Re: NANFA-- Natives should get TV exposure

Christopher Scharpf (
Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:32:51 -0400

Thanks for your thoughts, Richard. You make many valid points, and I agree with
them all.

> I don't think that
>Chris was trying to mock your message; I think that he merely misunderstood
>the point that you were making due to this communication format

If I misinterpreted Luke's e-mail, then I apologize. But I read over it very
carefully, and in no way did Luke indicate that he was referring to what other
people would think if they saw the Kansas River 500 years ago. And since Luke
wrote and signed the e-mail, I merely assumed that he was stating what he
personally believed. Please note that I did not insult Luke, but I certainly
took umbrage with what he said. Sure, I may have done it in a smart-ass way, but
then I'm fron the East Coast! :-)

>I don't think anyone on this list, no matter how liberal, could be properly
>described as "eco-extremist". I don't think we have any card-carrying members
>of PETA (an organization which I don't like; I think PETA are idiots) or the

I wouldn't call PETA members eco-extremists.There's nothing "eco" about them.
But they are extremists. I read not too long ago that they picketed the New
England Aquarium for allowing caterers to serve shrimp at functions held at the
Aquarium. Little did the PETArds realize that the very same restaurant-quality
shrimp are fed to the Aquarium's animals residents every day!

>habitat. I don't think anyone on this list is for banning fishing, outlawing

It's one thing to recognize the environmental impact of SUVs and another to want
to outlaw them completely. If a say a dam is blocking salmon migration, and I
have sound data to back it up, does that make me anti-dam? Does it make me
pro-salmon? Or am I just stating a fact so that others can make a more informed
decision? I hate to be labeled as an "eco-extremist" when I am merely stating

>I don't think politicians in Congress, no matter how eco-minded, would take
steps so extreme
>as to eliminate jobs or economies; it just wouldn't be practical and no one
>vote for them.

You got that right! The Clinton Administration's policy re: the Snake River dams
is a case in point. So as not to jeopardize the Gore campaign, Clinton came out
against dam removal (while, with typical political doublespeak, continued to
push a pro-salmon message). Politicians do that all the time and it really irks

Chris Scharpf

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,