First the Coho, now Apache and Gila

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

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

Well, given the ever increasing rate of cascading extinctions,

I'm sure it's highly correlated with the rate at which scientists
declare new species ;-)

As a matter of fact, there IS a correlation.......and I don't find it very
funny.

(In fact, I doubt it's keeping up...)

Much like your reading.

But of course, that's beside the point in the context of this
article. The article clearly stated that the efforts to keep
and expand the populations of gila and apache trout were in
no way going to disappear. Indeed the people behind the supposed
bad proposal wanted to _better_ use their time and efforts to
accomplish this very thing.

So again, what's so bad with what they proposed (and apparently
are going to do)?

Article? What article?

Wolfgang
who hasn't got much time for ephemera.

rw wrote:


For example, the new
Democratic governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, is effectively
courting sportsmen.


holy hell...how's warren taking it? g

jeff

Tim J. wrote:

The whole Dem campaign was based on ABB, and you know it. Oh, and BIOYA,
you New York Times reading, Al Franken listening lib. ;-)

When the Presidency and the Congress are controlled by the opposing
party, and when their record is deplorably pathetic and even criminal,
you run your campaign against that record. That's the way it is, the way
it's always been, and the way it always will be. Have you been hiding
under a rock, or what?

BTW, would you describe those lying "Swift Boat Veterans" ads as anti-Kerry?

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

Jeff Miller wrote:

rw wrote:


For example, the new Democratic governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer,
is effectively courting sportsmen.


holy hell...how's warren taking it? g

I haven't asked him, but I know he ****ing hated the former governor,
Judy Martz, a Republican. She was trying to change Montana's LIBERAL
stream access laws to benefit landowners.

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

If Howard Dean keeps talking like he did Sunday on Meet the PRess I'm
sending them lots of money. He called Delay a crook, Limbaugh a
hypocrit and Bush a Liar. In a news artical the next day he refused to
retract any of it.

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.





The Democratic Party called me last night asking for more money and I found
myself saying first, "I don't have any, my kid is going to college."

Pressed further I was amazed to find myself saying, "Well
it's more than just not having any. I'm tired of bitching as the major
action of the Party. Bush is THE worst president of my lifetime, we all
know that, even most Republicans know it. But the Democrats fail to see
that "anti-Bush" is not the leadership that will lead us out of the abyss.
This country needs positive leaders heading towards positive goals. Show
me a Democratic Party that really stands up and says 'This is what we stand
for' and one that works towards those goals instead of one that spends 99%
of it's resources on bitching and I'll find some money."

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.'

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"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.


hilarious, but a little too easy...

yfitons
wayno

rw wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

The whole Dem campaign was based on ABB, and you know it. Oh, and
BIOYA, you New York Times reading, Al Franken listening lib. ;-)

When the Presidency and the Congress are controlled by the opposing
party, and when their record is deplorably pathetic and even criminal,
you run your campaign against that record. That's the way it is, the
way it's always been, and the way it always will be.

.. . . so you're saying my statement is true. I'm glad we agree.

Have you been hiding under a rock, or what?

Hmmmm. . . if it's warm and dry, I might give it a go. It couldn't be
worse than the crappy weather we've been having here in New England.

BTW, would you describe those lying "Swift Boat Veterans" ads as
anti-Kerry?

Absolutely. For the record, and I've said this before, both side's
campaigns were pitifully negative and sucked big time. Which brings me
back to my first point: if the Dems had placed someone who could
convince voters he/she "could feel their pain", they would have had a
victory. Instead they placed a holier-than-thou, nose-in-the-air snob in
the arena who didn't connect with the voters.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Tim J. wrote:

Absolutely. For the record, and I've said this before, both side's
campaigns were pitifully negative and sucked big time. Which brings me
back to my first point: if the Dems had placed someone who could
convince voters he/she "could feel their pain", they would have had a
victory. Instead they placed a holier-than-thou, nose-in-the-air snob in
the arena who didn't connect with the voters.

From things you've written here, I understand that you're a working
man, that you've seen hard times, and maybe you're still seeing them. I
also know that you're an outdoor sportsman. A vote for the GOP, and for
Bush in particular, is a vote for crony capitalism, for gargantuan CEO
salaries, for tax cuts for the very rich, for record deficits, for
outsourcing of American jobs, for hypocritical "values" that these
clowns violate at every opportunity, for war profiteering, for the rape
of the environment, and for lying us into a costly and interminable and
unnecessary war, among other things.

I have to conclude that you're a fool.

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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:06:37 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

(snipped)

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

I might have voted for Kerry. If I'd thought he meant anything he
said about the environment. It was close. I didn't think he was as
dumb as Bush (the trees are stealing our water) about it, but neither
did I have any reason to believe he had a clue or an urge about
protecting natural resources. And the one statement of his that I saw
/ heard on TV about the gun issue convinced me that he was pretty
clueless in general.

He just wasn't good enough to vote for. Had he won, I'd not have
wanted to be any part of the responsibility for his being president.
Despising Bush and the neo-cons just wasn't quite enough of a kicker.

I voted Libertarian. Or Grassroots. I've forgotten which (not due to
smoking anything interesting, either). They're my usual choices when
the major parties don't make me tingle. At least they come somewhat
close to showing my feelings about political platforms.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

rw wrote:
snip
I have to conclude that you're a fool.

Conclude anything you want - you're good at doing so without considering
what was actually written or under consideration. I *had* concluded you
were interested in conducting some sort of civil discourse, but I guess
I'll have to just settle for concluding you're an ass.
--
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/