OT (kinda)The future of fish in America

It all leans or is involved with business.

When it is fishing, wild stock, the dollars are spread over an area, a
community and distributed.

When it is some other form, certain industries, the money is concentrated
and thus speaks louder . . .

basically it's a screw the little guy - the American way

john
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
BJ Conner wrote:
Here you go Bu****es.
Another big step in the destruction of America.

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml
...
If you voted for Shrub shut up and just head on down to your own
private fly fishing club. The rest of us will practic up tying carp
flys.

Yet another "sky is falling" cry. The problem is, if you aren't
fishing for carp in four years, if you're still catching salmon,
statements like these only push people to the side you don't
want them to be on. (Hopefully since the election y'all have
taken the tenor of my posts as trying to be helpful...I _want_
two competetive parties; I'd _rather_ have a split balance of
power between Congress and the President; I _want_ each party to
keep the other in check; but the lefty rhetoric is _losing_ voters.)

If you read the article, it first talks about a river protection
_proposal_, and then talks about dams on the Snake which it clearly
says only Congress has control over, which means the administration's
statement is only affirming what they can and cannot do anyways.
(A Kerry admin wouldn't have brought the dams down, either).

Asadi's post (didn't show up here) but the article he cites
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6628701/) is even clearer that while
yes, the Bush administration is leaning towards business and
away from environment, it is hardly "radical". It was supported
by quite a few counties, and quoting the above article it
rolled back an "approach taken under the Clinton administration
in 2000, which invoked the protections virtually everywhere on
streams used by the protected fish, whether scientists knew the
biological value of the area or not".

While I do agree that it probably goes too far, that's probably
as much a result of the previous approach that went too far in
the other direction and incited enough locals to push it back
in the other direction. One quote is " 'The reason the 2000
designations were overinclusive was that we didn't have better
data available at that time,' said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional
administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service. While
Lohn is an appointee (transitively) of the Bush Administration,
we'd have to take his words carefully (and I'd love to hear someone
from the PNW give their perspective of Lohn's tenure there), but
I'd be inclined to believe there's more than a grain of truth
there.

Jon.