First the Coho, now Apache and Gila

Tim J. wrote:

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote these
thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote IN". The
last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning elections.

If you get all your information from right-wing talk radio and Fox News,
it's understandable that you think Democrats have no position except ABB.

Here are a few of John Kerry's environmental policy positions, taken
from http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm#Environment

The Clear Skies bill is Orwellian and makes things worse. (Oct 2004)
Make environmental justice an EPA priority. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep
1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Fund studies of sustainable fisheries. (Oct 1996)
Fund studies of invasive species and algal blooms. (Mar 1998)

Kerry sponsored the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1995, which:

* Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
to:Prohibit individual fishing quota programs unless approved before
January 4,
* Mandates guidelines regarding fish habitat conservation and enhancement.
* Modifies requirements regarding emergency actions (including
concerning oil spills) and adds to the emergency action provisions
references to interim measures needed to reduce overfishing.
* Provides for an information collection program specific to the needs
of a fishery.
* Requires a comprehensive program of fishery research to carry out this
Act;
* Requires developing technological changes to minimize bycatch and
evaluate related ecological impacts, benefits, and costs, and assess the
use of unavoidable bycatch; and
* Establishes of a fishery conservation and management ecosystem
advisory panel.








--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote


Republicans control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and
increasingly the courts. The Democrats can't even get a hearing for their
agenda. That doesn't mean they don't have one. When it comes to
environmental issues, there is absolutely no question that the Democrats
have more responsible positions, because the environmental "movement" is
part of their constituency.



Yes, true ( not so sure about the load of crap part :-)

But, my real point ( guess I shouldn't assume as much as I do ) is that
people are NOT helping to rid the country of Bush and Thugs with all their
name calling.

If we want some that have voted Republican to change that in the future it
is NOT 'good politics' to start by declaring that we believe anyone that has
ever voted Republican is 'dumb as a rock' or that "I hate Republicans" ala
H. Dean. If I say, "rw is a ****ing idiot" does that open you up to
listening to my agenda and reasons for wanting you to support me? If I'm
courting your support is that a smart start?

"We" are in a hole now and have no way out until the next round of
elections. I'd prefer MY representatives to be there fighting for me, even
as they lose ground, in a manner that will bring them respect not whining
like babies. Why? because I believe it is a good practical tactic and use
of THIS moment, when little else is available, towards reversing the current
stupid trends.

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...Where will it end?...

Well, given the ever increasing rate of cascading extinctions, I think (and
there's a whole world full of supporting literature.....if you're
interested) we should be able to match the Cretaceous, and maybe even the
Permian, extinction in another century or two. But the assumption implicit
in your question is absolutely right.......there is no good reason to
suppose it will end there.

Wolfgang

rw wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote
these thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote
IN". The last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning
elections.

If you get all your information from right-wing talk radio and Fox
News, it's understandable that you think Democrats have no position
except ABB.

The whole Dem campaign was based on ABB, and you know it. Oh, and BIOYA,
you New York Times reading, Al Franken listening lib. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Larry L" wrote in message
news

....If I say, "rw is a ****ing idiot" does that open you up to
listening to my agenda and reasons for wanting you to support me?...

Hm........well, being demonstrably right from time to time can't hurt.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I cannot for the life of me ever figure out why so
many folks who claim to be concerned with protecting
our outdoor heritage can vote Republican.

snip
I truly believe that most people, regardless of voting history, are
dissatisfied with the idiot we have and his thug buddies. But
that dissatisfaction is proven to not be enough to lead to change.
We need leaders we can actively support, not just ones that
'aren't as bad as the other guy.'

Dream on. The American electorate, like any other, gets the
leaders it deserves. The average American voter is dumber than
a box of rocks and wouldn't know a good leader if one bit him
on the tit. Yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils is still
voting for evil but for the sake of your great-grandchildren
and theirs, you'd better hold your nose and vote these thugs
out before it's too late.

I think your statement speaks to Larry's argument. You say "vote
these thugs out" without Dems offering a good alternative to "vote
IN".

If protecting the environment isn't a good enough reason for
an outdoorsman to "vote IN" then I am puzzled.

The
last election proved ABB is a bad plan for winning elections.

The last election proved my assertion that the average American
voter is dumber than a box of rocks. I don't know how to convince
the "dumber than a box of rocks" portion of the American electorate
to vote for their own self-interest, maybe you can shed some light
on that. ;-)

I don't understand. G
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Jonathan Cook" wrote

Where will it end?


I recently finished a book I'd suggest ... "Collapse" by Jarad Diamond
It's fat without many pictures g so it was a struggle for me, but I found
it very interesting, very well documented, AND very well balanced, on the
subject of "why protect the environment? what's in it for me (humans) ?"

"Wolfgang" wrote


Hm........well, being demonstrably right from time to time can't hurt.

Wolfgang


Crap, I've sunk to being straight man for Wolfgang ..... time to move on :-0

"Larry L" wrote in news:LNHke.246187
:

I truly believe that most people, regardless of voting history, are
dissatisfied with the idiot we have and his thug buddies. But that
dissatisfaction is proven to not be enough to lead to change. We need
leaders we can actively support, not just ones that 'aren't as bad as the
other guy.'


Support to do exactly what, may I ask? Which Bush policy, from reelection
on, makes you glad that he's in office?

Scott

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Ken wrote:
... if they exist anywhere we
don't have to protect the natural habitat of sub-species ?

As far as I can tell (I didn't spend 5 minutes on each line),
the article says _nothing_ about habitat protection. And it
says nothing in regards to hatcheries for the apache/gila trout
issue.

So, once again, what's wrong with it?

The memo instructed staff to ignore best available science
when deciding how best to preserve and recover endangered
species. I don't know how any thinking person could believe
there's not something horribly wrong with that.

BTW, the gila trout recovery has been proceeding nicely and the
major work right now is trying to get it _removed_ from the
endangered species list. Downlisting it will, similarly to the
issues in this article, open up possibilities for better management
rather than re-endanger it. ...

When you remove the Gila trout from the endangered species
list you may "open up possibilities" for better management
but the more likely "possibility" is that the Gila trout is
history.

And I _hope_ you can see from that statement why your side continues
to alienate average voters and to lose elections...

The average voter in America is dumber than a box of rocks, but
I rather doubt that pointing it out here on roff affects elections.

--
Ken Fortneberry