« Fish 'Should be rebranded as Sea Kittens' | Main | Free Sunglasses - Name the Spot »

November 04, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Fly Talk at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk.

Did Flyfishing Influence Your Vote?

Simple question.  When you cast your ballot for either John McCain or Barack Obama, did flyfishing have any influence whatsoever in your decision?  That can be anything from "paying lower taxes so I can spend more on fishing"... to "protecting clean water so I have good places to fish..."  The economy, the environment, healthcare, national security, price of gas... did any of this connect to your candidate in even the most roundabout fishing context?  You certainly needn't tell us how you voted, but we are interested in knowing if your "angler conscience" had any influence on your decision.

Deeter

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b54869e2010535d18fe5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Flyfishing Influence Your Vote?:

Comments

Capt Gordon

Fishing didn't have anythin to do with my vote for Pres but my vote for Governor was influenced by our fight against gill nets here in NC. I voted for a republican for the first time in a long while b/c our Demo gov candidate is right in bed with the netters and the Repub gov candidate has already spoken against nets. I feel so dirty.

Evan!

being a sportsman in general influenced my vote.

yrs-
Evan!

Evan V

Just barely too young to vote.
Even if I coulda, I never heard much about anything fishing related between the 2 candidates.

Pete

Sure did. When it comes to hunting and fishing there was only one ticket I could support - McCain/Palin!

God bless America. Let us fight for freedom and not lie down to the socialist agenda.

Eric

Pete, very well said !!!

joey

fly fishing and the republican agenda do not go hand in hand besides the fact that wealthy people can afford to fly fish. bush rolled back years of clean air and clean water standards, sides with industries that pollute, opening of federal and national forests to commercial exploitation, dams, etc... i could go on forever.

of course, electing a president comprises of weighing issues much more complex and pressing than just hunting and fishing. i have many friends both republican and democrat, and everyone votes their conscience (or pocketbook), but clearly on a national level, republican policies have historically not been on the side of the environment.

Bob

Pete your answer is ditto for me.Joey; I do not know what world your living in but I do hope you wake up & realize the socialists are not the American sportsman's friend.I am not wealthy but I can afford to fly fish and enjoy the outdoors like my ancestors because the socialists agenda has not yet been successful in the USA. Please wise up for all our sake! GOD bless America.

Joe Flyrod

Joey:

Gotta give up the Kool Aid. I am a polictical conservative and usually, but not always, vote Republican. I have also been working as a consulting environmental engineer for the past 27 years. I feel strongly enough about keeping air and water clean that I have done it for a living. Most of what you have been told re: Republicans scrapping environmental laws is so much rock snot. (For the record, it was Richard Nixon who started the EPA. It was probably one of the only good things he did.)

The people who call themselves the environmental movement today, and who are solidly entrenched in Democratic politics, are not your friends if you fish, or worse yet, hunt/shoot. They would ban your sports tomorrow, given half a chance. And I suspect that the outcome of this election will give them more than that.

Michael

Joey - where have you been? Take a hard look at history rather than listening to liberal hogwash. Which party do you think Teddy Roosevelt, our greatest conservationist, represented? Far left wing liberal agenda could very well take away all of your hunting and fishing rights in the name of environmentalism rather than conservationism. There is a huge difference.

But one thing I do agree with you on - This George Bush has put national security (energy) ahead of the environment. Forces some hard choices on us, for sure. Some of those, have been overblown. Others have not, and are worth standing up to. There are many compromises yet to be made. This situation has made some strange bedfellows, putting environmentalists and conservationists together on some issues. If you see something specific you do not like or agree with then get out there and do something about it right now. But, there will be a point in time where you will kick out your bedmate or be kicked out yourself.

joey

national security? did you see what george bush just did 2 days ago? this president has put BUSINESS INTERESTS ahead of environmental, time and time again. he just released the new CAFO rules that basically allow these feed operations to police themselves whether or not they need permits to dump animal waste into waterways. that has nothing to do with national security.

bush has repeatedly relaxed clean water standards, issuing directives for the EPA to ignore industries that pollute and narrowing the scope of what waterways and wetlands that are protected under the clean water act. he's also slashed budgets for clean water act enforcement programs (you can check government websites for this info).

how about bush's plan last month to lift protections on logging oregon's last old growth forest? or bush's plan to overturn the Stream Buffer Zone rule which will basically allow and expand mountaintop removal coal mining. if you don't think that affects fishing, think again.

i've lived in texas since '78, and was here during his whole tenure as governor. under his watch, he repeatedly deregulated pollution policies and standards with regard to air and wastewater discharge. texas led the nation in many categories under his watch.

this is not left wing kool-aid, these are facts. you can't conveniently claim Teddy Roosevelt as a conservationist and apply that today as what the republican party during his watch has done for the environment. neither party resembles what they were 100 years ago. very clearly the policies that bush and his administration have pushed over the last 8 years are harmful to the future of rivers.

joey

i guess it doesn't matter if we ruin our rivers, we can just build new ones and stock fish, right?

Phil

I've heard enough of the socialism line.... Give me a break. What makes Obama a socialist? The idea of raising taxes on those who make more than a quarter of a million dollars? The idea of progressive taxation was first championed by Adam Smith, not Karl Marx. Furthermore, the first progressive income tax in the US was levied by Abraham Lincoln in 1862.

The plan that has been labeled "socialist" ever since Joe the Plumber stepped into the limelight is the inevitable consequence when the federal government has spent itself into the ground. Money has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, in a nation in which the top 1 percent control over 40 percent of the wealth, taxing everyone equally just doesn't pay the bills.

I'm really curious how you define socialism and why you believe Obama will push a socialist agenda.

shake'n'bake

First off, I don't align myself with either party and am just old enough to have voted in the past two presidential elections.

In a way, flyfishing did influence my vote. Because of this blog, I caught on to the field and stream website where I read interviews that were conducted by Field and Stream for each of the candidates.

This article heavily influenced the direction in which I voted and was really the tipping point to pull me to one side.

Justin T

I voted for McCain but am a moderate republican who is a strict environmentalsist and believe in self reliance and despise city life, but did get nervous when McCain picked the anti-environment Palin. Its too bad we can't get the "Ted Nugent" type republicans to run for office who actually have morals and understand the biosphere and that a little human comfort and oil prices should not overtake the issue of environmental health we need to stop the gluttonous behavior and live more humbly-I do.

dannyfred

actually, my vote was by which liked to be in the outdoors. oddly rolling stone had obama on the cover the same day I got the issue of field and stream. I read thru the issue, but I just found the story making me wonder if obama will support conservation and help keep our waters clean and forests full of wild game (I have seen at least 10 turkeys crossing the 4 lane in my back yard) we need all the family and friend time we can get in a weekend or week getaway.




Our Blogs

Categories



Syndicate

 Subscribe in a reader

Add to Google

Add to My AOL

Add to Technorati Favorites!