Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#95176 - 09/05/00 04:10 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Dan S. Offline
It all boils down to this - I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disputes this is clearly a dumbfuck.

Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 17149
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
steelyhorn,

You are right about statistics. They can be used in many ways, to illustrate many points. The 1.3%ROI I refer to is taken from a 3/4/1901 to 7/5/2000, and applies to 24 years of GOP Pres/Congress. By comparison, in 37.8 years of a Dem. Pres/Congress, the ROI is 6.6%. You know as well as I do that statistics tend to even out the longer you keep track of them. The GOP Pres./Congress just happens to be at the far left side of the bell-shaped curve. You can draw your own conclusions.

I agree with you that Carter was a terrible Pres. BUT he was the last decent, honest man to be President. Shows you how far honesty and integrity (GOP catch words) will take you in the White House.

I also think the GOP has a problem with interpreting the amendments to the Constitution. If the 2nd Amend. is written in stone, then shouldn't the 1st Amendment ALSO be written in stone? I guess this issue could be used against BOTH parties, since each seems to have theit own "favorite" amendment. But don't join them by supporting unrestricted gun ownership, and then claiming we need an anti Flag Burning amendment. I wouldn't piss on the back of somebody burning a flag if they caught on fire, but that's their right granted by the constitution. Paying attention to idiot flag-burners only makes them more likely to do it again. Ignore them, and they just go away.

Don't forget, steelyhorn, that the Congress was Demo-controlled during the entirety of the 80's when the groundwork was laid for the economy's performance in the 90's. So if you really believe that (that's opinion, and saying "PERIOD" doesn't make it fact), then you can thank the Dems, as well as Reagan, since the Executive branch only signs into law what is sent there by the Legislative branch.

Again, stating Al Gore is the better candidate is my OPINION. However, I feel I have enough factual data to support my position. If it's not enough for you, fine, vote for GW. But I don't want a clown who doesn't know you can't speak confidentailly with a microphone directly in front of you to be in control of anything. JMHO.

Fish on......
_________________________
She was standin' alone over by the juke box, like she'd something to sell.
I said "baby, what's the goin' price?" She told me to go to hell.

Bon Scott - Shot Down in Flames

Top
#95177 - 09/05/00 04:11 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
wit45cal Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 129
Loc: Puyallup WA
Could someone please tell me where I mentioned guns???? I was addressing the issue of the law of the sea treaty and its impact on our freedom to fish. I was merely trying to let you all know what I knew about it and who supported it. My comments regarding algore's dim personality and grey matter were prefaced with "on a personal note". As a MENSA member and someone with SAT scores in excess of 1400 I am more than comfortable going head to head with mr. Gore on IQ's or any other field of play but this thread is not about how I compare with him but rather how Bush does as it relates to our preferred recreation. As to reproductive choice, I am a pro-choice republican and will remain one. Please keep in mind that I am pro-choice on schools, welfare, reproductive rights (for men and women) and a host of other issues. If you favor choice, this is the only defensible stance. I will call my broker and get the complete facts on the market and the presidency so I am able to respond to that charge with some authority.
Dan- you and I are both staunch partisans and as such should probably refrain from opinion based rhetoric. I am sorry for not sticking to the facts but I believed that my personal meeting with Mr. Gore may have granted me insight not afforded the average joe. I most certainly am not the only person with this opinion. Don't be offended, especially after what you folks did to Dan Quayle.
The facts are that Gore violated many campaign laws in 92 and 96, he lied about Love canal, he lied about the internet, he lied about love story, he thinks Clinton will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history, he will infringe on our freedoms regarding fish and wildlife, he won't improve the living conditions of the military and the list goes on.
Now once again I will ask you to refrain from personal attacks, it clouds your argument and suggests that you don't have any substance left.

Top
#95178 - 09/05/00 04:38 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Moondog Offline
Fry

Registered: 03/02/00
Posts: 28
Loc: Olympia, Wa

Top
#95179 - 09/05/00 04:49 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Dan S. Offline
It all boils down to this - I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disputes this is clearly a dumbfuck.

Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 17149
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
wit45,

My apologies, although you invited the IQ comparison by calling Gore a dimwit. Gore is not a dimwit, and apparently you aren't either. So why call him a dimwit, especially when comparing him to Bush (I'm sure you're aware of Bush's academic performance)?

I am a partisan voter, but not always. I vote for Ralph Munroe because I know he's honest, hard working and ethical. And what thanks does he get from the state GOP? He gets dropped from the delegate list for the convention because he's "GASP" pro-choice. Where's the integrity of the GOP here? This state's GOP is so deeply entrenched with the church it makes me sick. Ellen Craswell for governor??? Ha! I wasn't thrilled to vote for Locke, but when the alternative is Craswell, what do you expect?

Again, sorry for the generalizations. I don't know you personally, so I shouldn't draw conclusions like I did. But you don't know Gore either, and the conclusions you drew were just as unfair. So you match up pretty well with Gore, but GW doesn't. You wouldn't be interested in the GOP nomination next time around, would you?

Fish on........
_________________________
She was standin' alone over by the juke box, like she'd something to sell.
I said "baby, what's the goin' price?" She told me to go to hell.

Bon Scott - Shot Down in Flames

Top
#95180 - 09/05/00 06:11 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
steelyhorn hunter Offline
Smolt

Registered: 05/03/00
Posts: 92
Loc: eastside
Moondog, could you please draw on a better comparison?? Every anti-hunting/fishing/gunownership organization in the country is in full support of Gore. That alone scares me enough to take my vote elsewhere.. DanS, you were right about Ellen Craswell we definately could have had a better choice.

Top
#95181 - 09/05/00 08:27 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Moondog Offline
Fry

Registered: 03/02/00
Posts: 28
Loc: Olympia, Wa

Top
#95182 - 09/05/00 08:40 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
steelyhorn hunter Offline
Smolt

Registered: 05/03/00
Posts: 92
Loc: eastside
Moondog, it scares when you say that you and sierra club, greenpeace etc.. share "some of the same beliefs..I for one definately care about the enviroment but I'd rather align myself with the Rocky Mtn. Elk Fdtn., Ducks Unlimited, THe Mule Deer Foundation and of course Trout Unlimited..Some of these people in the organiztions will definately have different views than I but in the end we all agree upon one thing and that is we all love to do thing same thing!! Can you say they that about your fellow Greenpeacers?? I know you didn't directly connect yourself to these people but they don't deserve mentioning as far as I'm concern. THey stand AGAINST everything that I do out in the enviroment..May peace be with you.

Top
#95183 - 09/05/00 08:47 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Moondog Offline
Fry

Registered: 03/02/00
Posts: 28
Loc: Olympia, Wa
I have no affiliation with Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club. And again I think you might have missed the point.

Peace

Top
#95184 - 09/05/00 08:59 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Dan S. Offline
It all boils down to this - I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disputes this is clearly a dumbfuck.

Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 17149
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
Dammit, Jim, we're anglers....not politicians !!

Seriously, though, don't you think we should give it a rest? Now that the salmon are starting to make their appearance, we could probably all stand to fish more, and debate politics less. It appears we're all ready to cast our votes for the candidate of our choice, and I really don't think any minds are being changed with this debate.

Gonna take a break from politics now, and concentrate on fishing.

Fish on........

[This message has been edited by Dan S. (edited 09-05-2000).]
_________________________
She was standin' alone over by the juke box, like she'd something to sell.
I said "baby, what's the goin' price?" She told me to go to hell.

Bon Scott - Shot Down in Flames

Top
#95185 - 09/06/00 12:46 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
wit45cal Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 129
Loc: Puyallup WA
Dan- I feel that my several hours in close proximity w/ Mr. Gore qualify me to make an informed, opinion based statement regarding his personality and apparent level of intelligence. I stand by my conclusions. I am aware of Bush's scholastic record and it is a bit less than stellar according to the grades. My grades weren't that terrific either due mostly to boredom. I doubt that was the case with GW. Gore may be well informed but I THINK (opinion) he lacks savvy.
I value my freedom to fish when I see fit and from what I've seen of gore and his supporters that freedom will be severely curtailed. These people are into eco-tourism. If you're into it, great. As for me, I like the fight of the fish more than the sight. The Law of the Sea treaty will affect us all in profound ways. Take a look at what is happening around you with the NMFS rules regarding setbacks and other habitat enhancement ideas. I'm not sure the extra fifty grand for a house near water or the complete loss of many farms across the state (without compensation) is worth it. Maybe it is, I don't know. The treaty will be much worse and exponentially more invasive. As much as it pertains to this thread, I made the case for the GOP and business on the Slade thread and the info (including stats) found there is irrefutable. If you continue to misstate the facts regarding the economy of late I will be forced to show you the error of your ways again. Suffice it to say that the lions share of the market gains in the nineties came after the 94 election. Now before you all go off half cocked about the congress of the eighties...it is the leaders, the visionaries and the idea people who make the difference. In the eighties the leader happened to be the president and in the nineties is happens to be the congress. If the current crop of gutless, spineless nancy boys we call the GOP congressmen had a pair of stones between them things would be much better than they are. They need a quirky texan to lead the charge.

If you would like to make me the write-in candidate for the Presidency I would be flattered. Unfortunately I lack but one of the qualifications. I am, however, old enough to run for any other office in the US and would be honored to do so. HHHMMMMMMMM.....Governor 45cal. It has a nice ring to it!!!! And I wouldn't need near as much state patrol protection(saving $$$ for the taxpayer)

Top
#95186 - 09/06/00 02:35 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
8 FOOT LEADER Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 08/18/00
Posts: 187
Loc: Seattle, WA, USA
I just talked with some folks that work for Southwest Airlines. They are based out of Dallas. They can tell you personally that all these ads saying that Bush is bad for the environment because 46% of streams in his state are polluted is wrong.

They said, that if anything, since Bush has become governer, their fishing in their state has gone from poor to completely awesome. Has anyone seen how many bass shows they have? Seems like most of them on the fox sports channels originate in Texas. Also they will tell you that offshore fishing has been rejuvinated.

I think the proof is in the pudding. Bush does have the edge. Considering Gore has been in office for 8 yrs and nothing has happened in general. I think with Bush, Atleast there is hope big government will finally do something here in our state to preserve and protect our salmon.

On the other issues which have nothing to do with my original message in this forum, I recently visited the Evergreen state fair. I went and visited the Republicans booth and the democrats booth.

All the issues pertaining directly to me which hit home for most northwestern folks(taxes and salmon) were addressed by Bush. Lowering the taxes and returning the budget surplus back to my pockets is what I want to hear. Also Bushes plans for the environment include reviewing progress on the Elwa damn project along with many other Columbia river tributarys.

Gores booth....uhhhh, theres nothing there. I think I have been turned into a republican. Bush has my vote.

This nader guy? I think we all know he doesn't have a chance. period. Thanks for all the messages and input.

Top
#95187 - 09/06/00 11:55 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Dan S. Offline
It all boils down to this - I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disputes this is clearly a dumbfuck.

Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 17149
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
wit45,

I haven't misstated anything regarding the economy. If you think I have, you can use my email, rather than continuing to clog up the BB. Just remember, for every "fact" you can state, I can find Nobel Laureate economists that will disagree with you. You think every leading economist stands behind the GOP position? I beg to differ.

Each party has economists and analysts who support their political agenda. It's a game of opinions. You know as well as I do that economic theory is just that, theory. And there are enough confounding factors in any statistical analysis, to be open to interpretation. How you interpret the statistics depends on your political point-of-view. Rebut the 1.3% growth of the DJIA, if you want to start proving me wrong.

If the GOP controls Congress, then Congress is responsible for growth, and if the GOP controls the White House, then the Executive Branch is responsible for growth?? Sorry, but you're not going to get away with that one without the BS flag being raised. Take your pick, sir, but I'm done conversing with you if that is the basis for your analysis of the economy.

Now I'm REALLY done with this political debate..........on to fishing.


Fish on........
_________________________
She was standin' alone over by the juke box, like she'd something to sell.
I said "baby, what's the goin' price?" She told me to go to hell.

Bon Scott - Shot Down in Flames

Top
#95188 - 09/06/00 12:25 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
ramprat Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 178
Loc: Graham
Although I don't like to get involved in arguments The facts are that Bush was raised as a Sportsman, Mr Gore would not know what end of a rifle or a rod to hold on to, And as stated above Gore is Supported by every anti hunting anti fishing group you can name does that give you a clue as to who would be the best man for the Salmon.
You want big Government with no regard for the Constitution, or freedom. your choice.
RAMPRAT
_________________________
Proud Life time N.R.A. member For over 25 years.

Top
#95189 - 09/06/00 02:20 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
TK Offline
Parr

Registered: 03/09/99
Posts: 61
Loc: Snohomish, WA, USA
Marty, this guy is just making a run for your 100 post Slade record. Just kidding. Only politics and religion could generate this many posts on a fishing BB.

I didn't read the Slade thread until it reached 100 posts, and then I couldn't resist. I think it took two hours to read, but I think a came away better informed. I'm really not sure if I wanted to know how all you guys vote though. What is clearly evident, however, is how politics further divides us as sportsmen, resulting in nothing getting accomplished.

I'm 32 years old so I've only been around basically through the Reagan/Bush Sr. Era and then this last one, what ever you want to call it. My political knowledge, I admit, is a far cry from most of yours.

I realy don't understand how you stauch partisan guys are so one track minded, its encredible. You both take credit for a strong economic period, and blame the other for the slower times, regardless of who's in control of congress or the White House.

I don't know how anyone goes down the ballot and marks all D's or R's. I'm damn sure .45Cal didn't vote for Locke, which means he voted for Craswell. She may be a sweet old lady, bless her heart, but she is the biggest joke of a candidate I've seen on ANY stand in my years; talk about dim.

I've never been able to say I'm one or the other - some might call that wishy washy. Voting for a candidate is definately picking the lesser of two evils, I've always believed that. I mean, as a sportsmen (hunter and fisherman) viewing the Presidential race is a two edged sword. Who will be better for the environment? Hands down, Al Gore. Who will fight to ensure that my shotgun never gets taken from me like just recently happed in Australia with the government mandated gun buy back program? Hands down, Bush.

Vote for Bush you may not have a forest to hunt in, vote for Gore and you may not have a gun to hunt in the beautiful forest. These are extreme views of course, I'm just trying to make my feelings clear.

I vote for local reps for a variety of reasons, usually regardless of their party affiliation. Hans Dunshee (D), stands on Highway 9 on Monday mornings all year long, rain or shine, waving. He also comes to my house and personally asks me for my vote, he gets it every year.

You see?

TK

Top
#95190 - 09/06/00 06:01 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
B. Gray Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 633
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
Does anyone think the Hanford reach would have been protected as a national monument under a GOP administration? Bush has said he would look at ways to possibly recind some of the monument designations made by the current administration.

And this point may get me in trouble with my friends who work in the woods but logging on federal lands was at it's peak under GOP administrations and Bush has alluded to returning large chunks of federal lands to the states. And if you like what this state and WDFW have done to protect streams and rivers from unsavory logging practices over the years then Bush is your man.

Bruce

(Note to Timberman and others who make your livings in the woods: Please do not take this as a general attack on logging. I can't imagine a tougher way to pay the bills. But I don't think the GOP has our (outdoorsmen/women) best interests in mind. They are the party of Slade. Nuf said.)

Top
#95191 - 09/06/00 10:34 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
corky Offline
Smolt

Registered: 06/08/99
Posts: 89
Loc: Port Angeles Wa.
Dan S, I thought you were going fishing a couple of posts ago Bet you can't believe I stayed out of this one It was tough. See you on the next one.

Top
#95192 - 09/06/00 11:34 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
steelyhorn hunter Offline
Smolt

Registered: 05/03/00
Posts: 92
Loc: eastside
B Gray, Now about your National Monument...Have you seen this treasure lately? Since it was held in such high regard the head decision makers couldn't decide what to do with a small couple acre brush fire that was started from a car wreck..They wouldn't allow a private individual to cut the fence and put the fire out with his front loader.. This guy was right there and offered to use his own equipment but since these idiots wouldn't allow him to drive his front loader onto this federal preserve the fire blew-up and got out of control..THe results: well over a 100,000 acres burned because they didn't want to disturb the natural landscape!!!This isn't a slam towards any political party it just shows you what happens when Gov't takes control of something,ultimately they cannot make decisions in a timely matter..For those of you out there saying that Hanford has always been under Gov't control you are correct. But since it was regarded as a Federal Preserve they were unable to attack the fire until it was too late..

