While I agree with many of the posts on this subject, the discussions of this nature seem to degrade into generalizations akin to pointing fingers at one political party, which can be divisive.
Based on my experience, it appears to be difficult for members of this list, especially as it has grown to its current size, to resist throwing stones at one political philosophy or the other (right vs. left) instead of focusing on the issue itself, like Leland suggested. For myself, I would rather keep our debate on this list dominated more by surface flies (good guys) vs. subsurface (the dark side). ;=D - Dave David Weitl Northwest Realty Advisors, Inc. 3380 NE Rova Road Poulsbo, WA 98370 (360) 779-3802 (360) 779-1467 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent Lufkin Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dams and well Clinton did it first. Like it or not, the demise of anadramous fishing in our rivers is a direct result of a series of value decisions made on the local and national political stage. There's nothing in this forum's charter that precludes discussions about how political decisions impact fishing. If list members don't wish to participate in such discussions, that's their choice. IMHO, it's disingenuous to refuse to tolerate discussion about the political impacts on fishing while while at the same time wringing our hands about the decline of our fisheries. As Tip O'Neill once opined "All politics is local", local activism and coalition-building is a first step to meaningful political opposition. Neither can take place without discussion. K
