Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#95196 - 09/07/00 04:30 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
steelheaddude Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 187
VOTE FOR ME! Gimmy all your money and I'll do as ya all want.. JUST TRUST ME!
http://www.nwfishing.net

Top
#95197 - 09/07/00 04:32 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Scarecrow Offline
Egg

Registered: 07/09/00
Posts: 3
Loc: Tillamook, OR
"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.
_________________________
Bob G.

Top
#95198 - 09/07/00 06:15 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Last Cast Offline
Smolt

Registered: 07/31/00
Posts: 88
Loc: Sumner Wa.
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.

Top
#95199 - 09/07/00 09:47 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
corky Offline
Smolt

Registered: 06/08/99
Posts: 89
Loc: Port Angeles Wa.
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).]

Top
#95200 - 09/07/00 09:59 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
umrules Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/28/99
Posts: 619
Loc: wa., usa
I am not one to pass my political views on to others, I believe that we all have our own reasons as to why we vote the way we do. Were Salmon the only issue at stake, that would be one thing. Unfortunately for the state of our well being, there are other issues. So, with out going into my personnal views why.......Vote Bush!!
_________________________
M Go Blue!

Top
#95201 - 09/08/00 12:32 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
MOONDOG...Where do you get your information? TV ads? Your right about the endangered species act. Bush opposes it. According to Bush, the current one proposed by Democratic legistlation is not tough enough. Thats why.

Read up on the information posted by CORKY.

Bush opposes mandatory, federal emissions reduction programs??? lol, oh my!
Bush opposes ridiculous legistlation passed by democrats that would mandate the use of electric motorized vehicles. Too early in the ball game yet for George Jetson!

Bush generally opposes federal involvement in wilderness and park protection. Bush would increase logging and road construction in national forests???? NAH! Don't know where you came up with that bogus fact. The Clinton/Gore admin. has been the ones to allow logging to occure danger close! to streams and spawning reds in WA state.

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 --- Yes that right, however if you read between the lines you will see the reasoning behind new scientific surveys and advanced technology stating there is a good chance oil reserves can replenish themselves over time, and not a very long time at that!

Bush acknowledges that global warming is occurring. However, he opposes the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming emissions---There is no known proven scientific "FACT" that this is indeed occuring. Meteorology is still in Earths history stage in the "baby" stages. This could well be a natural cycle. Average daytime Tempuratures in Western WA, were higher during 1985 then they are now.

Not narrow minds, maybe narrow focuses. Focusing on my wallet and my fishing...what affects me, as stated originally.

Top
#95202 - 09/08/00 01:46 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Scaly Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 259
Loc: Sequim, WA, USA
8Foot: Bush wants a stronger ESA than the Dems?? Boy, have you lost your credibility now!!

Top
#95203 - 09/08/00 03:14 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
TK Offline
Parr

Registered: 03/09/99
Posts: 61
Loc: Snohomish, WA, USA
Have no worry Wit45, I think your boy will win; here's why.

Because I don't think they actually thought of it themselves, GOP headquarters hired Ollie North (if he's caught he will tell nothing) to break into the Dem headquarters and steal the Clinton/Gore formula for success. How else do you explain how two virtually unknown southern boy gov's can come out of nowhere and beat a powerful, well liked incumbent like Bush?

Clinton/Gore were young, charismatic, very well polished orators/debaters that didn't look or sound like Newt or Rush, and told the American public exactly what they wanted to hear. How many of these features did Craswell and Dole have? NONE. How many of these features do Carlson and Bush have? MOST. (Carlson speaks fluent Limbaughnese, but he rides a Harley which makes up for it)

Watching the GOP convention it looked to me liked they were trying to be Dems. Just your ordinary, average, everday billionare Dems. They have done an about-face since four years ago, I think they might have finally figured out what it takes to win in these very different, modern times.

Wit45, I'm going to ask you 8 Foot's original question but in a different manner, please humor me and play along. You first have to take off your Redhot Republican hat and jump off the KVI supplied soapbox though, if it's possible.

Let's pretend that Mother Nature gets to vote. I know you hate it but she is a single issue voter - she only cares about the environment. The rivers, oceans, lakes, forests, animals, fish, etc. She does not give a crap about taxes, unemployment rates, interest rates, etc.

Who will Mother Nature vote for Wit?

TK

Top
#95204 - 09/08/00 04:02 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
SCALY - ah,ummm...ok...Please state something factual.

Top
#95205 - 09/08/00 04:08 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
TK- Facts not fiction.

Top
#95206 - 09/08/00 12:20 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Moondog Offline
Fry

Registered: 03/02/00
Posts: 28
Loc: Olympia, Wa
Congratulations to Huston!!! You are now the Smoggiest city in America!!

Another Fact!!!


Peace

Top
#95207 - 09/08/00 12:36 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Dan S. Online   content
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: 15217
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
So the League of Conservation Voters is a biased source of info, but the official GW Bush for President site isn't? Hmmmmm.......
_________________________
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
#95208 - 09/08/00 05:15 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
FishNJED Offline
Eyed Egg

Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 7
Loc: Renton, WA, USA
It appears, as typically found within the realm of debating politics, that many opinions and facts exist which support or refute the claims of candidates here. Many educated and emotional arguments have been laid out here before we sportsman.

Some here have changed the point of focus on how "we sportsman" are becoming divided. This reply of mine here goes toward displaying how this "condition" cannot go unavoided, and is purely human nature(Democratic Society anyway) and natural. The goal and ultimate decision in November must not be taken lighly and healthy discussion is crucial in determining the partisan strength(majority) and characteristics we all want in our next president.

As an avid sportsman(hunting & fishing), we voters must looks further past our own inherent "desires"(fishing & hunting I am sad to say) and seek out other categories which may help or hinder the country AS A WHOLE. Fishing & hunting is a privilage, not a requirement for survival, in these modern times. As stated in earlier replies, gun ownership must be kept in tack or as history has shown us, can lead to very unpleasant societal events(i.e. China). We must also look at who can keep our citizens employed making a living while maintaining balance within our enviromental issues. Some believe the Demo's are better at the environmental issues, and some say the Repub's are better at the support of businesses. Well, we must then choose the lesser of two evils here my friends.... We know how presently the Demo's are cracking down on big business, taking credit for the good of the economy they had almost no play in, and have environmental agenda items which would place thousands of Americans out of work and send business to other countries. Folks, as a moral sportsman here, I cannot accept that good people such as I could live with the fact that we have taken thousands of Americans out of their jobs so that you and I could see a few more trees in the woods or catch a few more salmonoids. Personally, I would give up ALL my hunting and fishing rights before I would sacrifice someone else's life and relocate an environmentally-damaging business to another country to decimate their natural resources! We need to keep our business here, and make them better...not put them out of business like Greenpeace or other Gore-support organizations have on thier agenda.

Granted, one president, under our system of checks and balances CANNOT hope to pass or implement "personal agenda" programs which go against the grain of the American People and Congress. Those who "think" that a rogue president can somehow destroy our environment like their homestate is reported to be(TX was polluted way before GW became governor folks!) or somehow pull down the strenth of the nation's economy(economy driven by private sector commercial business-more supported by Republicans...note the Microsoft case for example) are sadly misinformed and fairly weak minded I am sorry to say.

As a Clinton-era veteran from the US Navy, I can tell you all first hand that our military is DEFINATELY changing.....for the worst I reluctantly admit. The ship I served on out of Bremerton was less than 30 years old and had several hundred million dollars sunk into it only 8 years before they chopped it up! The reasoning was due to the fact that it was nuclear powered(not nuclear weapons...down Liberals!...down!) and the governmental cutbacks created a cost-reduction event which implemented decommissioning of ALL nuclear powered ships with the exception of Aircraft Carriers and Submarines(they MUST remain nuclear due to the strategic importance of such). Just taking our ship out of the fleet imposed a serious reduction in combat readiness of the Western Coast of the USA. We were the ONLY ship in the fleet that could shoot down an incoming missile cruising at 5 feet of altitude traveling at over mach 2. Tell me this didn't hamper our military forces people! If any of you veterans who frequent this BB can actually find it within yourselves to continue the Democratic support(or disembowlement) of our defending organizations, you have sadly lost your way toward sensibility. My father, God bless him, fought in WWII as a medic and machine gunner against the tyranny of the Germans. When I, or you, speak to our veterans always keep in mind how they must feel when THEY see the unraveling of the country's military forces....

Remember, that Gore served over in Viet Nam as a pencil pusher...not a real soldier with a gun or any other position remotely near a gun. There is definately a reason for this if I am not mistaken. I personally believe that SOME of the "gun control" measures may be logical and healthy for us, but the agenda of Liberal Demo's goes much further than that my friends. This is not the NRA speaking to you, it is common fact of their agenda...look at the supporters of the Democratic party right now for instance. The only gun-bearing society that I know of that supports the Demo's is the Chineese Government...

Furthermore, take a look at our liberally-friendly media lately. What do you all see the Demo's doing lately that the Repub's are not? Can you say HOLLYWOOD? Yes, folks, the Demo's are utilizing their many liberal moviestars to help them in their endevor to win over the American voters...funny how that is. Have you all heard of Barbara Streisand, Kim Bassinger, or Alec Baldwin? Check out their agendas please and keep that in mind when you vote this November. If you don't think these "stars" have directed their hard earned $$ to the Demo's you had better pay more attention to who the Demo's are taking $$ from these days(Budhist, Chineese, etc). Very disturbing folks....more so than pondering about TX I would hope...

My last point here is this. Many folks are becoming less and less tolerant of God-fearing individuals and societies in our schools, government, and society in general. I personally do not judge people on this aspect, but it is becoming very disturbing to see folks ridicule those who have a strong, written, and moral set of guidlines by which they live and control their lives. As a christian myself, it makes me very unsettled to see this system of morality and selfpreservation becoming less instilled and actually becoming a "bad thing" among people.

Top
#95209 - 09/08/00 05:54 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
B. Gray Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 633
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
Damn, I promised myself I would stop reading and replying to this thread but I can't help myself.

Not that it has much to do with fishing, but base closures and defense cutbacks in general were begun in earnest back in '86, and I'm pretty sure the GOP were in the White House at that time. Who was secretary of Defense back then? So you can thank your grand old buddies for getting the ball rolling on that one.

Ok, now I'm off for a week of steelheading. Every day I get to wake up and go to the river to fish for a week straight. I may never return...

Top
#95210 - 09/08/00 10:20 PM 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
Base closures? GOP's fault? Wah? lol...My brother-n-law is a Commander of a Marine Helicopter unit. He can tell you first hand since Demo's have been in office, he has been afraid of the dreaded "pink" slip. To avoided these "pinks" he's had to sign-up for every form of training possible just so he can bounce around from school to school around the country to avoid them. Most people like myself coming out of the Military can tell you the same story.

But what has that got to do with the original thread in the 1st place. I consider myself non-denominational when it comes to politics. Neither GOP or Demo. I'm just sitting back taking in all the information trying to make a decision based on the issues that affect me.

Let me tell you. So far the GOP has my vote, and with John Carlson's telivision ads campaigning for Washington State governer, and his vow to ban gill-nets I think the republicans have pretty much sealed the deal for me.

Gore and Locke, the two combined have had quiet some time to make changes I want to see. Bush and Carlson seem to know what they want to do.

Top
#95211 - 09/08/00 11:58 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 didn't post the Bush web site as my source of facts, I was merely showing moondog how you can get(or give) the facts you like by going to a politicaly like minded source. I like to watch Hanity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel. It's pretty educational to hear both sides, with facts.
TK, I don't want to speak for wit45 but the answer to your question is, "It depends on weather or not she gets her info from moondog" hope you don't mind a little razzing moondog

Top
#95212 - 09/09/00 12:54 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
wit45cal Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 129
Loc: Puyallup WA
OK...Here it goes- Please pay close attention as this will get a tad complicated.
Given the choice I believe Mother Nature would vote for a conservative (most times that reads republican but some dems qualify also) I use the following reasons to reach this conclusion.
1) Survival of the fittest and to each his own. Mother natures way of telling some folks they were destined to be culled from the herd. One of the main tenets of the conservative movement is that individual freedom is paramount and that each one of us knows best how to lead our lives. I trust you to spend your money wisely and be charitable when you can. Republicans generally believe this as well. Al gore doesn't think you can be trusted to spend your own money properly. Al gore would prefer to take YOUR money from you, skim 50 or 60 percent and then give it to a charity that you may not agree with. Al Gore doesn't think you can be trusted with even a teeny amount of your own social security dollars. Tax cuts (returning that portion of YOUR money to you that the gov't won't spend without new programs) are described as risky schemes and unaffordable. I ask for whom? Part two (or one) is survival of the fittest. Conservatives believe that competition breeds the finest products and people. In nature and in business the strong survive. Look at microsoft. A man with a vision (a good idea) tried for the short term gain by marketing his new idea to a large corporation (they control everything remember). They said no and he went out on his own. Bill Gates could now buy IBM and have enough dough left to keep hanging out with Warren Buffett. He has personally created enough wealth to cover his karma for thousands of years. Hopefully you get the point here. And don't come back with the emotional crud about the less fortunate as charitable giving doubled during the eighties because tax RATES were cut and people gave to the causes THEY thought deserved the money with their newfound disposable cash.
2) The Profit Motive. Nature benefits from the profit motive. There is not an excess of rabbits in nature because the predators of the rabbit profit (eat) by being able to run faster or be smarter. Conservatives believe that the personal profit motive is the driving factor in much of our discourse and that it is a positive influence. The profit motive got me to clean up the environment and win a prestigious award from the gov. of WA. My company also was fortunate in that we saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in wastewater treatment costs. The profit motive led to a cleaner environment. If we told Weyerhauser today that they could only log on the land they currently own and 5000 acres of fed land how well do you think they would care for it??? I would venture to guess that those acres would be the most pristine in the country as the survival of the firm would rely TOTALLY upon them. We now farm less than 30% of the land than in the thirties but feed over twice as many people with it. The profit motive has led PRIVATE business to become more efficient and less harmful with limited resources. As I said before, the logger is much like the sportangler as he can pick and choose which trees die. Wildfire, on the other hand, kills everything in its path much like a gillnet. Wildfire without logging and access roads is like a growing gillnet drifting from one river to the next. I think those of you who think we humans actually posess the ability to destroy mother earth are terrifically arrogant and elitist. When the earth has had enough of us it will shake us off like a bad hairpiece and there is nothing we can do about it. (as an aside...regarding greenhouse gasses and "global warming"...since when are massive global temperature changes unique to humans and their hair spray...I don't recall seeing aquanet cans near the pre-iceage mastedon fossils...it is this sort of egotistical attitude toward the earth and its mysteries that irks me)
3) The natural ebb and flow of things. Lots of fish in a river leads to lots of predators. Those predators clean out nearly all of the fish and go elsewhere looking for more productive streams. In their absence the fish population renews itself and the cycle starts over. Thats nature. In life you begin poor. You spend time learning then working. You begin to amass wealth of both knowledge and money. You grow old and senile and lose both while your children begin the cycle anew. You get out of school and qualify for poverty. You get a job and a few promotions and become middle class. You get promoted some more and become wealthy (or better yet, start your own business) and have poor people working for you who are learning the trade to someday take your place. It is the NATURAL cycle of things. The marketplace and life is fluid and people are always moving in and out of different classes. Much like some animals move back and forth from predator to prey. Now mother nature did not make all animals predators for good reason. She also did not make all humans capable of being wildly successful or wealthy. In the same light, she did not make them (or us) all prey. There is a balance (known in eastern cultures as Yin and Yang) passive and aggressive.
I don't think mother nature would blame the rich folk in their expensive sleds with those brand new rods and special country club lures for YOUR bad day of fishing and neither should you.
Yes indeed sir when compared to the ideals of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness I believe that mother nature would have no choice but to be a conservative. This country was not founded on the right to comfort, security, happiness, freedom from being offended, other peoples money or free (to the recipient) prescription drugs but rather the aforementioned LIFE, LIBERTY and the P-U-R-S-U-I-T of happiness and conservatives on the whole plan on preserving those ideals for generations to come.

Hopefully enough said

[This message has been edited by wit45cal (edited 09-08-2000).]

Top
#95213 - 09/09/00 01:45 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Moondog Offline
Fry

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

If a little razzing bothered me I would never post!! At least not with all these sharks in the water.

Peace

Top
#95214 - 09/09/00 11:24 AM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
juro Offline
Alevin

Registered: 09/09/00
Posts: 18
Loc: Anywhere I can spey cast
Slade Gorton, Republican. Offspring of the Gorton clan of Gloucester (Massachusetts), who fished out the groundfish stocks off the north atlantic. Harvest tons of skate, which is not listed on any of their ingredients labels. Invited James Watt to Washington to add logging of the remaining 3-7% of old growth (the 750-1000 year old stock) to Watt's plan to strip mine Yellowstone.

Bruce Babbitt, Democrat. Led the charge to do many things during his tenure, including the removal of the Elwha Dam.

You can go 'round and round with individuals but in the end these two are pretty good representatives of the bi-partisan views on the environment.

I fear the day that both house and senate is overly liberal, but I fear the day that both are conservative far, far more.

For now, I like the fact that they are divided and the current system of checks and balances is doing wonders for the economy, another important factor in the decision.

Juro http://www.flyfishingforum.com

Top
#95215 - 09/09/00 07:19 PM Re: BUSH OR GORE, who's better for salmon?
Spurdog Offline
Fry

Registered: 08/11/00
Posts: 25
Loc: 'bout a mile from the saltchuc...
Bush is more of a sportsman, in spite of the killdeer he shot as a dove for the cameras in TX, while Gore would protect the environment that supports the wildlife--without particularly catering to sportsmen. So, you get some good and some bad with either one.

But this I know. I worked for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission when the guard changed from Ann Richards to Dubya. I was there when the commissioners of my agency (and a good many of the staff as well) were phased out in favor of appointments of people with chemical manufacturing and oil resumes. The conflict of interest meant nothing.

The improved fishing in TX has nothing to do with the governor--A NET BAN WAS PASSED BEFORE BUSH. The number of years without a hard freeze in the bays is far more important than anything he did. The miles of stream not meeting water quality criteria also has nothing to do with him--Texas is so bad EPA will not hand the state any authority for surface waters protection before, during, and probably after Bush. Much of the problem is from direct, untreated discharges from: oilfields!

The negative change in environmental tone in the TX environmental agencies when Bush got elected was startling. It was back to the "good old days". His principle public lands advisor is heavily into the concept of divesting all public lands--INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS--to the private sector. Hell, it works in Texas...

That said, some of the best cared for environments in the world are on big private ranches. I bowhunted the King Ranch, and it was like going back to the mid-1800s in terms of wildlife and lack of human impact. That was only because I knew a commissioner with a high dollar lease. Not being a landowner in TX is the same as not haveing access to the resource. Except the coast, its wide open and avialable to anyone, and a great place to fish now that the fish are back.

So I am clear. If it came down to it, I would rather have the environment and its fish and wildlife, than have a sportman-supporting president but a diminished resource.

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  elparquito 
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
Rudy
Recent Gallery Pix
Gibbs Delta Time Capsule
Driftin'
Who's Online
4 registered (dwatkins, Dan S., stonefish, 1 invisible), 307 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Rosa Walton, pollack, DontBeStupid, johnjorge, Clearwater Alaska
11435 Registered Users
Top Posters
Hankster 31850
Todd 25026
Sol Duc 15579
Dan S. 15217
elparquito 13541
Salmo g. 12531
eyeFISH 12425
stam 12404
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10978
Forum Stats
11435 Members
18 Forums
76853 Topics
895295 Posts

Max Online: 596 @ 05/24/12 03:35 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 |