IRSM
When I first looked at the IRSM site, I didn’t think it was much. But as I followed the links I found good basic information about what they stand for. Some of the pages had links to other sites, but you had to make the effort to find these other links. It would better serve itself to have more links on the opening page to be able to access them easier. Overall, it seems like a very basic web site.
RAWA
This site hits you as soon as it loads. There are 24 links on the left side of the page, below that are links to RAWA supporters, and a scrolling RAWA in Media box. There are fifteen links to different speeches and articles with a link at the bottom to access more. Then as you scroll down there are numerous articles under the title Reality of Life in So-called "Liberated" Afghanistan and many photo links to the right side of the page that lead to a photomontage, some with videos, most of which are not for the faint of heart. As you scroll down more to the bottom of the page there are more links to different speeches and interviews with RAWA members. This is an extensive, well put together site.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
How Not to Savbe a Salmon
How not to save salmon
by Ted Williams
Ted WilliamsFor centuries, killing predators was to fish and wildlife management what leeches were to medicine. By the mid-20th century, even the dullest minds in government had figured this out.
But duller minds were yet to come. Enter the administration of George W. Bush. In 2008, it is hawking control of salmon-eating birds, fish and mammals as if this were Dr. Kickapoo’s Elixir for Rheum, Ague, Blindness and Insanity.
Virtually the entire scientific community agrees that if the four nearly useless Snake River dams remain in place, Columbia and Snake river salmon stocks will go extinct. Even Bush’s National Marine Fisheries Service has admitted this. Mostly because of these dams, the system’s cohos are already extinct, sockeyes functionally extinct and 13 stocks in 78 populations are threatened or endangered.
Yet last October, the Fisheries Service released its draft Columbia-Snake salmon plan that calls for a surge in the war on predators. The surge, together with barging young salmon, increasing hatchery production and all the other bells, whistles and tweaks that have failed so spectacularly in the past, will cost $800 million every year. By comparison, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates the cost of breaching the dams at $1 billion.
There is no legal alternative to saving and restoring Columbia-Snake river salmon. The Endangered Species Act requires it. U.S. District Court Judge James Redden, who declared the Fisheries Service’s previous plan illegal in 2005, and its amended version illegal in 2006, has threatened to vacate the administration’s current plan, in which it trots out the ancient predator-scapegoats -- squawfish, Caspian terns and sea lions.
Squawfish, or “pikeminnows,” as the PC fish police have attempted to rename them, proliferate in dam-made dead-water where they eat ocean-bound salmon smolts, especially the ones milling around as they strive to figure out the nearly non-existent current, and those injured or disoriented by passing through turbines.
Although no bounty system anywhere has ever worked, the Bonneville Power Administration is funding the biggest one in history. Implementing this counter-insurgency are Oregon and Washington. “How can YOU save a salmon? Go fishing!” proclaims the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, calling to mind the equally brainless bumper sticker popular in Idaho and Wyoming: "Save a Deer. Kill a Wolf."
For your first 100 squawfish you get $4 each; then $5 each. When you hit 400 fish, the bounty rises to $8. Catch a tagged squawfish and you collect $500. Last year, taxpayers paid out almost $1.3 million in squawfish bounties. Yet the squawfish population remains healthy and stable: In 2000, bounty hunters killed 187,596 fish; seven years later they killed 190,870.
Squawfish are natives. But what are the feds and states doing about the alien smallmouth bass that also proliferate in the tepid impoundments and that also eat smolts? Nothing; they’re popular with license buyers who almost always release them.
Then there are those pesky sea lions. Because salmon out-swim them in the open sea, the fish aren’t their natural prey. But sea lions are quick to take advantage of unnatural situations. So they’ve learned to travel 140 miles up the Columbia River and chow down on adult salmon butting into the Bonneville dam. Last March, the Fisheries Service granted Oregon and Washington permission to annually kill 85 sea lions.
But there are also those voracious Caspian terns, which see the salmon hatcheries on the lower Columbia as the world’s biggest bird feeders. By 1998, 18,000 terns were nesting on dredge-spoil dumps. Because they were also eating wild fish, the Fisheries Service and the Corps of Engineers set about moving the colonies to another spoil dump closer to the Pacific. But the birds continued to proliferate. Now the feds plan to move them yet again, this time to six new locations, including an island the Corps will build for them on an inland reservoir. Projected cost for the first year: $2.4 million.
