Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Click on the poll on the right side of the page.
1 posted on 06/01/2007 6:40:10 PM PDT by AVNevis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: AVNevis

as of now

Do you think efforts to save endangered fish are worthy of jeopardizing the state’s water supply?
Choice Votes Percentage of 157 Votes
Yes 68 43%
No 89 57%


2 posted on 06/01/2007 6:42:28 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AVNevis

Do I put yes or no ?


3 posted on 06/01/2007 6:42:56 PM PDT by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AVNevis

No 64% Yes 36%


8 posted on 06/01/2007 7:41:48 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AVNevis

Absolutely.

No smelt = no salmon

no salmon = no salmon eggs

no salmon eggs = no REAL trout fishing

no REAL trout fishing = end of Civilization As We Know It, water-flogging fly-”fishermen” to the contrary.

SAVE THE SMELT;
SAVE CIVILIZATION!

NO FISH-BLOOD FOR LAWNS!

Okay; that’s out of my system; it is now FReeped.

I have to wonder how much water would be saved, if all of California’s illegal aliens were removed from the equation? Gosh, that might even affect gas & electric supplies, too.


9 posted on 06/01/2007 11:38:22 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson