First the Coho, now Apache and Gila

rw wrote:
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.


as you know, some of us well-meaning folks attempted to convince warren
of the "foolishness" involved in voting republican...uh, i guess that
would describe the comment "you're a goddamned fool to vote for those
venal *******s, warren." anyway, in grand contrarian fashion, which i
usually appreciate and encourage, with a raised middle finger response,
he chose to ignore such sterling instruction and went to the dark side.
g funny how most folks stop listening and go all awkward when you
call them names, eh?

jeff

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Again:

Ken's post probably won't show at my server, so I'm
clipping it from google news:

What's the deal ? Does New Mexico State have a gripe with
SBC or something ?

Ken wrote:
The memo instructed staff to ignore best available science
when deciding how best to preserve and recover endangered
species.

No it didn't. "Best" is nowhere to be found. It made a point
that using _later_ genetic evidence of sub-groups within the
species was not proving to be cost effective in recovering the
species as a whole. And it didn't even dismiss the later
science -- it simply said that if the subgroups are that
important then the full ESA process of listing them should be
used. What's wrong with that? You want to have your cake and
eat it too?

There's a *lot* wrong with that, and yes when it comes to
preserving and recovering endangered wild trout I want
cake and twinkies and puff pastry too. And the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, according to its own directives, is
supposed to use best available science when making decisions
in endangered species cases.

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.


Sure, that's why scientists and professors who've worked their
whole career to recover it are behind the downlisting. I guess
they're just as dumb as a box of rocks...but me, I just can't
wait to go fishing for 'em.

Scientists and professors affiliated with the Center for Biological
Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
contend that making it easier to remove endangered status also
makes it easier to approve construction, logging and other activities
that could impede the recovery of Gila and Apache trout.

You come down here, we'll pack up
the donkey and head into the Gila -- it'll be meaner to you
than any NC hill could ;-)

We spent a week in Taos one fall. Had a wonderful time fishing
for big browns in the Rio Grande and wild cutts on small little
mountain streams. I'd love to get back to New Mexico one of
these days and if I have a donkey to carry a case of Budweiser
on ice, well so much the better. ;-)

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.

Oh, I think it affects alot...death from a million little cuts.

Well, I think you take my scribblings here a lot more seriously
than practically anyone else, including me. Hell, I went to look
up BIOYA on Timmmmay's acronym list and DYBS was nowhere to be
found !! ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

rw wrote in news:4293f487$0$20832
:

I have to conclude that you're a fool.


If Tim's a fool then he's the Shakespearean Fool ... even Al Franken
declared that it was his team's efforts that prevented a landslide,
like it was some kind of win ... I listen to Kerry today and it's
obvious he still doesn't get it. He's a bumbling, confusing speaker and
I think we had a lucky escape. Edwards is doing ESPN bits. What a
disappointment he was against Cheney. What happened to the slick
tongued trial lawyer? He could barely make it a squeaker against the
snarling, highly dubious Cheney.

I don't think there was any candidate who could have beaten Bush,
because beating him would mean challening his assertions that we are
under attack and that Islamic terrorism is a grave, real and immediate
threat. Who could really make that claim?

On 5/24/05 8:24 PM, in article , "Jonathan Cook"
wrote:

I'm only saying that I think the policy described in the article
is eminently practical, and I'd like to know what specifically
people think is wrong with it.

And when people told you what they thought was wrong with it, you stick to
your guns. I guess there is nothing wrong with that.

The memo that the bureaucrat sent to his scientists was counter to just
about everything scientists believe- or should believe- about doing
research. You are correct, it said nothing about "best", it just said,
ignore any science that has been done on a species *since it was listed*.
In many cases, that means the scientists are to ignore any research done for
decades. Now, some of that research may not be better than what was done in
whatever decades preceded the listing, but I'm thinking it might not hurt to
have a peek.

I have a feeling the retired biologist quoted in the article might have hit
the nail on the head. The memo is seeking to "make it easier" to do a lot
of things, most of which involve commercial interests. I'm pretty sure that
science ain't supposed to be easy, nor should the protection of endangered
species be made easy to fit the whim of road builders, miners, loggers or
anyone else. Science is science.

As a professional in the looking-stuff-up field, the article raised my
hackles, and not just a little bit. Sorry it didn't do the same for you,
but there you go.

Bill

GaryM wrote:

I don't think there was any candidate who could have beaten Bush,
because beating him would mean challening his assertions that we are
under attack and that Islamic terrorism is a grave, real and immediate
threat.

I can't disagree that challenging him on the threat of terrorism
would have been the "third-rail" for any opponent. I still wonder how
things would have been if Bush hadn't had the big T word to fall back
on. His whole campaign was based on fear, as opposed to any real
accomplishments.

But fear sells. Hell, it's been the major thrust of most
presidential campaigns that I've witnessed firsthand.


Chuck Vance

Tim J. wrote:
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.

When you claim that the Democrats have no policy proposals of their own
and that their entire program is to attack Bush, and when I go to the
trouble to look up and post John Kerry's policy positions on the
environment, and when you completely ignore it and merely snip it away
in a smart-ass reply, that leads me to believe that you aren't really
interested in a civil discourse about the issue.

The large majority of the mainstream media, and especially the network
and cable news programs, report very little on the actual issues, no
doubt because they think their listeners are bored by them. They
concentrate on four types of political news: process, personalities,
horse races, and scandals. If they can't find anything to report about
those things, they report on things like the Scott Peterson trial and
the runaway bride.

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

Cyli wrote:

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.

I guess sponsoring the Sustained Fisheries Act doesn't cut much ice with
you.

There's saying and then there's doing.

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

GaryM wrote:
rw wrote in news:4293f487$0$20832
:

I have to conclude that you're a fool.

If Tim's a fool then he's the Shakespearean Fool ...

Can I get me one o' them hats? [sic]

.. . . and when do I get my guided trip on the Batten Kill? ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On 5/25/05 9:23 AM, in article , "Tim J."
wrote:

GaryM wrote:
rw wrote in news:4293f487$0$20832
:

I have to conclude that you're a fool.

If Tim's a fool then he's the Shakespearean Fool ...

Can I get me one o' them hats? [sic]

Only if you speak/post in rhymed couplets.

The Other William

Conan The Librarian wrote:

GaryM wrote:

I don't think there was any candidate who could have beaten Bush,
because beating him would mean challening his assertions that we are
under attack and that Islamic terrorism is a grave, real and immediate
threat.


I can't disagree that challenging him on the threat of terrorism
would have been the "third-rail" for any opponent. I still wonder how
things would have been if Bush hadn't had the big T word to fall back
on. His whole campaign was based on fear, as opposed to any real
accomplishments.

Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security, recently wrote that
several times during the campaign he was pressured to raise the terror
alert level when he didn't think it was justified. Remember when the
alert level was raised whenever Bush's approval rating dropped or when
some embarrassing domestic issue (like the economy) popped up? Notice
that it hasn't been raised since the election?

This administration cynically manipulates fear for political advantage.

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