Buddy wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:07 PM:
Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn't a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
As far as the salmon decline and lack of support being Bush's fault, better check your facts.
John wrote on Jul 12, 2008 11:25 AM:
The low return of salmon has very little to do with comercial and recreational fishing. Low water because of the diversions to southern California and poor hatchery management are the source of our problem. The state has about 1400 dams and 9 hatcheries.
Phil wrote on Jul 9, 2008 3:58 PM:
Here comes Bush again, to rescue the little guys. Oh, wait ...
How in the world did this guy get elected, let alone TWICE?
usedtofish wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:14 PM:
No suprise the shrub raids the help for the fishing industry, they don't have any high priced "K" Street lobbyists with deep pockets. Come Nov. McCantflyanairplane will give you the same.
rick wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:52 AM:
we also need to prevent foriegn fishing fleets near our shores.they are one of the big big reasons we have this fishing crisis.they're taking everything with there huge net's.i say no other fishing vessels are allowed with in 250 mile of our coast.only american vessels.also open more fishing hatcheries.
rick
KoKwel wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:12 AM:
Why aren't cormorants in this equation? You see them gobbling up the smolts faster than the sea lions.
Rip out the dams and return our salmon and steelhead.
To Jason wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:07 PM:
Can you please explain to me what you mean "you reap what you sow" How does that pertain to my husband who worked his whole life at a job he started at in high school, and then the company closed without warning, so he took his deeply discounted retirement money, bought a commercial fishing boat and permit to fish salmon, thinking he could make a living fishing, and then they closed the salmon season. He has done nothing his whole life but work hard and now he is stuck with a fishing boat he can't work and can't sell. Going back to school is not an option at his age, because as I said, who will hire him at his age. I don't think you are being very fair or understanding to say "you reap what you sow" to people that have worked so hard to make a living. Going to college when you are young is not an option for some people due to many reasons....one is having to support other people...
Jason wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:56 PM:
Taxpayer...of course I will collect Social Security, of course I am aware of how taxes work...but I'll tell you what, I went to college, got a degree, and starting saving my rear off at an early age so that if something happened I would be okay...Charleston, I'm feel sorry for your friends, I truly do, don't know what else to say...To Jason, I am not anti-fishermen, it's just you reap what you sow...
TAXPAYER wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:18 AM:
Oh Boy Jason, lets just hope you NEVER NEED ANY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE in your life, since you don't want anyone else to have it. Do you think that when you get old, you will ever collect Social Security or will you tell the government you don't want it. Do you think people who get unemployment are lazy. You better rethink that comment, because you have to know that something in your life is provided by the government, which means we are all paying for it. We all, fishermen too, pay taxes and our taxes go to provide something for everyone. There is not one person who can survive without using something that all our taxes go to pay for, think about that.
Charleston wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:08 AM:
Jason, your so called common sense, doesn't make much sense to me, in your comparing a real estates agents SUV to a fishing boat. Besides the cost being so much different, how many fishing boats do you see driving to town to go shopping in ? An SUV has more uses than just showing houses in.... and there is always going to be houses to sell, and at least some people to buy them. The men who bought fishing boats didn't think there was going to be a shortage of salmon when they decided to commercial fish. Also your promoting people to get an education for a different job, I have several friends who went out to SWOCC to get training and after they got it, could not get ANY JOBS because of their age. So now Jason what is your other options for them? You seem to know so much. Tell us.
To Jason wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:51 AM:
To Jason and all you "anti fishermen" people out there, what is your problem with a lot of hard working men who happen to love the ocean and fishing, and paid a lot of money to buy a fishing boat to earn a living, in other words, "buying their jobs" ? ? ? Planning on making a living catching salmon, and now between the government, the sea lions, and whatever else is happening, NOT BEING ABLE TO CATCH ANY SALMON, and not being able to pay the bills and the boat payments. And a fishing boat cost a lot more than an SUV,that you can still drive to town in. So what is the problem again Jason, that you are so against fishermen that just want to make a living. My husband lost a job he had for 35 years, when it closed without warning, and he took his reduced retirement money to buy a fishing boat to commercial fish, and now look what happened, he can't fish, so now at almost 60 years old he's supposed to go back to school and after that who will hire him at his age ?
Snapper wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:49 AM:
Uhh, Jason. You attacked my people and my industry without knowledge of today's policy. Reciprocity / retaliation seemed appropriate. You came on a little arrogant for my tastes, and a lot ignorant. You know, with your remarks about your telecom background and that fishermen ought to just go get an education, obviously believing that no one in the business has one. I fish, and I hold several degrees. I "went and got" my education by hard work. As for your lazy remark, if you are truly a purist, you will refuse any kind of govt assistance and subsidy. You know, like your home mortgage deduction if you are buying a home. When you throw a punch, you also need to be able to take one, and if you talk it, you should walk it.
Jason wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:24 PM:
Snapper...I was going to sink to your level and personally attack you, but I don't need to. While I may not be literate in terms of fishing legislation and so forth, I do possess good old fashioned common sense. The fishing and timber industries are obviously dying. If those folks don't re-educate themselves in an industry that can help this local economy, then this local economy and area will perish with them....oh wait it already is. Go get a degree in engineering or tourism or finance and do something better for yourselves and your families. Collecting government aid is, well, lazy!!
Snapper wrote on Jun 15, 2008 12:58 PM:
Again Jason, you are leaking. We are talking limited entry salmon fishing here. The state of Oregon has limited the number of allowable trollers to 1200 and regulates from shore to 3 miles out. About 400 of us, plus crew, still try to earn a living at it. Not only is it our passion and preferred lifestyle, it is our right. The Fed Govt has taken over management of the resource from 3 miles out to 200. The Boldt decision in the 70's codified Indian "fishing in common with" to mean a 50 50 split of the resource. They gave commercial salmon fishers the right to half of a half of the fish. (50 percent Indian, 25 sport, 25 commercial) Now, when the govt changes the science interpretations of water management and propagation policies due to special interest lobbying, and fails to restore damaged habitat, they have further reduced our 25 per cent share, and they are in violation of the law in several key areas. In this case, in my view, subsidies are appropriate until they fix what they have broken. In your real estate / SUV scenario, they are not.
Jason wrote on Jun 14, 2008 10:00 AM:
So Charleston, if I'm reading your argument correctly one could then make the same analogy with realestate agents. The very successfull agents will buy very nice large vehicles to not only impress but accomodate a large family. So if the government screws up their industry, which would never happen, should'nt the agents get some kind of compensation for the SUV they still owe on. Not going to happen, I don't feel sorry for the fishermen at all.
Snapper wrote on Jun 14, 2008 6:23 AM:
In all fairness, CB Kid, at one time, some crews did target the lions, just like today......some guys poach, litter, etc. It was like going after the fox that raids a chicken coop. Several "on a troller" would cost the owner thousands of dollars in lost product and gear damage. Most guys, however, used non lethal devices. Today, given the penalties, most would not try to kill them. Just use the cherry bomb scare tactic, run one line way back, and get the other lines up and in as fast as possible seems to be the norm. It's tough when they rip off a hundred dollar fish, do damage to the gear, then roll over and have a snack in plain view. I've never wanted to go pet one after that.
Snapper wrote on Jun 14, 2008 6:05 AM:
Jason. Fishermen should "go get an education"? I'd say you are the one in dire need. We are talking salmon fishing here telecom guy, not dragging, crabbing, shrimping, etc. And, we are talkin govt responsibility to adhere to the law. The ones put in place to protect the resource from foreign fleets, and to repair habitat when the numbers decline. You might "go get an education" Jason by reading and understanding milestone legislation such as the Boldt decision, and Mag Stevens. While you're at it, check out the history of aquaculture here in Oregon, and allowable catch from each river system. Telecom guy, huh? Must be difficult for you to understand men and work.
Charleston wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:12 PM:
The majority of the fishermen do not pollute the ocean, and I bet none of the fishermen who actually own the fishing boats do. If you owe many thousands of dollars on a fishing boat you want to keep the fish healthy and unharmed to be able to keep fishing them.
Also if you are working for someone else and you lose your job, you don't still have a large expensive boat to pay off, and if you work on a computer from home and lose your job, you only have a computer to sell (or keep) not an expensive item you are out, like a fishing boat. Think of this you idiots that think fishermen can just go get another job or training. THEY HAVE A BOAT TO STILL PAY FOR, THATS WORTH A LOT OF MONEY, YOU DON'T JUST WALK AWAY FROM IT.....
And Coos Bay Kid, I don't believe that you heard fishermen bragging about killing sea lions, not with the fines they would face. They probably wished they could, but don't dare.
Coos Bay Kid wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:53 AM:
I worked on the fuel dock for a summer back in the late 80's. Boy did I have my eyes opened. A majority of the fisherman had no regard for the sea. They littered, dumped oil and gas and bragged about how many sea lions they killed that day. It was way out of hand. Something had to be done. Government had to step in and do something. It's our responsibility as citizens to respect the opportunities given to us, not abuse them.
