I'm warming up to supporting McCain. He wasn't my first choice, but you got to be in it to win it and I could change my mind by next week.

While I would agree that this is not the best forum to discuss politics; all outdoorsmen (Fishing, Hunting, Trapping, Etc.) need to get their heads out of the sand and really pay attention to what is going on.  Every candidate who says they aren't going to take away your hunting rights is blowing smoke.  They will abuse the second ammendment in a heartbeat and are only interested in collecting your fees and taxes on licenses and equipment.  The issues facing those who enjoy fishing are easier to ignore.  Clean water, access, etc. are real issues.  The downturn in active participants are too.  While the President has less of an impact on fishing and hunting law, since the states control most of those, he can still have an influence.  Unfortunately I don't see any of the "front runners" as friends.  Historically, 30+ years ago, the Dems seemed advocates.  That has changed as the party has gone so far to the left.  Most look at the issues as having one fix...more government.  The government hasn't fixed one thing, and has created most of the problems that need fixed.

Greetings,
I've read many of the posted opinions about the '08 election and there's much to agree with. But while a fishing website is not your typical place for political discussion, it is welcomed in my opinion  since an informed citizen  is an empowered citizen. Plus if you spend most of your waking hours reading and dreaming about fishing on this website, now's the time to think about how to protect the object of your passion. 

I am a life-long fisherman. I've lived and fished in many states and met many diverse fishermen in New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, the Carolinas, and Florida. While the fishermen that I have met all these years have had huge differences in their personal backgrounds, their politics, their religious beliefs, and what they valued in their own lives, they all passionately shared the desire to fish and keep on fishing as their parents and grand parents did before them.  So which candidate and which political party gives us the best chance to keep on fishing as we all want to?   I think that depends more on the party and less on the candidate. Ultimately it will be determined by who best keeps our air, water, and forests clean and doesn't deny us the right to fish.   PRESIDENTS WORK WITH BROAD BRUSHSTROKES.  THE MOST A PRESIDENT CAN DO FOR US AS FISHERMAN IS ENSURE THAT FISH HABITAT WILL NOT BE  DEGRADED.  THIS HE DOES THROUGH GOOD LEGISLATION, THE EPA , THE US FOREST SERVICE, AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT.  CLEAN AIR AND WATER AND GOOD ENVIRONMENT STEWARDSHIP ARE THE MAGIC BUZZWARDS.  As far as fishing rights, don't worry, No President or political party will ever touch the third rail and side with PETA and deny the many millions of subsistence, recreational, and sport fisherman the right to eat, catch, and compete in tournaments. Fishing is a huge money maker in our economy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is using scare tactics and trying to manipulate you. Fisherman don't use dangerous weapons, so the battles that the NRA fights will ultimately never happen to fishing like they do with hunting. Don't get suckered by that bull.
Questions and my Opinions
1)Question:Which political party has more consistently promoted clean air and water regulations (THAT WOULD MOST EFFECT FISH HABITAT), protected national forests by restricting or banning clear cutting, limited destructive road building in those forests, fought to prevent strip mining caused damage to mountain streams, sought to impose strict standards for mercury and lead emitting coal fired power plants and heavy industry  Opinion: Democrats by far, ...but two Republican administrations stand out as great stewards of the land- those of Teddy Roosevelt and Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon.

2) Question:  Which past presidents have been bad/good for the environment by the way they ran the EPA, US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management? 
Opinion: BAD - Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Bush, & G.W.Bush Reagan's Secretary of  Interior(James Watt) and both Bush's never saw a national forest or wilderness they cared to protect from mineral exploration(oil,gas,copper,strip mining,etc) and clear cutting.
GOOD - Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, "Tricky Dick" Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton
Teddy started National Parks. Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Core laid a huge number of walkable trails, bridges and drivable roads through National Parks and government lands while employing a huge # of of jobless workers during the Great Depression. "Tricky Dick" Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and gave us the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Wow, that's huge!!! Carter added 103 million acres of new National Parkland in Alaska. The online Environmental News Service reports that Clinton's administration is likely to be remembered as one of most supportive of the environment in the nation's history. He vetoed many anti-environmental bills, he retained the ban on offshore oil drilling in California; increased funding for solar and renewable energy; and supported protective forest and watershed regulations.  The Bushes let the floodgates of industrial greed rip through decades of efforts by both Donkeys and Elephants. Teddy and Tricky Dick are probably rolling in their graves over what Reagan & the Bushes have done. REMENBER THAT JUST BECAUSE THE BUSHES LOVE TO FISH FOR STRIPED BASS IN MAINE AND FOR LARGEMOUTH BASS ON GW'S CRAWFORD, TEXAS RANCH PONDS DOESN'T  ERASE THEIR MISLEADING TRACK RECORD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAT GOOD FISH HABITAT DEPENDS ON.   GWB AND CHENEY HAVE BEEN FAR, FAR WORSE THAN PAPA BUSH. THEY CARE MORE ABOUT CORPORATE PROFITS AND THOSE BIG POLLUTERS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS,  AND EXPECTED PAYBACK, THAN ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME AND THE FEW FISH THEY OCCASIONALLY CATCH.   BUT DON'T TRUST MY WORD.  VERIFY WITH  GOOGLE!!!!!!  I think you'll find that more progressive environmental legislation that keeps our air and water clean and thereby gives fish a fighting chance will be passed into law under a Democratic President than a Republican one.   I gotta give credit to Teddy and "Tricky Dick" though.  But todays green elephants are either non existent or have chosen not to run for office. Barack Obama appears extremely wise and level headed and though I doubt that he fishes, I am confident that he would think it silly and unnacceptable, even unthinkable to  legislate against a beloved American past time.

Sincerly,
Fishbrain
PS: Attached below is a photo of a 32 inch snook I caught on 10lb Power Pro line, the day after Christmas...proof that fish are on my mind.

Catfishman,
You missed the entire point of my essay. I have never voted for a Republican politician in a national or local election. I would be happy to, if they would only see the world the way I do.  I said in my opinion that the best that we can hope for as fisherman, is that fish habitat is not further degraded.  I also said that the Democratic party has promoted more legislation over the years, than the Republicans on cleaning up the environment.  You can translate that, historically, the Democrats do a better job with the environment than the Republicans. While both political parties are assaulted by corporations who spend millions of dollars to pursuade politicians to loosen environmental standards for air, water, forest management, and mineral exploration, it is the Democrats who consistently do the better job in protecting the environment. But no one can deny the historical fact that two Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon did a fantastic job when they were presidents. Their environmental records are virtually in the history books. Tricky Dick Nixon was a national disgrace in many other respects. But on the environment, he was a saint. Read my statements carefully. No Republican since Reagan has done a decent job in this regard. GW Bush's record is the absolute worst and will probably remain the worst in history.

Sincerely,
Fishbrain.

PS: regarding the attached snook picture, that speedster swam under my flats boat and stayed hidden for 5 rod bending minutes. I thought that my rod and my wrist were going to explode. Revived, it swam away unscathed and three casts later the lower portion of my rod snapped. But I didn't care one bit.