The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

Dave LaCourse wrote:

JR writes:

Give away the national parks,
forests and wilderness areas, and your choice, and your descendants'
choice is gone; at best, only the rich will continue have any choice.

I doubt that will happen. We won't let it happen.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to what is already going on in
the West. It IS happening, and because it's happening incrementally, we
ARE letting it happen. Sky don't have to fall, Dave. Sinking slowly does
the job better 'cause most folks not directly, strongly involved don't
tend to notice til it's sunk. Three or four neo-con administrations in a
row, backed by neo-con Congresses and neo-con packed courts.......

If you folks want Democrats in the Whitehouse, you are going to have to get rid
of the Michael Moores, Al Frankens, Whoopi Goldbergs, and Terry McAuliffes as
your spokesmen. If you do not get the Dem Party back to where it was, you will
never get the WH again. And, I find that sad.

I don't consider the topic of the thread necessarily a Red vs. Blue
thing. No reason a true conservative can't be a true conservationist--in
fact, I think the two go together. I'd vote for a conservationist
Republican who wasn't bought and sold by big business. They're harder to
find now than they were thirty years ago....

Dave LaCourse wrote:

JR writes:

Give away the national parks,
forests and wilderness areas, and your choice, and your descendants'
choice is gone; at best, only the rich will continue have any choice.

I doubt that will happen. We won't let it happen.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to what is already going on in
the West. It IS happening, and because it's happening incrementally, we
ARE letting it happen. Sky don't have to fall, Dave. Sinking slowly does
the job better 'cause most folks not directly, strongly involved don't
tend to notice til it's sunk. Three or four neo-con administrations in a
row, backed by neo-con Congresses and neo-con packed courts.......

If you folks want Democrats in the Whitehouse, you are going to have to get rid
of the Michael Moores, Al Frankens, Whoopi Goldbergs, and Terry McAuliffes as
your spokesmen. If you do not get the Dem Party back to where it was, you will
never get the WH again. And, I find that sad.

I don't consider the topic of the thread necessarily a Red vs. Blue
thing. No reason a true conservative can't be a true conservationist--in
fact, I think the two go together. I'd vote for a conservationist
Republican who wasn't bought and sold by big business. They're harder to
find now than they were thirty years ago....

Dave LaCourse wrote:
rw opines:


We all know how very rich you are, Dave.


Really? I don't consider myself rich (as far as material things and money is
concerned), let alone *very*. I do have a very nice disposable income,
however, thanks to years of planning. Big difference from being rich.

There is no difference whosoever.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with being rich. It's best not to brag about
it, though.

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

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?

On 27 Nov 2004 00:07:38 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

I'm not worried about any politician taking away my fly fishing. I *am*
worried about more and more people joining in the fun. A side note: The
commute that I used to drive 14 years ago before I retired required 20 - 25
minutes. That same commute now takes almost an hour because of so many cars on
the road. Too many people; not enough resources.


You're right. One option is to set up time slots and run lotteries,
giving eveyone an equal shot at getting on the water.

On 27 Nov 2004 00:07:38 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

I'm not worried about any politician taking away my fly fishing. I *am*
worried about more and more people joining in the fun. A side note: The
commute that I used to drive 14 years ago before I retired required 20 - 25
minutes. That same commute now takes almost an hour because of so many cars on
the road. Too many people; not enough resources.


You're right. One option is to set up time slots and run lotteries,
giving eveyone an equal shot at getting on the water.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:37:02 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?


There was an attempt by the Wisconsin Home Builders Ass. lackeys in
the Statehouse to drastically change the navigability rules. This
would have eliminated a good chunk of the small streams here from
being considered public water. There was such a hue and cry about it
that they pulled it before it even came to a vote. But unfortunately
we didn't suceed in getting rid of said lackeys during the last
election. Its a pretty sure thing that our Dem. governor would veto
any such effort. But as a conservative Democrat he has suceeded in
alienating parts of the traditional Democratic Party while making no
inroads into the Republican base. So he may very well be gone in 2
years and one of the top contenders for his position in the GOP is one
of the sponsors of the navigability change. So if you want to come to
WI and fish for small stream brookies you might want to make the
effort soon.


May God Damn the Republican Party.

g.c.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:44:32 -0500, GregP wrote:

You're right. One option is to set up time slots and run lotteries,
giving eveyone an equal shot at getting on the water.

Country clubs use some pretty sophisticated software to manage their tee times
to give all golf members an equal shot at the best courses at the best times.
Same principle.
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:44:32 -0500, GregP wrote:

You're right. One option is to set up time slots and run lotteries,
giving eveyone an equal shot at getting on the water.

Country clubs use some pretty sophisticated software to manage their tee times
to give all golf members an equal shot at the best courses at the best times.
Same principle.
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/