First Coho, Apache and Gila, now Chinook and steelhead
 

Thank god there's still a few Democrats on the federal bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27dams.html?

It's no wonder the Bush administration is fighting so hard to
stack the courts with their ideologues.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:21:19 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Thank god there's still a few Democrats on the federal bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27dams.html?

It's no wonder the Bush administration is fighting so hard to
stack the courts with their ideologues.

"It was the third time that federal courts in Portland have rejected the
fisheries services analysis of how federal actions might affect the fish
and what could be done.

The first two were in the Clinton administration.

The second, completed shortly before George W. Bush was inaugurated,

Ed. Note - from an objective standpoint, this is a leading phrase; it
makes no possible difference Bush if it was completed 1 second or
500 years before he was in. Why not say it was completed at the very
end of the Clinton administration, or even, it was completed 26 years
after the Beatles broke up.

included the possibility of dam removal, as a last resort, to protect
the fish."

So, Ken, do you prefer golf balls or barbeque forks?

HTH,
Dick

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:j9Fle.2478
:

Thank god there's still a few Democrats on the federal bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27dams.html?

It's no wonder the Bush administration is fighting so hard to
stack the courts with their ideologues.


Republicans don't hold the copyright on environmental damage. This is the
third time this particular NMFS analysis has been sent back by the courts--
the first two were during the Clinton Admin.

Scott

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Thank god there's still a few Democrats on the federal bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27dams.html?

It's no wonder the Bush administration is fighting so hard to
stack the courts with their ideologues.


Republicans don't hold the copyright on environmental damage. This is the
third time this particular NMFS analysis has been sent back by the courts--
the first two were during the Clinton Admin.

Even though the analysis has been sent back three times
the particulars have been different each time. One would
expect that the third try would be better than the first
two but according to the judge and those concerned with
the fishery just the opposite is true. That is, the plan
submitted by the Bush administration is worse for the fish
than the ones submitted by the Clinton administration that
had already been rejected.

And to repeat my first sentence above, thank god there's
still a few Democrats on the federal bench.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You forgot to label your political crap Off Topic.

Big Dale

Big Dale wrote:
You forgot to label your political crap Off Topic.

An article on Chinook salmon and steelhead is not off topic
here. My commentary may irritate some of the dimmer bulbs
around here, but that's tough ****.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:30:04 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Big Dale wrote:
You forgot to label your political crap Off Topic.

Oh, please, Dale...fair's fair - would "OT" really given you any new
info? I mean, were you really expecting some new fly recipe or
something?

An article on Chinook salmon and steelhead is not off topic
here. My commentary may irritate some of the dimmer bulbs
around here, but that's tough ****.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with salmon, steelhead, or the
protection thereof. It has to do with more money to "protect" them, who
wants that money, and other assorted agendas. If any of those involved
really gave a **** about actually protecting the fish, they'd be suing
to keep _everybody_ the heck out of the area, and for any reason.

The article may well have been on topic, but your comments were
strictly political.

Big Dale

Big Dale wrote:
The article may well have been on topic, but your comments were
strictly political.

Well then quit whining about there being no OT in the
Subject: header and whine about my comments instead.
Not that it will do any good.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Not whining, just pointing out that you are still a dick.

Big Dale