Jason wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:44 AM:
Wow, I guess I touched a nerve with my comments. I will say this again and also add to it. The fishermen DID and DO pollute the seas. They are obviously not the only ones, but they do contribute mightily. The fishermen DID and, if allowed, would continue to over fish the areas. This is a known fact that cannot be disputed. CB Man said it perfectly. I've said in other postings relating to this topic and that of the logging industry. If your job is taken away, regardless of circumstances, what self respecting man, husband, father, wouldn't go out and get themselves retrained in a different field. They may not be standing on the corner near Wal-Mart but what is the difference. I work in the telecom industry. If the FCC shut some of my customers down and I lost my business, would the FCC then pay me? I think not. Bottom line is the fishermen should thank their lucky stars they get anything, and then go get an education with the money they recieve.
moonman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:49 AM:
The fishermen have the right to be reimbursed for ecconomic harm done to them by the goverment, state or fed. That law was signed by clinton remember, so that stated, think how much money they save by doing fed. disaster help. If they had to pay for all losses that was created by them the 150 x more money would be needed so its a savings to help now instead of being sued for it
Local wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:24 AM:
Coos County is a republican county. How many of those fisherman voted republican? Now they get what they deserve. Bush has all but bankrupted and destroyed this country. Vote for McCain if you'd like to see it destroyed totally.
Thomas wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:59 AM:
"The fishing community of Oregon is already suffering because of the flawed Bush policies in the Sacramento River basin"
Too bad The World never reported that our county commissioners in 2002 at Griffith's bidding signed Coos on to the PLF lawsuit which made those policies possible.
Why local fishermen ever supported him is mindboggling ......... though maybe if this was known, they would not have?
Former fish family wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:50 PM:
Where do you get that the fisherman polluted the area? Did you give thought to the fact that it is not only the commercial fisherman that fish for salmon, but sporties too. Look at all the boats on the rivers during the fall months. They have done their part to hurt the industry too. Not only that, how many salmon has ODFW killed off? We cannot single out the commercial fisherman. That is just not fair. We need to make sure that these people who EARN their money from the fishing industry get retrained in a different field.
Snapper wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:35 PM:
Jason, better get your reverse polarity fixed. Guess you don't recall the claim the Bushies made about the Klamath River water allocation formula being set up using "faulty science." After the GWB speech, Gordon Smith, Norton and Rove all had a nice photo op when they diverted the water out to the farms. That was in 05. 70K adult spawners, and 4 years of product bellied up with the use of the Bush version of science. After filling up LA swimming pools and watering the golf courses using more of that faulty science argument, the Sacramento River has also suffered low, warm flow. How about it, Jason? Is that how we polluted and overfished?
TO JASON wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:20 PM:
JASON YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING IT LOOKS LIKE. WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ANYWAY. WAKE UP IDIOT. THESE FISHERMEN ARE HARD WORKING MEN WHO PUT THEIR MONEY INTO BUYING BOATS SO THEY HAD A DECENT JOB, NOW THAT THE FISH ARE BEING EATEN BY ALL THE SEA LIONS AND SEALS, ETC. YOU ARE BLAMING THE FISHERMEN. FISHING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD OCCUPATION AND I ADMIRE A MAN WHO BUYS HIS OWN JOB AND WORKS SO HARD TO MAKE A LIVING. THESE MEN AREN'T STANDING OUT BY WALMART HOLDING SIGNS FOR A FREE HANDOUT. THEIR JOBS WERE TAKEN AWAY BY THE GOVERNMENT AND WHO KNEW THE FISH WOULD START DISAPPEARING WHEN THE MEN BOUGHT THEIR BOATS. NOW THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE BOATS AND PAY BILLS, AND THEY DO NOT GET UNEMPLOYMENT LIKE MOST PEOPLE WHO LOSE A JOB, OR ANY OTHER HANDOUTS, AND YOU THINK THEY DON'T DESERVE SOME GOVERNMENT MONEY, THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THEIR JOBS AWAY. PLUS THE MONEY THEY PAID FOR THE SALMON PERMITS SO THEY COULD EVEN CATCH THEM IS EXPENSIVE.
WHAT IS YOUR JOB,if you have one.
Gene wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:27 PM:
Jason, you couldn't further off base if you tried. You must be one of those government check recipients. How else could you be so ignorant?
Holly wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:20 PM:
Well Jason, I can see you are pretty spry on the uptake for someone so rich in limitations. Yes, the salmon spawning habitat has been wrecked, but certainly not by fishermen. Corporate farms, timber companies, and power companies can take the credit for that.
CB Man wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:33 PM:
I agree "Charleston," it is outrageous. It's outrageous that WE the tax payers must pay for them not to fish. I drove truck for 35 years and recently had to fall back on another line of work due to oil prices. So where's the truckers’ comp. for high oil prices? Maybe they should take a gander from Alaskan fishermen who fish/crab during open season and work at their "real" job when it closes or gets shut down. It's time for them to grow a pair, stop wasting money that could be used for education, health, roads, etc. and find a 9-5 job.
Jason wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:59 PM:
So the fishermen over-fished and polluted the area...fish are not coming back...government gives them for doing so...now the governement decides against the full amount...first time in 8 years I actually agree with the current administration.
charleston wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:44 PM:
This is beyond outragious, how can they do this to our fishermen. Can't fish and can't sell fishing boats, what are they to do. No money at all.
Less wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:57 PM:
want more of the same? vote for McCaine!
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines