Obama And Romney On Recreational Fishing

[moguy1973]

Personally there are more important topics at hand for the country right now. Fishing is important but the economy and jobs should come first.

[Guest]

Well this one is almost certain to buy an "X".

I have posting remorse. I don't think anyone is changing opinions at this point anyways. I guess I should have followed the advice in Ness' signature.

[Tim Smith]

I have posting remorse. I don't think anyone is changing opinions at this point anyways. I guess I should have followed the advice in Ness' signature.

Well I posted it too so I should probably feel guilty....wait for it....no...no...nope. No guilt.

Phil will nuke it it if gets silly.

[Outside Bend]

I don't think either has much direct influence on our fishing. But I think each candidates views on public lands and natural resource exploration/exploitation could have a big impact on the future of stream access and other fishing conservation issues.

[Mitch f]

but at least Obama has fly fished for trout.

Reason number #59 I'm not voting for him

[podum]

Both have bigger issues to deal with than outdoor rec. I like the one that lets the states respond to their local constituencies. Missouri is a fine example of the positive results.

[duckydoty]

I wonder where both of them stand on the Pebble Mine issue?

[jdmidwest]

Never trust a "golfer" to manage your fish!

In 08, both candidates were untested on all issues, so Consevation may have come into play a little bit. But after the mess of the last 3.5 years, it should be clear what one has to offer.

[Phil Lilley]

I think you guys have settled in to the fact that you're not going to change anyone's mind here and it shows... the last topic that could have gone the way of the trash can didn't and neither is this one.

I congrats you all!

Carry on.

[Al Agnew]

Voting is always a matter of priorities, because unless you're a rabid partisan who believes one or the other party can do no wrong (or the other party can do no right), there are always going to be issues where you agree with one party's stance, and other issues where you disagree with them. So you vote based upon what you consider the most important issues. Personally, I ALWAYS take environmental issues into very strong consideration when voting. I don't care in the least whether either candidate has fished or hunted. I do care what their history is in land and water conservation, as well as funding of conservation agencies, energy policies because they have a big impact on wild lands and waters, etc.

The problem is that these issues are just as affected by big money interests as any others, and while a candidate might pretend to be a defender of the environment, money talks no matter which party they belong to. The difference between the two parties is that the Republican Party tends to be openly for economy (read, big money interests) over environment, while the Democrats pay lip service to serious environmental protection while often actually doing as little as possible for the environment. The Republicans tend to pay lip service to protecting hunting and fishing while NOT protecting the lands upon which it is practiced, while the Democrats tend to pay lip service to protecting the lands but at best ignore hunting and fishing and at worst are openly against it.

My sister, bless her heart, is a rabid conservative, and we got into an email argument the other day where she finally said that it was stupid to think that conservatives would WANT dirty air and water--they want clean air and water just like everybody. I told her that nobody WANTS dirty air and water, but that isn't the question. The question is how important you consider the air and water. Most people are willing put up with SOME dirty air and water if it means more money for them, especially if the dirty air and water is someplace else. Oil company executives don't tend to live in the places where they are drilling. Coal miners depend upon some pretty dirty, destructive practices to make a living. The stockholders in oil and coal companies mostly live in other places, and dividends depend upon profits, not environmental protection.

And, in my 60 years of experience, I've found that we all have an almost infinite capacity to convince ourselves that what we want to believe is true. So there's always that: "Sure, the Eleven Point is worthy of protection from lead contamination...but we need the jobs and besides, the lead companies will surely be able to protect the river...heck, lead isn't that bad anyway." Or..."Sure, we oughta be drilling full speed ahead deep offshore...the oil companies know what they're doing and the chances of an accident are practically nil now, and besides, the Gulf is doing just fine after that big accident a couple years ago."