Spurdog-

I think your right about the whole texas thing. But it seems to me like Bush has been the only one to atleast step forward to make some effort in salmon recovery with his visit out to monroe last week. To me that speaks volumes.

And like I said before, the republican ticket as far as those issues that concern me such as taxes,salmon... makes them more attractive then the Demos.

I'm just taking in all the info and making a decision based on it. Alot of folks have good points. But I think I have a pretty good comfortable feeling now which way I will go.

Getting back to the Leauge of Conservation Voters information re. Texas Govenor Bush and the plight of the water ways in Texas, No one said Bush polluted the streams the point is that in spite of the horrible conditions in Texas he does not support the tougher water quality standards. Gore does and that is a plus for Gore and a negative for Bush.
If you would look at one issue at a time instead of trying to cram all this Gingoistic philosophical bullsh8t down my throat this post would be a real boon to the individuals trying to make an informed choice.

Native son- If you think it is so easy to meet even tougher than current water quality standards do this for me. Take 2 gallons of your tap water(presumably already cleaned by the city) and make it meet all current federal standards. Have a TCLP test done and then purchase the chemistry and/or filtering media to remove all found impurities. I think you will soon realize that cleaning water on a large scale is VERY expensive. Hopefully you will also realize that reduce, reuse and recycle in conjunction with Best Management Practices takes time to develop and implement. The water standards have become over 4 times more stringent in the last ten years. One of the reasons they are not even tougher yet is that the municipalities cannot locate the technology or cannot afford the proprietary technology of private companies to meet the tougher standards with your drinking water. After selling tons upon tons of hazardous waste to a recycling firm in Corpus Christy TX I can tell you that the entire state of TX is properly focused on environmental issues. This firm has almost been shut down by the EPA because of the fact that they recycle everything they receive including the water and the EPA thinks they should not get recycling credits(read tax and fee reductions) because they sell the result to big business as raw material(extremely pure without mining). They were disallowed from accepting my material by the EPA which forced me to LANDFILL over five tons of lead and copper bearing sludge (perhaps near your favorite stream). All this because the liberal democrats in office couldn't stand missing out on a buck or two of tax revenue. One of hundreds of true stories about the EPA and DOE. They are getting better but they need a leader that realizes that it is OUR money and we give them some of it to use.....not the other way around.

LMAO! I finally got myself in a mindset to trudge thru all the self-interest misinfo in this thread (don't ask - a few things in it do have credibilty though). The biggest sore thumb about this whole thread, and ones like it on other BB's, is the incredible passion some of you have in your argued beliefs; much of it from biased misinfo to outright baseless info (not all of it, of course, but way too much of it) and such incredible intolerance of other's opposing views. Reading this is akin to sitting thru a session of congress. As I said, LMAO. Three other things stand out also: 1- I doubt anyone's voting mindset will be changed by this thread; including the "open minded" guy who started it . Most of you will vote for the one that will benefit you the most! Quit trying to bull**** us your way. 2- I have no doubt that Mr. Gore will be a better pres concerning what's best for our fish runs; by far! No bull**** there (scroll down and read "Who's for the fish -- or not?" by Scaly, and see what a non-partisan fish study group based near Wash. D.C. unvieled about the voting and platform records of the 2 candidates debated here, and all members of congress too. No suprise where the chips fell, but a little suprising just how utterly partisan the agendas are! UGLY! 3- While I am a little left of center and believe that Gore will likely be a better overall choice for the majority of U.S. citizens (although nobody knows for sure), I leave this thread being a little more comfortable than I was that we will have some balance with a conservative congress if he does win. And if the repub.'s could eventually come up with a half decent candidate a little closer to neutral that would win, then have a slightly liberal congress; that could be good too. Don't see either happening real soon. Always have to chose the lesser of 2 evils? - And I also leave this thread with a good bit of my thinning hair lying on the keyboard here. - RT

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 09-20-2000).]

Hello all. This is my first post to this board. I am from Wisconsin so I know I do not relate to the type of fishery you all have. Fishing the lake Michigan Tribs has been a blast for me. I never knew the resource I had out here until Jan of this year. Fishing Steelys and Kings in the rivers has got to be the greatest thrill I have ever experienced. Now with that said, to think that our next president will have the ability to pave the way to destroying this opportunity for myself is really eye opening. I will definitely be researching both presidents and their policies over the next month and hopefully get something started to make everything visible to all fellow fisherman. Good fishing

REEL TRUTH-

Hopefully, whoever becomes president will take care of what needs to be done, and that is protect salmon. Just seems like there hasn't been much done during the current administration. I'm not dogging Demo's. Traditionally speaking Demo's have taken care of the environmental issues. I just think whoever gets in office needs to think more about the Pacific NW when it comes to salmon and saving our fish.

Sure we might be having a half way descent year of fishing for salmon, but that doesn't protect future stocks from dams, irrigation of all types, pollution.

Politicians seem so fake when it comes down to campaign time. BOTH Bush and Gore do! Who do you honestly, sincerly think is going to do anything at all? Probably neither of them. The only REAL thing I saw was a general twinge of interest, a twinkle in his eye from Bush when he was at the Sky. Bush I see a person from Texas that likes bass fishing/hunting and might actually give a crap. Gore, I see a alot more of the political puppet. Sorry thats what I think and feel! How about you???

8 FOOT, you would actually lean toward voting Bush as the pres for our fish and habitat having seen "the twinkle in his eye"?!? With all due respect, ROFLMAO! And you see Gore as a political puppet? And not Bush? LOL. There are more elected puppets hanging by the strings of wealthy political constituents in the GOP than any other circus show on Earth! That's a FACT! Do you know anybody damaging their health by the Republican enabled tabaco industry, costing countless lives and disrupted families, and adding billions of dollars to this country's already too high of health care costs (for one of a multituide of examples)? You get the point. - I've already said what I truely believe in the other posts, based on credible information, track records, and the undeniable party agendas! NOT what a politician says to a target audience during election campaigning. Geez! Wake up. Did you read the Wash. D.C. based independant report posted by Scaly that I suggested? About which candidate would be more beneficial for fish? Go read it; and try to add 2+2. There is sure a hell of a lot more credible info there than a twinkle in an eye ! So, I'll turn it right back to you and ask you to tell us just what you really think and why. With no twinkles in your eye . - RT

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 09-25-2000).]

Wit it appears as though you have a pretty good handle on the problems with the water quality laws as they exisist but the reason they exisist is because people collectively and individualy over time have polluted our water ways and this pollution has ended up in the majority of the aquaifers and in the drinking water supply.
Poloution from cities, industry, farming, mining, and agriculture was allowed to increase with out regulation or control for most of the history of our nation and is the main reason it is so costly to provide a clean glass of water from a city drinking fountain.
It may be difficult to meet all the existing regulations for clean up but if there had not been so much foot dragging and lobbying by special intrest back in the seventies and even earlier there would be less to clean up now and your job would be somewhat easier.
As to the plight of those who are saddled with the exspense of the clean up of our waters which in some cases are not fit for fish (that is the point here you see) Maybe Slade can put a rider on another appropriations bill and make polluters pay for there mistakes I'll bet Preident Albert Gore wont veto it! Go Mariners

ONCE AGAIN Ask yourself this why vote for someone who is endorsed by every anti- hunting, anti-fishing organization in the U.S. GORE is bad news think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!
RAMPRAT

I knew someone was going to say something that make me want to post.

Ramprat, how do you define "anti-fishing or anti-hunting" I know the Sierra Club has endorsed Gore and this organization does some pretty good work and rarely steps on the toes of anglers and hunters. And the radical groups like Greenpeace, Earth First, PETA, etc. do not make a public endorsement because they know that it will likely take votes away from their candidate because their radical views don't go over well with the rest of the public.

And I would say that most legitimate conservation groups endorse mostly democrats because of their historical stand on the environment.

Bad news? Look at what Bush did for the environment in Texas. People say he's a hunter. Well, he's also an oil man. Neither makes much difference. His record does.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 09-26-2000).]

gore. he is more for the enviroment, even if he probibly could'nt catch a fish if he tried, when bush on the other hand is for buisness like timber,electricity,poluting companies.


gop

Hopefully the upcoming debates on national TV will shed some light on the salmon situation. It will be interesting to see if any of the canidates mentions anything about fishing or salmon.

Nader is without a doubt the best man for our fisheries. Neither Bush nor Gore will do a thing. They will continue to blow smoke in our eyes. I think we need to stop voting republican democrat and send a message to the government that we are sick of this two party b.s. At least let us hear what other people have to say. If we continue believing that third party leaders like Nader will not win, and decide to vote for the canidate that is less evil, third party canidate will never win. I want, as sure as everyone that posts a reply, these rivers and fish and wildlife to be around for a long time. The only thing that the republicans and democrats want is money and power

Money and power is what everyone wants, especially politicians; so that is beside the point. Your point about Nader is understandable. I have always had the highest regard for Ralph for his honesty and his agendas for what's best for the majority of people. And his attempts to expose and clean up dirty big business and dirty politicians. He is a hero for that! I would rather have him as Pres than the other 2. Problem: He can't win yet. So if you vote for Nader you will in affect be voting for Bush by taking your vote away from Gore (who is unquestionably better for fish and the enviroment). And Gore is NOT going to take my guns, or anyone else's guns away, that don't want them taken away! - RT