing and the fish or the environment for that matter.

There are people out there that hate Americans and our way of life. Reality is there are people out there that want to kill us and our kids.

What it comes down to is I tend to side on the Right on most issues, because the right stands for and protects the American way of life. I do not agree with everything on that side, but if I want to go on living the way I do and enjoying the things I do, well there are many people on the left that want to take those things away.

could not have said it any better Rich!

Oh Ya,

Bush is gonna get re-elected in 2004 by a land slide. Becasue Middle America is tired of the Liberal Left shoving their beliefs down their throat. Middle America is affraid about a touchy feely, dosent have the balls to do what it takes to keep United States safe. Dosent have the balls to go agianst what is popular in the world and look out for the United States.

There are nine of these people who want to take the the top seat from Bush but Middle America isnt gonna let it happen.

Again, not a Bush lover ( I hate ALL politicians.... They are weasels), but the liberal left that love to blame him for everything need to move their energy more towards fish and less towards partisan politics.
It is you, this same liberal group that would go to court in a heartbeat for the indians if they were to be told that a run was endangered and could not withstand a netting season. You would shout and wave your banners that it ws their "way of life" and "heritage" and how dare anyone take that away from them..... Well, what about us? I have known nothing else but cheap, dependable electricity. It has been my (and my families) way of life, so I guess you could also call it my heritage..... You want to so quickly and decisively take that from me and mine? For the less fortunate (who the left says they always champion for), who will pay their huge electricity bill... You?
No, of course not... It will just be placed on the middle-class working joe's shoulders like most socialistic programs are.
I think there is much to be done to improve the fishing situation..... But you want to go after a way of life, spread it out a bit.... Include the commercials in your hit list and the indians too... They kill a lot of fish (likke 50%) so they naturally should take about 50% of the heat.......

MC

Awe now, c'mon Rich. Dean is gonna change all that and show all those stars and bars flag wavers along with the heartland of America how wrong they are. He's gonna show them that they are really on the dark side and need to walk into the light and set themselves free. Heck, Bush might as well try get get the Union votes. Wonder what all those IAM guys at Boeing are saying now? Remember the IAM was all about Gore. Think that tanker deal would have went through with him running the show?

One thing that I have always found interesting is how everyone says all the Republicans care about is big Business?? If that holds true I'd sure love to see one large metropolitan area that the rep's have taken in the Presidential election. NY, no. LA, no. SF, no. Chicago, no. Seattle, no. Boston, no. Miami, no. Probably Dallas but unsure. Anyway, here is a layout and you can check for yourself. election results maps My point is that If all the Republican party cared about was big business wouldn't ya think that they'd at least get a few of the big business cities? After all isn't it the left that is always preaching how the right is all about tax cuts to the rich? My perception of how it lays out is that the Dems only really care about the large densely populated areas and don't give a squat about the little guys that make this country tick. I see it as they spend their time on the Big Business areas. I don't recall but who ran NAFTA through? That wasn't at all about big business was it? How many American jobs were lost because of that? Ya Bush got a lot more campaign money but he gets a lot more individual donations than do the Dems(generally).

I think what we REALLY need is a more moderate pres. I can't say that I'm all for everything that the right does but since I have been able to vote, 1988. I have always voted republican because I have always felt that their agenda is closer aligned to my way of thinking. I am NOT for gay marriage. I think the best person for the job should get the job and not have quotas. I think that people that bust their A$$ to get ahead in life shouldn't be punished cause some drug addict or 21 y/o mom with 4 kids on welfare is to stupid or to lazy to take care of themselves. I also don't think we need 8 million different social programs to make people feel better about themselves paid for by tax dollars. I think that prison should be what it's mean to be and not some place where a child rapist can be locked up for 10 years and come out with a Phd. because we need to rehab them. If you break the law you going to get punished, lock their ass up, everyone is in general population. And they can make big rocks into little rocks. There is way to much touchy feely crap going on on the left for me.