Top
#95193 - 09/07/00 01:13 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
wit45cal Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 129
Loc: Puyallup WA
For the record- I did not cast a vote for governor in the last election as Craswell was (to my amazement) an even worse candidate than Bob bendover Dole. I freely exercise my right to not vote if the candidates are both unacceptable. I also vote according to idealogy not party!!!! The D's and R's merely indicate whose paying the bills.
Reread my post and you will find that I gave credit to the leaders and visionaries for the economic gains. It just happened to be the Pres. in one case and the congress in another, not at all uncommon if you check your history. It was not congress that came up with "A chicken in every pot" or "the great society" and the president had little to do with the equal rights amendment, roth ira's or prohibition. I also give credit to the current occupants of the white house for making BJ's and semen stains acceptable cocktail hour conversations. Much more entertaining than the evil empire and free markets. I am also confident that history will prove undeniably that the lack of logging contributed GREATLY to the recent fire problems. Funny how a lightning strike can take out more timber in a few weeks than manke and simpson can in a decade (conservatives have been screaming this for decades). Much like the discriminating gillnets I hear about. Which one is the renewable resource????????? timber or fish???? I just yearn for consistency.

Top
#95194 - 09/07/00 02:54 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
8 FOOT LEADER Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 08/18/00
Posts: 187
Loc: Seattle, WA, USA
Well, its in my opinion thus far, and I'm still keeping my mind open...That 8 yrs and no action is what I've seen from Gore. My taxes have increased, I pay more for social security. My gasoline costs more because I personally think the Clinton admin. doesn't have much on foreign policy and hasn't dealt with OPEC nations very well. My property taxes have GONE WAY UP! The Economy as much as you think its gotten any better, you better take a look to see if its gone up at all and really give credit where credit is due, a.k.a. The Microsofts, Cisco, Boeing, etc. and not Billy-Bob. People run this country, not presidents. Its obsurd to think that Clinton/Gore single-handedly have taken credit for todays rising economy. When in all actuallity its pretty much been both a bear and bull market. Not because of an administration. So far all I see is Democrats TAX,TAX,TAX...SPEND,SPEND,SPEND.
Where'd all the surplus go??? it disappeared.

Atleast we know if Bush comes to office there will be a chance alot of those things that directly effect you and me get changed for the better. Better meaning if your the average Joe in the middle to lower class your going to get more tax refunded right back to your pocket. Eh, who cares if the rich are getting richer, its always been that way, nothings gonna change that. Your going to see lower gasoline prices because of Cheney's foreign policy, he's great with the saudi's and Kuwaitti's, and had a very well rounded reputation with middle-east countries during the past Bush admin. And When there's a budget surplus, atleast theres a hope that bush will try to get it back into your pockets. You earned that money didn't you? Then you deserve it. Alot of us work for companies that hold on to our money for two weeks just so its easier to pay us, and also they collect some interest from banks based on that money. Well with republicans at the healm, I think they realize where the money should be. And that's with the people that earned it in the 1st place. Not stashed away never to be seen by democrats.

Today on Public access they had a bunch of folks from Seattle parks and rec. They were at the seattle aquarium talking about how well they've done with what little budget Locke has given them to deal with. They made it clear that if there was a different administration, more federal money would have been free'd up back to the aquarium to continue their expansion and continue further developing Chinook,Coho, and Chum runs into Elliot bay. The tribes and WDFW were also represented there very well and they also agreed that alot of funds that are available get shuffled out of existence by the current administration. There are alot of great plans they presented and for once I was actually impressed with several ideas including indian tribal netting in elliot bay/duwamish head every other year instead of every time the open it up. The idea based upon federal dollars given directly to the WDFW to supervise the expansion of indian ran hatcheries. Meaning they would stay off the water and raise fish for the taking by sportsfishermen every other year.

Another idea they had that they had been working with snohomish county was to boost federal support for runs that are currently working intead of cutting funding to them like Skykomish river summer/winter steelhead. Summer/Fall run Kings on the Sky, Stilly,Green. Also they had been working with Tacoma city light to help reogranize an effort to turn things around on the Cowlitz/Skamania systems. These are positive ideas that are being limmited because they said, " This administration currently in office, is limmiting and having an impact on commons goals of several agencies around the Northwest. And Without allocated funding that is getting set aside into a budget surplus only to vanish later on, these projects sadly enough cannot expand, instead they will close."

Anyways, I don't wanna go on anymore, my main point is, IF the money was there, those programs would be greatly boosted. BUT with things the way they currently are, according to the puget sound environmental commission, things are looking pretty bad for alot of fisheries in this state. Mainly the Cowlitz. Bummer.

Time for a federal shot in the arm. And Gore ain't going to make it happen.

Top
#95195 - 09/07/00 01:00 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Moondog Offline
Fry

Registered: 03/02/00
Posts: 28
Loc: Olympia, Wa

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  The Moderator 
Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 939 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |