Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (129553)	12/12/2000 12:15:21 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570739

Eric, I'm sure that you thoroughly investigated the fishing ban before you commented. I wouldn't mind if there were still some fish left for my Grandchildren, though I understand that concern for the future is not a big issue with the party of 5 trillion in debt and big tax cuts planned. Scumbria

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (129553)	12/12/2000 12:18:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1570739

There are over a quarter million recreational anglers in Hawaii whose activity contributes an astounding $238 billion to the local Hawaiian economy. These benefits could be impacted by this order. And how much do you think they will contribute when there are no fish left? ted

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (129553)	12/12/2000 3:27:10 PM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570739

Clinton banned recreational fishing from approximately 4 million acres off the northwest Hawaiian Islands and restricted the activity in another 80 million acres. There are over a quarter million recreational anglers in Hawaii whose activity contributes an astounding $238 billion to the local Hawaiian economy. That is truly astounding! If AMD could have had only 1% of that business, it would have increased their revenue by 50%. I'll bet Intel Capital already bought into such a huge opportunity and this will really hurt. Goutama?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (129553)	12/12/2000 4:16:45 PM
From: survivin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570739

OT Eric, could you find a more biased source to cite? If you looked deeper into the story you would find some serious inaccuracies with their twist. But, considering the source—World Billfish series—it is an understandable spin. First, considering that Hawaii has barely more than 1 mil. residents, their claim that 25% of the people fish is ludicrous. Never mind that this ban is on the NW Hawaiian Islands spreading out some 1500 miles beyond Kauai(pop. ~55k)which is far beyond the casting range of the least populated of the major islands. This ban only includes hundreds of tiny atolls and islands such as Johnston Atoll, which all told probably have a population of <500. Further, a $238 bil. "recreational" fishery is a fantasy. Maybe it is a misquote and should read more like $238 million? I'm assuming they are looking at the famous charter boat industry out of the Kona on the Big Island for guidance, but none of those charters comes anywhere near the protected zone over 300 miles away. Kauai's charter fleet is tiny and even these don't venture into the protected zone for any appreciable length of time. You need to know what is happening in Hawaii's fisheries before you can make any opinion on the impact of Clinton's action. Did you know Hawaii's longline fleet grew from less than 40 boats in the early 90's to over 135 today? Did you also know that these boats relocated here from the once great fishing industries of the NE (Georges bank, the Grand Banks)and the Gulf after they were fished into near extinction? Did you also know that the federal government directed these boatowners towards Hawaii without any federally mandated impact study determining the potential devastation to an ecosystem in perfect balance. I'm sure you realize these longliners individually place 40 miles of lines into the water with thousands of hooks snagging turtles, monk seals, sea birds, sharks, etc., all key players in Hawaii's ecosystem. By the way, once hooked they're typically dead in the water. In the monk seals case there are less than a 1000 left. Currently, a federal judge has stopped much of the longlining pending an EIS on the impact. Aside from the fish destruction, the protection of one of the most incredible coral reef systems in the world, likely second only to the Great Barrier reef, is commendable, not laudable. President Clinton has performed a great service for this nation while building his legacy. I'll gladly pay extra for fish if it means my descendants can enjoy these treasures. Wouldn't you? Before you take a position you might want to examine both sides to a story. Relying on that source alone is equivocal to relying on Rush for the story of the election debacle. You wouldn't do that—would you?