Recently I've heard alot of campaign retoric about health care a presciption drugs for seniors. It seems like everytime Al Gore or Bill Clinton has visited us in the good old northwest he mentions some talk about restoring habitat and protecting the environment for salmon, BUT no action. Also Govenor Locke continues to blow smoke our way on the same issues. The only thing I heard that might have been a good idea was remove the Ehlwa damn out on the pennisula.

Does anyone know the stance that Bush is taking on these issues because it seems like we are back-pedaling with the democrats at the healm and its time for a change.

If anyone knows a little more abour Gores ideas on saving our salmon/steelies let me know also. This seems to me like it might be the deciding issue I might use to vote for since its pretty much the only thing that hits close to home that effects me except for taxes.

I don't think either of them could catch a salmon. .... Or would want to even. - We just had a 70 post debate on this subject that was very partisan (seemed like a session of congress). If you think things have gone backwards for the fish under the demos, it will get very ugly fast under the repub.'s! They, and Bush, very strongly favor big business (electrical power, timber, agriculture, shipping/barging, poluting industries, etc., etc.). They will surely vote favorably toward their wealthy constituents, not fish or fishermen! Gore decidedly has a better voting and advocacy record toward the environment. - RT

Neither, Ralph Nader!

I agree big time! I would love to see Nader beat them both. Unfortunately, because those that would vote for Nader (who has virtually no chance to win) would more likely vote for Gore if Ralph weren't in the race, a vote for him would amount to a vote for Bush. There are better ways to protest than helping Bush get elected! - RT



[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 08-30-2000).]

GW Bush spoke in Puyallup several months ago. There he stated that he would veto any bill that involved breaching of the snake river dams. I believe that both of these guys ( Gore and Bush) are corrupt but we must choose a lesser of two evils. I have considered voting for Nader but know the vote would not help. Nader has too small of a following, and could not win the election. Unfortunately I will be perpetuating the two party system in the process, but will more than likely vote for Gore.
Gore has tried to bring about some good changes. Before the election was near he was a strong participant in bringing about new information on global warming. This activism has calmed down a bit ( understandably to not ruffle any feathers in an election year).
I have only one problem TIPPER!!! yikes....

Hey folks, I hate to go against the grain of the majority of you fine fellow anglers here, but unfortunatel I see a trend for the bad here. The Demo's have done nothing except to blow a lot of smoke which sounds good, but have failed to do anything good for our streams. If you recall, the Demo's have taken Communist $$, corrupted the morality of the White House, and stuck together like pigs in the mud. I believe if you go with your instincts here, you should feel that it's time for a change...one for the better. I think there are enough "liberal environmentally driven" folks in the PNW to cease any building of more dams here in the PNW, so don't worry about a "renegade" republican in office! Here's a scenario for you...go fishing in TX and then go to Gore's home state and try to fish! Tell me how you feel then!

Only one real choice, Gore. Bush has a real bad track record with environmental issues. And as far as Nader goes, do you really think his vice presidential choice could do the job if called to do so??

Peace

For all you Demos on this board(which seems to be the majority)I want to ask you to think about a few things.. First off, do you guys really believe that the Republicans are enviromentally unfriendly?? They wouldn't be in politics very long if they voted against the enviro. Some choices politicians make are not exactly what we all want to see but that will never change!!! Most importantly to me is the stance Gore has taken against gun ownership.He is nothing more than a ANTI-Hunting/fishing liberal piece of "manure". Trust me if he gets in office we will see a change in our style of life!! Maybe alot of you people don't own guns or even hunt with any kind of weapon...If you don't you should still realize the importance of being able to retain these rights!! The anti-everything organizations strongly support Gore and his fellow Democrats. For this very reason I wouldn't even give Gore a slight thought.. As for you Nader lovers I would personally take two Gores over one Nader! If you want and explantion for my thoughts on this idiot just ask and I'll add my opinion on him as well.There is no such thing as the perfect choice, we just have to decide which person's ideals best fit your ideas and ways of life....Vote Bush!!!!!!!!!

I like RT's thinking but I have one vote and I believe Nader is the one. I've seen Salmon in all are rivers I hope everone gets a chance to hook into one. Good luck and good health the Swami.

Just found out that Bush has lead the way in the state of texas to reduce offshore oil drilling in the gulf of mexico to protect the environment. Also he has been involved with protecting sailfish, bluefin tuna, and marlin in the gulf and east coast waters. Gore hasn't done jack squat while in office for 8 years. I think I might have found my answer. Thanks for all your input.

Steelyhorn..do you really think if Gore gets into office hes going to take away everyone’s guns?? Everyone has the right to there own opinion, no matter how misguided. Vote Gore.


Remember if you want to have money like Republicans you need to vote Democrat.


Peace

You all knew my two cents were coming.

If you recall the slade post you will know quickly that I am a proud republican. With the full disclosure out of the way I will begin.
I was an invited guest of the White House to the "Year of the Ocean" conference in Monterey Ca in 1998. I was invited because of my achievements in environmental protection and pollution prevention.(just another republican saving the planet LOL) Among the attendees were Al Gore and Bill Clinton, both of whom I had the opportunity to converse with on these very issues. I also talked with B. Boxer, Ted Danson, Ron Sims, Navy Sec. Dalton, ADM James Loy USCG, Carol Browner, Leon Panetta, Interior Sec. Bruce Babbitt and many more. The subject of the conference was the Law of the Ocean Treaty and its effects on the freedoms of the US. I can tell you that it would inflict upon the US foriegn authority on all of our coastlines and coastal rivers. This analysis is not mine but that of several attendees at the conference that have much more liberal views than I. I can assure you all that Al Gore will sign the treaty as quickly as possible as he said as much directly to me and three top ranking officers of the US Navy. He will do this over the objections of many, but with the blessings of greenpeace, sierra club and other left wing special interests. The same special interests that think sportsmen inflict undue pain and suffering on fish with hook and line. HMMMMMM!!!!! This will directly affect the freedoms we enjoy as anglers of coastal rivers and ocean going fish. This is just one reason to think twice about voting for Al Gore. As I stated in an earlier post, being a single issue voter is a dereliction of your duty as a citizen, something I take very seriously. I don't believe that Algore will be good for the country. I think our taxes will go up from their already too high rate and our freedoms will diminish. Those of you who favor even the current tax rates please make the moral argument for taking my life energy, perhaps against my will, and giving it to someone I may not want to have it. If you think folks should be taxed more, how much EXTRA did you give to the gov't last year with your return. Those of you who think we haven't had our freedoms trampled upon please read the federalist papers and then make the argument as to why I must purchase from the gov't a license to exercise my God given rights to feed and care for my family. Perhaps you could also explain why the gov't has a right to read every piece of email I send regardless of content or recipient.(which is the case now) For a more complete argument against the current crop of democrats (algore included) review the Slade question? post of around 40 days ago. I think GW Bush is a progressive, forward thinking republican. (not all that common I admit) He is among a handful of reforming young(politically) governors from around the country who have done great things in their states. He has already assembled a top notch team and will continue to add talent. As for you vets.....I can't begin to think that any of you could consider voting for algore after what he has let happen to the morale and readiness of our fighting forces in the last eight years. This man has no respect for the warrior spirit or the warrior ways and will not help get even one of our military families off of food stamps. As long as our prisoners eat and live in more favorable conditions than our recruits I cannot support politicians without clear and unshakable support for our armed forces. Al Gore also has a severe problem telling the truth (a quality I don't think he posessed until working with Bill) which disturbs me greatly. I know politicians all lie, but telling me he invented the internet or discovered Love Canal (an environmental disaster he tried to take credit for beginning the cleanup)...thats a little over the top. If he's willing to lie about such easily disproven items what else is he willing to lie about. (i didn't know it was a fundraiser....$5000 from a buddhist monk??)
On a personal note, I found Mr. Gore to be a bit dim. Bill Clinton is charismatic, likable and very smart no matter how much I disagree with his politics. Al Gore, on the other hand, is more wooden and seemingly not bright in person. He is actually better on TV. He is much further left than Clinton politically and sees in his minds eye a socialist utopia existing in America. His book "earth in the balance"is an eye opening tome. The title alone suggests his elitist, humanistic view of the world and the text proposes that humans are nothing more than a threat to the ecosystem as opposed to another part of the ecosystem. This is a VERY important election and we would all be served better if you all spent lots of time researching these candidates. Look at voting records, pre-election year quotes and upbringing. How the parents of these two view the world has a great effect on how they will view it. Both of their fathers were prominent political figures. Don't you share alot of the same opinions as your father???

Regards,
Lance

There are many sources of information to glean facts about our political "leaders" one that I like to check on from time to time is the leauge of conservation voters it was started by other disillusioned republicans like myself when the party made a shift from its Rooseveltian Conservation Ethic (Teddy the guy who started it all remember he was a Republican) to whatever it is you would call the lunacy we are engaged in now regarding the Enviroment.
One issue that is of intrest to all who read this board is water quality so here is the report card for both canidates.
Govenor Bush
More than 4,400 miles of Texas rivers one third of those monitored are so polluted they fail to meet federal standards for recreational and other uses.
Despite the harm, Texas ranks 46th among states for water resource protection, yet Bush continues to condem federal regulations.
Gore
Supports strengthening the clean water act
and investments in clean water to achieve fishable and swimable waters nationwide. He also vows if elected to veto congressional attacks on clean water.
There is alot more information available that show there is a choice I will try to supply information and keep my comments non partisan even though I still register as a Republican( I live in hope I may some day get to vote that way again)

wit45,

Since you seem to be a truth vs. opinion kind of guy, it's time you looked at the truth.

1) Our freedoms will diminish under Al Gore: This is opinion only. You may think that's the case, but I don't see it that way. You just put the freedom to own firearms ahead of the freedom to dictate your own reproductive choices, and choices of whom you sleep with. Conservatives always view the 2nd Amendment as written in stone, but don't seem bothered by assaults on the 1st Amendment.

2) Government access to email. This one is really funny, wit45, since your pal, Slade Gorton voted to INCREASE the governments ability to stick its nose in your electronic correspondence. So don't support Slade, and then whine about the powers HE voted to keep in the FBI/CIA's hands.

3) Inventing the Internet: Al Gore didn't "invent" the internet. But the internet would NOT be what it is today without the efforts of Gore. Without Gore the evolution of the ARPAnet into the internet would be years behind where it is today. Your GOP friends didn't even know what the ARPAnet/internet WAS back in the 80's and early 90's, but Al Gore saw what it could be and helped secure government funding to expand the infrastructure that would allow the internet to become the tool it is today. And the ecomomic boom of the 90's is largely due to the performance of technology-based companies that were helped a great deal by Al Gore's attention to technology. You can play all the word games you want about "inventing" the internet. But remember that without capital, NO invention is viable. Ford didn't "invent" the automobile, either, but without his implementation of the assembly-line, the auto wouldn't be what it is today. I give Al Gore much credit for making the internet the tool it is now.

4) Al Gore's intelligence: This one is a laugh. You think Gore is a dimwit? Then challenge him to a match of IQ's, wit45. You may be embarassed by the results. Stephen Hawking doesn't exude much personality either, and he's not very good with humor, but that doesn't say ANYTHING about his intelligence. Lack of an electric personality doesn't have a damn thing to do with one's intelligence. You should be embarassed you even brought this up. Match Gore up with Bush in this case, and your argument makes even less sense. GW isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

Once again, opinion takes place of fact. If the GOP is so good for business, then why has the Dow Jones Industrial Average performed its WORST when the GOP controls the White House and Congress? Like 6-10% annual growth vs. 1.3% annual growth with a GOP Pres/Congress. That's a hell of a difference, and those are FACTUAL numbers from historical data, not opinion and innuendo about which party is better for business.

You sound like a political TV commercial, wit45. Gore is far from perfect, and if you want to criticize him on REAL issues, feel free to do so. But so far, your reasons are shallow and lack substance, much like a TV commercial. Watch the debates (if Bush isn't afraid to debate) and judge for yourself who has more to offer the country. I get the feeling that even if Bush showed up to debate in a pink tutu and answered "yabba-dabba-do" to every question, you'd STILL vote for him.

Fish on.......

Silly question. If you want to save salmon and the environment, working with the executive branch of government is a waste of time. I'm not saying to ignore the executive branch of goverment, but come on, the Judicial branch of government is the only place where we have any power.

Neither Bush nor Gore can be trusted. I'm voting for Nader. And voting for someone with integrity is not a wasted vote. Even though my candidate will not win, I'm pleased with having an honest person on the ballot.

New Zealand,first off I'm going to tell you that nader has zero integrity!!He's nothing more than a HSYTERICAL *****LIBERAL with zero substance!! My feelings for him stem from an incident that happened back in 1988..As America's self-proclaimed watchdog he and Meryl Streep devastated the apple industry..Some of you are too young to remember but there was a product our industry used called Alar(we never used it once). Nader and his clones decided he would do America a favor and divulge how dangerous it was for you and your children to eat apples..He went on 60 minutes and told the world that eating apples would cause cancer. Sales immediately stop the following day!! Our industry lost millions of dollers, alot of people filed bankruptcy others just had to absorb huge loses.. Our business was personally hit very hard and we never even used the product! I guess the old saying "guilty through association" really applied.. This man that you hold so high in integrity failed to disclose the real truth about the percentages of apples eaten that were actually treated with Alar(less than 20%). He just gave a grave generalization. The levels of this chemical that were being applied to the apples was practically negligible. In order for the average human body to be subjected to the same levels of Alar being given to the test rats(they did show cancerous levels) a person would have to eat 5000 lbs of Alar treated apples a DAY for 50 YEARS!!!! Then you would have a high risk of getting cancer from eating apples... This man that you claim is so high in integrity never mention "the rest of the story" he just walked away looking like an American savior. Since then I have held ZERO respect for him as a human being. Anybody that can do something so devastating to an industry and doesn't have the backbone to come back and tell the real story is a spineless individual.PERIOD! Next, if you think that Gore isn't going to take away your guns your dead wrong!! He will put in place the needed things(laws) to substantially reduce rights of ownership!! DanS, you appear to be very well read but your camebacks merits nothing more than opinion also... All you demos that believe that clinton and his collegues turned the economy around need to step back away from your EMPLOYERS workplace and see what it actually takes to make a business work..GO out and start your own business(there's plenty of opportunities)and see how easy it is to make it successful..The economy of the 90's fed off what took place in the 80's..PERIOD!!

I know this post started out as a Salmon/steelhead issue. I agree with the above, when the comment was made about Federal government and local issues. You can't expect the Feds to solve all of our problems and be of any help. They (the feds) already have a large percent of our population beleiving that we can count on them to do all of our thinking. What a joke. Bottom line is that they are completely out of touch, and really don't care, as long as they get your vote. These issues need to be resloved at the local and state level. This is the area where we as sportsman have the greatest opportunity to make a change. Get involved with local chapters of conservation groups, and spend your free time educating your children, and other children about the value of the outdoors.

Time to hop on the pulpit. A little twist on the gun issue. If you don't think the "right" to retain weapons is a big issue, cal the folks in China and ask them what they thought about Tianemen Square. Any country that has taken away guns from it's people, has had the opportunity to march all over it's citizens, and generally taken that opportunity. You have a right to reproductive choices, if you don't want the responsibility of children, don't make them. Run a load by hand, if your that short sighted. Thank god your parents thought enough of you that they didn't have you axed before you were born. Don't think our forefathers ever intended the freedom of speech to be twisted to the point, that people would go to a town square, and burn our flag, after thousands of men and women died to keep us free. Let your conscience be your guide, as to who you vote for, but for everyones sake, take 10 minutes out of your busy schedule, and vote for your candidate of choice. There are millions of people in this world that would love to exercise that provelage, and can not. See ya at the poles. Go G dub

Are you a convicted criminal? That’s who hands there trying to keep the guns out of. A waiting period to buy a gun is not a bad idea in my opinion. If you want to get a devoice you have to wait, this is called a cooling off period. It’s the same thing for guns. I see no reason why someone can’t wait a couple days to pick up there gun, this keeps people from buying them in a fit of rage. I don’t recall ANYONE saying that they were going to take everyone’s guns away. Like it or not gun control is needed. I guess I'm not of the belief that EVERYONE should be allowed to own guns. I do believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to own guns,I myself do own several and have never had a problem buying one. So if you would please educate me with facts rather than just screaming that the sky is falling.

Peace

steelyhorn,

I beg to differ. This is what I said of the issues raised. 1) Gore isn't a dimwit. 2) Gorton voted to increase gov't access to your email 3) Increased productivity due to technological advances helped the economy surge in the 90's. 4) The loss of "personal freedoms" depends on how you look at it.

Those statements are NOT opinion. My OPINION is that Gore is a better choice than Bush. You want to refute my statements above, fine. But the FACT is the DJIA performs horribly with a GOP Pres/Congress. You want a 1.3% ROI ?? Not me.

Fish on......

DanS, I appreciate your reply, However, you of all people(I'm assuming your eduacated and have a good grasp of history)should beaware that your 1.3% statistic you keep throwing out may have its faults.Any statistician can manipulate numbers anyway they want. It all depends on when and where you start your study..For example, If you just considered the last 30yrs. would your example of 1.3% still hold?? Can you still remember America's worst leader ever? Can you say Jimmy Carter!!! I was a teenager through this time but I vividly remember the interest rates of 21-22%!!! Wow, with high interst rates there will and was ZERO progress made in America!!The Reagan era put in place many tools that promoted and pushed for economic development.. Remember the tax investment credit??? This upstarted many businesses(it actually hurt our industry) that created employment and generated the almighty dollar.. Dan was your rate of return <3% through the 80's?? I doubt it very much. I'd guess you were working hard to get what you now have(I have zero idea what it is).You at least had the opportunity to work. As for the Demos creating or helping out the tech sector(internet) this is ridiculous. The economy of the 90's was tech driven and it would be were it is today whether a Rep. or demos. were in office. Even the Gov't couldn't stop this rush of wealth and technology.However, they are currently trying with Microsoft right now.. What a shame!!!! As far as gun ownership you should ask your beloved gore if he favors complete registration?! That right there is the start of knowing exactly what you own so they can someday ask for them BACK!!!Vote Bush

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......

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.

Steelyhorn

Has the govt. come to take away your car/truck? You do have them registered, don’t you?


Peace

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........

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.

Steelyhorn
You read and agreed with DanS but I don’t think you understood what he said. There is no perfect choice. You must choose “the lesser of two evils”. When you refer to the anti-hunting/fishing organization I assume you mean Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club. While there views on many things differ from mine, we do have a few things in common. We love the outdoors, and feel a need to protect it, as I’m sure you do as well. Just because they support Gore doesn’t mean Gore agrees with everything they do, he’s just the lesser of two evils. Gore has a better track record on environmental issues, that’s what they support.

And as far as registration = confiscation I think you have fallen victim to the NRA’s scare tactics


Peace

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.

I have no affiliation with Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club. And again I think you might have missed the point.

Peace

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).]

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)

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.

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........

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

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

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.)

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.

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..

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.

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.

More than 4,400 miles of Texas rivers-one-third of those monitored-are so polluted they fail to meet federal standards for recreational and other uses. Despite the harm, Texas ranks 46th among states for water resources protection, yet Bush continues to condemn federal regulations

Bush opposes mandatory, federal emissions reduction programs

Bush generally opposes federal involvement in wilderness and park protection. Bush would increase logging and road construction in national forests.


Bush supports the current moratorium on oil drilling off the Florida and California coasts. However, he would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling

Bush acknowledges that global warming is occurring. However, he opposes the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming emissions

Bush generally opposes the federal Endangered Species Act, arguing that states should decide if and how to protect species

These are the Facts. Like I’ve said before, the environment is only one issue facing the candidates. I believe it’s a narrow mind that votes based only on one issue.

Peace

VOTE FOR ME! Gimmy all your money and I'll do as ya all want.. JUST TRUST ME!
http://www.nwfishing.net

"Bush or Gore, who's better for salmon" Just depends on what cure you use! If you cure them both the same it wouldn't matter.

As far as which would be the better president - toss a coin - they both are politicians! Have you ever known of an elected official of this high status not having to compromise most of their promises and programs just to pay back their big wig supporter who got them elected? Demo or Rep, they all do it. On a thread like this, do we really think we can change anyones political preference? Just vote for the one you want and be assured we all will vote for our favorite also. (I'd rather discuss fishing things).

------------------
Bob G.

Scarecrow right on the money. They're all like hatchery fish from the Green River right out of the same mold.Like they say "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils" but your still voting for evil.

Here ya go moondog, knock yourself out http://www.governor.state.tx.us/Environment/results.html

[This message has been edited by corky (edited 09-07-2000).]