Wow, quit the little rant I got going on here. One last thing though. I feel that most people get defensive about whomever they voted for mostly because they don't want to feel as if they may have put the wrong candidate in office. Heck, Bush does some stuff that I just have to shake my head at and wonder. But, when I hear someone else come in and start doing the I told you so, Ya I'm gonna be po'd. I mean were all Americans and just really want the best for our country right? It's sorta like having a fat ugly sister. You aint gonna tell anyone that she fat and ugly. And you sure as he11 are gonna get defensive and stand up for her if someone else say's she fat and ugly. Do I think that Bush is the greatest thing ever? That's a BIG HE!! no. But, he's waaayyy better than Gore and we are far better off with him than Al Bore. Hell, the dems can't even get their own party straight. They'll be infighting and undercutting each other till the primaries. Heck, Bush may not even need to run a campign. By, next year our economy will be chugging along pretty well, the deficit will start shrinking and Bush's popularity will be so high it should be walk in the park..

Exit stage left..

YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT RICH G,

BUSH WILL BE RELECTED BY A LANSLIDE IN 2004.

MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT ONE ISSUE VOTERS.

DISPITE THE FACT THAT A SMALL HANDFUL OF ENVIROMENTAL EXTREMISTS CONTINUE TO PAINT BUSH AS A HEARTLESS MADMAN DETERMINED TO DESTROY EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET--JUST SO HE CAN PAD THE POCKETS OF HIS FAT-CAT CORPRATE FRIENDS. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT ARE VERY FEW (MOST PEOPLE AREN'T THAT NARROW MINDED).

THE FARTHER YOU MOVE OUT FROM THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF SEATTLE--YOU'LL FIND THAT MOST AMERICANS ARE VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH BUSH'S CORE BELIEFS:

LOVE OF GOD

LOVE OF COUNTRY

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS

BELIEF IN THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN

SMALLER GOVERNMENT AND LOWER TAXES

BELIEF IN THE NEED FOR A STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE

--CAN YOU IMAGINE WHERE WE WOULD BE TODAY IF THE FAVORED ENVIROMENTAL CANIDATE DENNIS KUSINICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT ON 9-11-01?

WE WOULDN'T BE A HAVING THIS DEBATE ON HOW TO PROTECT OUR BELOVED SALMON FROM THE COMFORT OF OUR HOMES OR OFFICES--WE WOULD BE TOO BUSY TYING OUR TURBINS AND STUDYING THE QUA'RAN.

WITH BUSH IN OFFICE--THE TERRORISTS HAVE LEARNED THAT THIS BIG DOG (AMERICA) WILL FIGHT WHEN YOU RATTLE ITS CAGE. WE HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE SUCCESSFUL ACT OF
DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN OVER TWO YEARS.

THE ECONOMY IS CONTINUING TO IMPROVE EVERY DAY--AND MOST INDICATORS SUGGEST ITS ONLY GOING TO GET BETTER.


LIFE IS GOOD!


P.S. I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT SURECATCH IS OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO LOOK AT THINGS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE BY WATCHING BILL O'REILLY--BUT HE'S NOT REALLY A CONSERVATIVE.

FOR SURECATCH OR ANY ONE ELSE OUT THERE WHO IS INTERESTED IN WHAT AN ARTICULATE AND THOUGHTFUL CONSERVATIVE HAS TO SAY ON A PATICULAR ISSUE I WOULD INVITE YOU TO TUNE YOUR RADIO IN TO:

MICHAEL MEDVED ON --A.M. 770 KTTH BETWEEN 12:00-3:00 P.M. MONDAY-FRIDAY



"IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING--YOU'LL FALL FOR ANYTHING'

Remember that politicians usually try to appease everyone with a strategy that focuses on the next election. I think Bush is doing some things that stick to his beliefs and not sticking his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows so he can change his story accordingly. When it comes to fish I think he sees the dams as more of a business asset than a fish obstacle. That is his belief. I think we can get rid of a few dams but Bush needs to see the dispute from everyone's point of view and not just from the fisherman's view. I think the need for a balanced approach is not being looked at here. Sure breaching all the dams and stopping all road building and all logging would be good for salmon but at what cost? Is it a choice of either or>? It sure is to some. And I will say it again..population growth is what is killing our habitat. Too many people on too few acres.

So behind the overheated rhetoric, what's real and what's not? BusinessWeek took a hard look:


Air Quality


The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments passed under Bush I brought a radical new approach to regulation. Instead of telling power plants how to reduce levels of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide [SO2], the law set caps and gave companies the flexibility to meet the caps in the most efficient way -- including buying and selling the rights to emit SO2. The law has been enormously successful, resulting in greater reductions at far lower cost than predicted.


Now, Bush II wants to extend the same scheme to get additional SO2 reductions, as well as big cuts in nitrogen oxides [a major contributor to smog and ozone] and mercury. "The reductions are greater than those proposed by any previous Administration -- and will cost our industry billions of dollars," says Dale E. Heydlauff, senior vice-president for governmental and environmental affairs at American Electric Power Co. (NYSE:AEP - News) AEP and other utilities support the so-called Clear Skies initiative, however, because it would sweep away a number of complicated enviro regulations covering those three pollutants -- and probably prevent a flood of costly litigation. It would also provide flexibility and certainty, "so we can plan ahead and avoid investments that might be rendered obsolete by future regulations," Heydlauff says.


The cap and trade approach has also been embraced by many environmental groups as the most efficient and effective type of regulation. So why is the Bush plan being attacked as "a dramatic rollback in protections for air," as Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters, charges? The main reason: disappointment that the targets aren't lower. For instance, the White House plan sets a cap of 4.5 million tons of SO2 by 2010, down from 11 million today. But if all current laws were fully enforced, which is questionable considering probable litigation, the levels could be closer to 2 million tons.


In addition, the cap and trade approach allows companies to meet any given target more cheaply than under the current regs. Environmentalists argue that, in exchange for lowering the cost of the emissions reductions, the Administration should have called for greater reductions -- as Bush's father did with the acid-rain program. "Bush I said we could get lower industry costs -- and a better environmental outcome," says Joseph Goffman, senior attorney at Environmental Defense. "Bush II said we will have lower industry costs, but we're not promising more ambitious environmental outcomes. It is a critical contrast -- which really did undermine the credibility of the Clear Skies plan."


BOTTOM LINE:: The Bush plan will result in cleaner air -- but not as clean as the greens would like.


Water


In January, 2003, the White House floated the idea of creating a new category of "isolated" waters that would not be subject to Clean Water Act rules. That sounds arcane, but to environmentalists it is nothing less than an assault on the nation's water. They say the definition could cover some 20% of the country's wetlands and 60% of streams -- those that don't flow all year. Under the proposal, developers or other industries would no longer need permits to fill, or discharge waste into, these isolated waters. "It would nullify the letter, the spirit, and the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act," charges Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council.


The proposal provoked some 133,000 comments -- the majority of which were opposed to the idea. Opponents included state water-pollution control administrators -- normally foes of the environmentalists -- and hunting groups such as Ducks Unlimited Inc., which fear that wetland habitats for birds could be at risk. Are such concerns overblown? Tracy Mehan III, assistant administrator for water at the EPA, insists that the Administration is carefully studying the comments and won't put wetlands and streams at risk. "There is no predetermined outcome in this process," he says. "We are committed to protecting this resource." Of course, in this climate, enviros remain dubious.


BOTTOM LINE:: A big chunk of the nation's wetlands, streams, and rivers could be threatened. But little has actually happened yet, and may not, depending on where the Administration goes from here.


Public Lands




The Bush Record on public lands offers a similar story. In a series of proposals and actions, the White House has tried to lift existing protections on federal lands and open up areas to more drilling, mining, and logging. GOP supporters argue that the public is on their side. "Most Americans aren't as extreme as the Sierra Club, which quite literally wants to lock away thousands of acres so people can't enjoy them," says Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Administration officials argue, for instance, that the public wants to be able to ride snowmobiles in national parks.

The Administration's Healthy Forests Initiative is another case in point. Mark Rey, Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, argues that the plan, which makes it easier to log on federal lands, is vital for thinning forests and making them less susceptible to devastating fires. Plus, he says, "we think forests should be used for a broad range of experiences, services, and products." But enviros see it as way to let timber companies run rampant.

BOTTOM LINE:: Under the Bush proposals, "the cumulative impact will be much less land protection," says a GOP Hill aide. Nothing much has happened yet, but over time, "it could literally change the landscape," he says.

Climate

To many scientists and environmentalists, the possibility that human beings are warming the globe by spewing so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere is the biggest environmental issue of our time. "When history books are written, this will be the issue that defines Bush's environmental legacy," says Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. There's widespread agreement -- among enviros, academics, and industry -- that Bush has fumbled badly.

It wasn't just that candidate Bush proposed caps on carbon dioxide, then reneged on that promise, or that he rejected the international Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), angering other governments as well as enviros. More important, he failed to come up with any sort of alternative plan for more than a year -- and then he issued a scheme of research and voluntary limits that's widely seen within his own Environmental Protection Agency as a sham. "It's stupid and bogus," scoffs one EPA climate staffer.

But this chapter of the Bush record is still incomplete. "Looking forward, whether or not the President remains in denial on global warming will have a dramatic impact on health of the planet, on how the world views America, and on how environmentalists view Bush," says Krupp. And the White House will soon be put to the test. The Senate is scheduled to vote in late October on a plan -- which has bipartisan support -- that would put modest caps on carbon dioxide emissions, just as Bush proposed during his campaign.

Those close to the Administration say that the White House has been divided on climate issue. But when decisions are made, they say, the politicos -- led by Karl Rove -- refuse to do anything that might reduce critical support in states seen as vital for reelection. "Their litmus test is to run anything on climate by their West Virginia supporters," says one industry source. So far, Bush's team has made the political calculation that the Administration's overall environmental record -- however much it's being bashed by the enviros -- is "balanced" enough to keep traditional Republican supporters on board without alienating too many mainstream voters.

Meanwhile, environmentalists are hoping to tip the balance by making green issues far more prominent in the upcoming 2004 election. But they face a tough challenge convincing a public more concerned about terrorism and the economy that terrible things are happening to the natural world -- especially when most of those bad things, if they occur at all, will happen in the future.

BOTTOM LINE:: The Bush environmental record isn't "bad" enough to skewer his reelection. And only in a second term will we really be able to see what his policies actually mean for the America's air, water, and landscape -- and the earth's climate.

Guys, what really tickles me is the crystal ball some of you have that allows you to predict with such a high degree of accuracy what would have happened if Gore were elected or Dems were in office on 9/11... That really is the weakest justification for your position. Talk about the things you agree with but I don't think you'll convince anyone with your "what if" arguements.

I have determined that I will vote ABB in 2004. Anybody but Bush. Grandpa, if Al wins the nomination, I'll probably vote for him, then he'll get at least 2 votes in Washington State.

I disagree with Bush on most of the issues that are most important to me. I agree with one of the previous posters, it is not smart to be a single issue voter. I disagree with Bush on several issues and truly believe that America will be better off if he were a private citizen.

On a lighter note, even though I'm very much in favor of gun control, I also agree with the right to bare arms - I have a drawer full of T-shirts.

Sorry -
I mistakenly thought this topic started as fish related which was debating a major option in the restoration of one of the Pacific Northwest's largest wild steelhead and chinook populations.

I apologize for being off target and interrupting your fun - please continue your bashing.

"Break a leg"
Smalma

Grandpa - that's a great article. Thanks. You know what's scary about it, though? Notice that every conclusion they make is sort of, "We'll just have to wait and see what happens." That sucks. What if we're wrong? What if the policies do destroy things?

I know, there's just as much chance that everything will be fine. I, too, think most of the environmentalists are far too extreme. However, I believe they must demand 100% change to get 50% change. It's like negotiating a salary or car deal - ask for the best and settle for the middle.

I think a good compromise would be to remove one of the dams and then study the effect.

Pmartin - Great analogy about the fat ugly sister (which I happen to have but she'd kick my ass if I called her that). You'd be amazed, or disturbed, to see how many of the same beliefs and values you and I share. The ones we don't agree on would be some great debates and conversation.

Same goes for Grandpa. Aside from his conservative bravado I'll bet he's a great guy to spend a day in a boat with or share conversation over a beer.

Although I'm painted here as a liberal, I've never claimed as much or even to be a Democrat. It's simply surmised because of the few political issues I comment on here.

But as Smalma mentioned, we need to address these environmental issues sans political affiliation and come to a consesus. Then perhaps we could vote to support, or not, that issue. From there we can petition whichever governing body needed to obtain results.

Otherwise we're just pissing in the wind, and I only got so many shoes to wear.