Suppose the Bush administration prevails against squawfish, sea lions and terns. Is it then going to pacify the rest of nature? Will it attack cormorants, which eat more smolts than sea lions and terns combined? And what about orcas and those smolt-swilling walleyes and coastal cutthroat trout?
One gets the impression that if seismic activity threatened an obsolete dam, our federal government would try to rearrange earth’s tectonic plates. On the Snake River, we can save dams or salmon -- not both. The administration knows this. Its war on predators is based on deception. There can be no end and no victory.
by Ted Williams
Ted WilliamsFor centuries, killing predators was to fish and wildlife management what leeches were to medicine. By the mid-20th century, even the dullest minds in government had figured this out.
But duller minds were yet to come. Enter the administration of George W. Bush. In 2008, it is hawking control of salmon-eating birds, fish and mammals as if this were Dr. Kickapoo’s Elixir for Rheum, Ague, Blindness and Insanity.
Virtually the entire scientific community agrees that if the four nearly useless Snake River dams remain in place, Columbia and Snake river salmon stocks will go extinct. Even Bush’s National Marine Fisheries Service has admitted this. Mostly because of these dams, the system’s cohos are already extinct, sockeyes functionally extinct and 13 stocks in 78 populations are threatened or endangered.
Yet last October, the Fisheries Service released its draft Columbia-Snake salmon plan that calls for a surge in the war on predators. The surge, together with barging young salmon, increasing hatchery production and all the other bells, whistles and tweaks that have failed so spectacularly in the past, will cost $800 million every year. By comparison, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates the cost of breaching the dams at $1 billion.
There is no legal alternative to saving and restoring Columbia-Snake river salmon. The Endangered Species Act requires it. U.S. District Court Judge James Redden, who declared the Fisheries Service’s previous plan illegal in 2005, and its amended version illegal in 2006, has threatened to vacate the administration’s current plan, in which it trots out the ancient predator-scapegoats -- squawfish, Caspian terns and sea lions.
Squawfish, or “pikeminnows,” as the PC fish police have attempted to rename them, proliferate in dam-made dead-water where they eat ocean-bound salmon smolts, especially the ones milling around as they strive to figure out the nearly non-existent current, and those injured or disoriented by passing through turbines.
Although no bounty system anywhere has ever worked, the Bonneville Power Administration is funding the biggest one in history. Implementing this counter-insurgency are Oregon and Washington. “How can YOU save a salmon? Go fishing!” proclaims the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, calling to mind the equally brainless bumper sticker popular in Idaho and Wyoming: "Save a Deer. Kill a Wolf."
For your first 100 squawfish you get $4 each; then $5 each. When you hit 400 fish, the bounty rises to $8. Catch a tagged squawfish and you collect $500. Last year, taxpayers paid out almost $1.3 million in squawfish bounties. Yet the squawfish population remains healthy and stable: In 2000, bounty hunters killed 187,596 fish; seven years later they killed 190,870.
Squawfish are natives. But what are the feds and states doing about the alien smallmouth bass that also proliferate in the tepid impoundments and that also eat smolts? Nothing; they’re popular with license buyers who almost always release them.
Then there are those pesky sea lions. Because salmon out-swim them in the open sea, the fish aren’t their natural prey. But sea lions are quick to take advantage of unnatural situations. So they’ve learned to travel 140 miles up the Columbia River and chow down on adult salmon butting into the Bonneville dam. Last March, the Fisheries Service granted Oregon and Washington permission to annually kill 85 sea lions.
But there are also those voracious Caspian terns, which see the salmon hatcheries on the lower Columbia as the world’s biggest bird feeders. By 1998, 18,000 terns were nesting on dredge-spoil dumps. Because they were also eating wild fish, the Fisheries Service and the Corps of Engineers set about moving the colonies to another spoil dump closer to the Pacific. But the birds continued to proliferate. Now the feds plan to move them yet again, this time to six new locations, including an island the Corps will build for them on an inland reservoir. Projected cost for the first year: $2.4 million.
Suppose the Bush administration prevails against squawfish, sea lions and terns. Is it then going to pacify the rest of nature? Will it attack cormorants, which eat more smolts than sea lions and terns combined? And what about orcas and those smolt-swilling walleyes and coastal cutthroat trout?
One gets the impression that if seismic activity threatened an obsolete dam, our federal government would try to rearrange earth’s tectonic plates. On the Snake River, we can save dams or salmon -- not both. The administration knows this. Its war on predators is based on deception. There can be no end and no victory.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Farm bill full of pet causes backed by individual lawmakers
WASHINGTON (AP) — A good farm bill wouldn't be complete without a little pork.
Individual lawmakers, mostly senators, slipped several dozen "earmarks," or pet causes, into the $290 billion bill that have at best tentative connections to the tilling of the land.
There's tax breaks for horse owners, water for Nevada desert lakes, aid for the Pacific Coast salmon fishery industry and a crackdown on puppy trafficking.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a leading opponent of earmarks, complained that some had been "airdropped in" at the last minute. "If you dig into them, you might find something untoward. You might not, but the fact is we don't have time to do that."
Republicans went after Democratic-backed provisions, such as one backed by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that allows the federal government to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest to a ski resort in the state. Leahy's office countered that the provision, backed by the state and the Forest Service, would save the Forest Service management costs by selling land that has long been used for skiing.
Another controversy was over a provision allowing state and local governments and non-profits to issue $500 million in tax-credit bonds to buy forest land for conservation purposes. The White House, which opposes the bill because of its cost and benefits for wealthy farmers, said that provision would authorize the purchase of 400,000 acres of land in Montana from a single owner, the Plum Creek Timber Co.
But Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said it wasn't an earmark because it was a model for conservation efforts across the country and there are no geographic limitations in the legislation.
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., said $170 million in relief for the salmon crisis on the West Coast was "desperately needed by the communities and families who rely on salmon fishing." The Department of Agriculture argued that the funds were not needed because West Coast salmon fishermen received $60 million in federal aid two years ago.
House Republicans on Wednesday tried to strip the Leahy, Baucus and Thompson items from the House-Senate compromise bill, but fell short on a mainly party-line 230-193 vote.
The department also took aim at $175 million in funds championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to provide water for desert lakes in his state.
The farm bill, one of the last major pieces of legislation with a chance of becoming law this year, was a natural magnet for lawmakers trying to advance legislation that might not get considered as individual bills. Often, accepting earmarks is a way for party leaders to reward the rank-and-file and secure their votes on the overall bill; on the farm bill it was more a case of the powerful — Reid, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy — using their influence to help their states or constituents.
Among other special provisions:
_ McConnell included a tax break for horse owners that would benefit horse farms in his state of Kentucky. His office asserted that the provision, which ensures that all race horses are depreciated over three years for tax purposes, regardless of when the horses start training, did not qualify as an earmark because it would affect tens of thousands of taxpayers in nearly every state. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this would cost $126 million over 10 years.
_ Senators from Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland succeeded in including $382 million for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program.
_ Baucus also got $1 million for a national sheep and goat industry improvement center.
_ The bill authorizes $10 million a year for five years for a program backed by Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas, that helps people in poor, rural areas find housing.
_ It also authorizes funds for a drought mitigation center at the University of Nebraska, water systems for rural and native villages in Alaska and a congressional hunger center.
The Humane Society of the United States said it was supporting the farm bill because it has a provision, inserted by Senate Democratic Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to curb the import of puppies for commercial sale from foreign puppy mills. The bill also strengthens the federal animal fighting law.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., made the point that the farm bill had no earmarks when it was first passed by the House, and that special projects came mainly from Senate requests.
"There was a lot worse stuff in that bill that we took out," he said.
The bill is H.R. 2419.
Columbia River Closed to Steelhead Fishing Until Further Notice
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The lower Columbia River will remain closed to steelhead fishing until further notice to avoid the incidental catch of protected spring chinook salmon.
Monday's announcement effectively delays the fishery for hatchery steelhead that was scheduled to open May 16 from the Interstate 5 Bridge downriver to the Rocky Point/Tongue Point line, a few miles east of Astoria, Ore.
Cindy LeFleur, of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, says the steelhead closure could extend as late as June 15, unless returns of upriver spring chinook begin to pick up.
Fishery closures for spring chinook on parts of the Columbia and Snake rivers are already in effect, because those protected fish have been returning in much lower numbers than originally predicted.
Commercial salmon fisheries at Young's Bay, Blind Slough, Tongue Point and Deep River also were delayed for a week. Those fisheries primarily target chinook salmon returning to lower Columbia River tributaries, but they also intercept some upriver fish.
LeFleur says the steelhead season will start no later than June 16, when most spring chinook have returned to hatcheries or spawning areas.
Art hasn’t been used much in changing the way fish are managed in the Pacific Northwest. Most all of the sites dedicated to this cause have some sort of logo or header.
The most striking I found was on gillnetskill.blogspot.com It shows the damage gillnets do to fish.
