Well that was only one source. google it once 50 other sources say THIS idiot administration, not the previous idiot administration...any fly-fisher who supports the current idiots must fish on private waters.
Well that was only one source. google it once 50 other sources say THIS idiot administration, not the previous idiot administration...any fly-fisher who supports the current idiots must fish on private waters.
Sorry, wrong again. We live on Hood Canal, WA that is saltwater, you know the stuff where the salmon live. We have been involved with the plight of the Pacific salmon here for many years. We probably know more about it than you. And no, I don't even know of any private water holding salmon. So you just aren't winning this one.
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Well, that still doesn't change that fact that it was the current idiot administration that did it...the previous idiot one actually did some things to help the salmon(stopped logging in Tongrass etc)...you believe in Intelligent Design don't you?? I WON it because I named the correct Idiot administration that started to count hatchery salmon, you did not, you were wrong, it was never even proposed before 2000.
[This message has been edited by imaxfli (edited 11 March 2006).]
What exactly does all this have to do with Ewing hackle?
I agree with Jayatwork. All Ed Gallop
wanted to know in the very first post was the the true link to Ewing.
While bashing the current administration is de rigeur in some circles, not all ills can be laid at its door.
This is one of them. imaxfli-- your first post says it all about the level of knowledge you bring to this: your assumption that the current administration "counts hatchery salmon as ones returning to spawn" is not even close to the controversy concerning hatchery and wild fish.
Not only that, but the business concerning hatchery fish being included with wild fish in determining ESA status started back in the mid '90's, not as you assert, when NMFS used hatchery stock in determining run populations of Oregon's coastal coho stocks for ESA purposes.
This all came to a head when a judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that if hatchery stock were used to determine run status originally, then they had to be considered when the status was revisited. In other words, if you count apples and oranges in determining how full the fruit basket is the first time, then you can't just count apples the second time.
Unfortunately, some folks decided that the court and the administration were somehow in collusion...and from there you have the current controversy concerning wild fish and hatchery fish.
Judging from your last post in this thread, you need to rein in your responses. This is a private house into which you've entered. Getting snotty with the owners (especially with the lack of knowledge you've shown) is a good way to be invited to leave.
Keith
Mr.Jackson, I have always respected you. Thanks for the post.
I know you know what you're talking about.
[This message has been edited by ducksterman (edited 11 March 2006).]
I enjoyed this bit of civil discourse, other than the uncivil part. Never call names in a debate. That said, I don't feel like one should be admonished for an opposing view and threatened by non-moderators with expulsion from a board. Enough good folks get kicked off here as it is.
The problem is the 'opposing view' claimed 'facts' which were not facts. We have no problem with folks expressing 'views' - but a lot of people read this website every day, and to allow disinformation to stand is just wrong.
------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL
Come on lady...admit it...you believe in intelligent design,...then why didn't your hero President get any???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
