 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Friends and Enemies of Fish in Congress |
|
|
|
All 535 Members of Congress Rated on the Basis of their
Voting Records, Actions and Legislative Initiatives |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Who are the real "Friends of Fish" and who are the "Enemies of Fish" in the U.S. Congress?
Who should the nation's 70 million fishermen vote for (and against) in Congressional elections?
Do YOU know? |
|
|
|
|
How did our Senators and Representatives vote on issues that will determine how many fish we have in the future? Are they voting "for the fish" and thus for the long-term interests of all U.S. fishermen, or for those who profit from resource destruction? Did they vote to protect water quality, or vote to allow polluters, water diverters and wetland destroyers to do more damage to our lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters? Did they vote to allow more overfishing and waste or to manage fishing to promote sustainable catch levels again? Will their votes add to fish population declines or will they promote better fishing in the future? |
|
|
|
Below, we've evaluated the position each of the 535 Members of Congress took on a series of 125 key fishery-related issues over the last four years. They included clean water, wetlands, fishery management, endangered species, land and water use, and a variety of related conservation issues. Descriptions of the issues selected for evaluation can be found using the link at the bottom of this page. Many of these issues are highly complex and thus require substantial expertise to understand and evaluate. We've tried to do this hard part for you. Let us know if you disagree with any Member's rating. If we're wrong, we'll change it. |
|
|
|
This assessment of all Senators' and Representatives' voting records on fishery-related issues is provided so the nation's
70 million anglers, commercial fishermen, supporting industries and the millions of others who are also concerned about the conservation of marine and freshwater fish and their habitats can make informed decisions on Election Day. It allows fishermen, industry and other conservationists to understand which Members of Congress are working hard to protect our fish and their essential habitats - rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, bays, and coastal waters - and which ones are helping to eliminate fish and destroy their supporting environments thus affecting fish populations and our future fishing. |
|
|
|
The Ratings are presented on three pages (see link below) and are listed by state in alphabetical order. If a Member supported the conservation of fish more than half the time on these 125 issues evaluated, we included that Member among the "Friends of Fish" in the U.S. Congress. Those who voted more than half the time against the interests of fish, their habitat and the nation's fishermen, were lumped with the Congressional "Enemies of Fish." Extra credit was earned or deducted for Members' legislative initiatives. In fact, most "Friends" voted for the interests of fish and their habitats more than 75% of the time. By an even greater percentage, the "Enemies" could be expected to routinely vote against the interests of fish and the nation's fishermen. There's a big difference between the two groups, and it's easy to decide into which group most Members fell. Political philosophy has a lot to do with how they voted. For those few in the middle, we looked at how they voted on the most critical issues to fish. |
|
|
|
A Member's pattern of voting on the whole group of issues is key, not just how they may have acted on a single legislative issue. Others who have rated Congress gave high marks to Members that sponsored legislation they favored - even though that Member might have voted against the interest of fish and fishermen more than 90 percent of the time on other, even more important issues. We do not give our favorable rating so easily. |
|
|
|
With few exceptions, we found that Republicans voted against fish, their environments and fishermen's long-term interests on most of the issues evaluated. Notable exceptions to the Republican pattern were Representatives Saxton, Shays, LoBiondo, Gilman, Morella, and Boehlert - all of whom voted consistently for fish and thus for the long-term interests of fishermen. They have proven that they deserve substantial political support from fishermen, the fishing industry and the conservation community. |
|
|
|
We also noted that the majority of Democrats were strong supporters of protecting fish and their environments, taking the "right" position on virtually every issue we assessed. Those Democrats that deserve special recognition for their legislative initiatives in support of fish are Senators Torricelli, Wellstone, and Kerry and Representatives George Miller, Pallone, Delahunt, DeFazio, Eshoo, Pelosi and Farr. They also deserve substantial political support. Exceptions to the rule - those Democrats who generally voted against the long-term interests of fish and fishermen - included Senators Breaux, Landrieu and Ben Nelson, and a few conservative Representatives. |
|
|
|
Finally, we developed a list of the "Best Friends" and the "Worst Enemies" of Fish for those Senators and Representatives who set the highest and lowest standards relative to the interests of fish and thus to fishermen. To be selected among the "Best Friends of Fish" in Congress, a Member would have had to vote for the long-term interests of fish and for fishermen at least 90% of the time (including no "wrong" votes on critical issues). Alternatively, those Senators and Representatives who distinguished themselves by voting at least 90% of the time against the interests of fish, their environment and thus fishermen's long-term interests, were included on the list of the "Worst Enemies of Fish" in the U.S. Congress. To see the "winners" and "losers" click the link below. |
|
|
|
Ratings
Alabama through Kentucky
Louisiana through Oregon
Pennsylvania through Wyoming
"Best and Worst - House"
"Best and Worst - Senate"
List of Issues Used in the Ratings
Home Page
Chambers and Associates |
|