This cause could use art to get people motivated. At the top of the Blog is one I’ve put together.
The most striking I found was on gillnetskill.blogspot.com It shows the damage gillnets do to fish.
This cause could use art to get people motivated. At the top of the Blog is one I’ve put together.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
GNU, Free Software, and Copyleft
GNU, Free Software, and Copyleft
"The hacker ethic refers to the feelings of right and wrong, to the ethical ideas this community of people had-that knowledge should be shared with other people who can benefit from it, and that important resources should be utilized rather than wasted"
-Richard Stallman, MEME 2.04 http://oikos.org/ecology/freeinte.htm
In 1984, Richard Stallman started working on the GNU operating system. What made this system different was Stallman licensed it under the General Public License, which has also been referred to as Copyleft. This means it is an open or "free" operating system. Open seems like it would have been a better name for the system than free. The term free as it applies here means, "enables others to copy, distribute, and make changes to software, as long as they don’t prevent others from doing the same thing." What this means is you can still pay for the software and you are free to with it as you please as long as you adhere to "they don’t prevent others from doing the same thing."
GNU, Free Software, and Copyleft all seem to be intertwined and I feel like I’m talking in circles.
I guess the easiest way to explain it is by
1.GNU is an operating system that Richard Stallman made.
2.He licensed it under a General Public License or Copyleft which means:
"Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." The key point in this is extended versions of the program must be free as well. This mean that some one can’t take the program and sell it without leaving it open to everyone else to make modifications.
http://Gnu.org is the best site I found explaining everything in detail also the MEME 2.04 link provides an in-depth interview with Richard Stallman which I found very interesting.
"The hacker ethic refers to the feelings of right and wrong, to the ethical ideas this community of people had-that knowledge should be shared with other people who can benefit from it, and that important resources should be utilized rather than wasted"
-Richard Stallman, MEME 2.04 http://oikos.org/ecology/freeinte.htm
In 1984, Richard Stallman started working on the GNU operating system. What made this system different was Stallman licensed it under the General Public License, which has also been referred to as Copyleft. This means it is an open or "free" operating system. Open seems like it would have been a better name for the system than free. The term free as it applies here means, "enables others to copy, distribute, and make changes to software, as long as they don’t prevent others from doing the same thing." What this means is you can still pay for the software and you are free to with it as you please as long as you adhere to "they don’t prevent others from doing the same thing."
GNU, Free Software, and Copyleft all seem to be intertwined and I feel like I’m talking in circles.
I guess the easiest way to explain it is by
1.GNU is an operating system that Richard Stallman made.
2.He licensed it under a General Public License or Copyleft which means:
"Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." The key point in this is extended versions of the program must be free as well. This mean that some one can’t take the program and sell it without leaving it open to everyone else to make modifications.
http://Gnu.org is the best site I found explaining everything in detail also the MEME 2.04 link provides an in-depth interview with Richard Stallman which I found very interesting.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Underground GI Press
The Underground GI Press
As I read through the chapters of People’s Movements, People’s Press by Bob Ostertag, the section that peaked my interest was the selection about Jeff Sharlet and his paper called Vietnam GI.
Sharlet served two tours in Vietnam where he learned Vietnamese and worked in army intelligence. Upon returning to the U.S. he enrolled in College and joined the Students for a Democratic Society where he soon became the chair. It didn’t take long for Sharlet to be- come disenchanted with the group due to their "shallowness and snotty attitude." Rather than staying at a place where he didn’t "fit in," he returned to school for just one day, long enough to collect his scholarship check. Sharlet then used that check to launch his new venture.
Sharlet served two tours in Vietnam where he learned Vietnamese and worked in army intelligence. Upon returning to the U.S. he enrolled in College and joined the Students for a Democratic Society where he soon became the chair. It didn’t take long for Sharlet to be- come disenchanted with the group due to their "shallowness and snotty attitude." Rather than staying at a place where he didn’t "fit in," he returned to school for just one day, long enough to collect his scholarship check. Sharlet then used that check to launch his new venture.
The Vietnam GI immediately set itself above the rest of the underground newspapers. Instead of printing a newspaper for the populace in the U.S., Sharlet’s newspaper was printed for the GI’s still fighting in Vietnam. As I read through the different snippets of the newspaper that were included in the book, I found myself listening to an actual soldier talking about the war. Gone were the normal slogans you would expect to hear "Make love, not war" "Drop Acid, Not Bombs." The Vietnam GI printed honest insights from people that were in the middle of the conflict. Sharlet, having gone through the same experiences knew how they felt and it showed in his editor comments. (Which you can check out on page 129)
Jeff Sharlet passed away on June 16, 1969 and the Vietnam GI published the last issue in 1970. It makes you wonder, if Sharlet hadn’t passed away would the Iraqi GI be in print today.
Side note: I did a search to see if I could find an old issue of the Vietnam GI to see what the whole newspaper looked like. The only thing I could find was some microfiche copies on the Oregon State University site. I was disappointed to say the least. But I did find some information about the movie "Sir, No Sir" which is about the underground GI movement in this era.
Jeff Sharlet passed away on June 16, 1969 and the Vietnam GI published the last issue in 1970. It makes you wonder, if Sharlet hadn’t passed away would the Iraqi GI be in print today.
Side note: I did a search to see if I could find an old issue of the Vietnam GI to see what the whole newspaper looked like. The only thing I could find was some microfiche copies on the Oregon State University site. I was disappointed to say the least. But I did find some information about the movie "Sir, No Sir" which is about the underground GI movement in this era.
Above photo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sharlet_and_Vietnam_GI
Monday, April 14, 2008
Charles Tilly Seminar Essay
Charles Tilly Seminar Essay
Doug Richert
Tilly starts out discussing the beginning of social movements. What I found interesting was the description on page forty about the Lyon silk weavers.
Yesterday evening a band of about two hundred people came down from the Croix-Rousse into my quarter, led by an improvised master of ceremonies who carried a stave and who preceded four torch-bearers with sixteen-year-old carrying a red flag…Of these individuals, who seemed to range from fourteen to twenty five years of age, two-thirds were carrying staves. They sang the Marseillaise, the song of the Girondins, and then to the melody of the Lampions "Down with the Emperor! Long live the Republic!" On each side of the sidewalk, the band was followed by about thirty individuals thirty to forty-five years old who appeared to be workers and who seemed to be serving as protection.
This demonstration takes place on April 29th 1870. If we were to change a few words such as band, stave, and Emperor, it could pass for a demonstration taking place in Olympia today.
Tilly argues that the social movements have changed over the years, have they really? Or, as people have been given more rights, has it gotten easier to hold protests? The above such protest was held after an (approximately) fifteen year interruption due to the repression of the government. Today in the United States we are give the right to protest and as long as it stays peaceful, the protesters are not bothered. It would be interesting to find out how many protests are held on any given day here in the U.S.
Other countries do not have the same right to protest as we have. Often they are risking their lives when they join a social movement representing something as simple as basic human rights. Many times have we seen violent protests on TV from other countries. These people have no other alternative to get their government’s attention. The sad thing is the protesters lives may not be worth much and the protest turns deadly.
Technology has also changed the way social movements are mobilized. In class the term phone tree was used, Tilly used the same analogy, but instead of calling someone, they used text messages to get the information out. The internet has also changed the way social movements have grown. I did a Google search of "Green Movement" and there were 850,000 hits. The internet has made it much easier to get information out to the public. It has made it much easier for we the people to search out and obtain the information we are looking for. I don’t think the act of social movements have changed much over the last 150 years. It has just become much easier to make one happen.
Doug Richert
Tilly starts out discussing the beginning of social movements. What I found interesting was the description on page forty about the Lyon silk weavers.
Yesterday evening a band of about two hundred people came down from the Croix-Rousse into my quarter, led by an improvised master of ceremonies who carried a stave and who preceded four torch-bearers with sixteen-year-old carrying a red flag…Of these individuals, who seemed to range from fourteen to twenty five years of age, two-thirds were carrying staves. They sang the Marseillaise, the song of the Girondins, and then to the melody of the Lampions "Down with the Emperor! Long live the Republic!" On each side of the sidewalk, the band was followed by about thirty individuals thirty to forty-five years old who appeared to be workers and who seemed to be serving as protection.
This demonstration takes place on April 29th 1870. If we were to change a few words such as band, stave, and Emperor, it could pass for a demonstration taking place in Olympia today.
Tilly argues that the social movements have changed over the years, have they really? Or, as people have been given more rights, has it gotten easier to hold protests? The above such protest was held after an (approximately) fifteen year interruption due to the repression of the government. Today in the United States we are give the right to protest and as long as it stays peaceful, the protesters are not bothered. It would be interesting to find out how many protests are held on any given day here in the U.S.
Other countries do not have the same right to protest as we have. Often they are risking their lives when they join a social movement representing something as simple as basic human rights. Many times have we seen violent protests on TV from other countries. These people have no other alternative to get their government’s attention. The sad thing is the protesters lives may not be worth much and the protest turns deadly.
Technology has also changed the way social movements are mobilized. In class the term phone tree was used, Tilly used the same analogy, but instead of calling someone, they used text messages to get the information out. The internet has also changed the way social movements have grown. I did a Google search of "Green Movement" and there were 850,000 hits. The internet has made it much easier to get information out to the public. It has made it much easier for we the people to search out and obtain the information we are looking for. I don’t think the act of social movements have changed much over the last 150 years. It has just become much easier to make one happen.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Two Different Sites
Wild Steelhead Coalition
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.org/index.html
Mission Statement:
The Wild Steelhead Coalition (WSC) is an organization dedicated to increasing the return of wild steelhead to the waters and rivers of the Pacific Northwest.
The WSC is a non-profit organization that fights for the return of wild steelhead to our rivers which was established in 2000. I couldn’t find out how many members there are in this group, but from what I can gather from talking to other people, it is a fairly large organization in the state of Washington.
This group (along with many others in Washington) doesn’t seem to have a lot of influence with the government when it comes to putting policies in place. The problem with the sportsmen in Washington is we are too fractured, so we each form our little group to try and fight for what we feel is right. We are too many small voices to be heard.
The WSC Web site uses static web pages. The site is easy to navigate. I could find all the information I wanted to through the links on the left side of the page. The web site uses many links and has downloadable information. I feel it is put together very well for both the member who wants to keep up to date and nonmember who is looking for information which will help them decide if it is an organization they want to join.
Coastal Conservation Association
http://www.joincca.org
Mission Statement:
The stated purpose of CCA is to advise and educate the public on
conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to
conserve, promote and enhance the present and future
availability of these coastal resources for the benefit and
enjoyment of the general public.
CCA began back in 1977 due to the over fishing by the commercial fleet in Texas. Since then they now cover the entire U.S. Atlantic coast, and just this last year, formed chapters here on the Pacific coast. CCA has a long track record of winning battles when it comes to the conversation of fish. They pick only battles they feel they can win, as they win these battles politicians began to recognize their power, and the battles become easier to win.
CCA’s web site uses static web pages. It is easy to navigate and find the information you are looking for. It informs both members and potential members of the inner workings of the group.
Neither of these web sites includes a blog in their pages. I’ve seen too many blogs where the conversation just turns into a pissing match and all relevant information tends to be lost. Both of these sights have a contact page where you can ask your questions.
http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.org/index.html
Mission Statement:
The Wild Steelhead Coalition (WSC) is an organization dedicated to increasing the return of wild steelhead to the waters and rivers of the Pacific Northwest.
The WSC is a non-profit organization that fights for the return of wild steelhead to our rivers which was established in 2000. I couldn’t find out how many members there are in this group, but from what I can gather from talking to other people, it is a fairly large organization in the state of Washington.
This group (along with many others in Washington) doesn’t seem to have a lot of influence with the government when it comes to putting policies in place. The problem with the sportsmen in Washington is we are too fractured, so we each form our little group to try and fight for what we feel is right. We are too many small voices to be heard.
The WSC Web site uses static web pages. The site is easy to navigate. I could find all the information I wanted to through the links on the left side of the page. The web site uses many links and has downloadable information. I feel it is put together very well for both the member who wants to keep up to date and nonmember who is looking for information which will help them decide if it is an organization they want to join.
Coastal Conservation Association
http://www.joincca.org
Mission Statement:
The stated purpose of CCA is to advise and educate the public on
conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to
conserve, promote and enhance the present and future
availability of these coastal resources for the benefit and
enjoyment of the general public.
CCA began back in 1977 due to the over fishing by the commercial fleet in Texas. Since then they now cover the entire U.S. Atlantic coast, and just this last year, formed chapters here on the Pacific coast. CCA has a long track record of winning battles when it comes to the conversation of fish. They pick only battles they feel they can win, as they win these battles politicians began to recognize their power, and the battles become easier to win.
CCA’s web site uses static web pages. It is easy to navigate and find the information you are looking for. It informs both members and potential members of the inner workings of the group.
Neither of these web sites includes a blog in their pages. I’ve seen too many blogs where the conversation just turns into a pissing match and all relevant information tends to be lost. Both of these sights have a contact page where you can ask your questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
