When Fly Fisherman magazine published an article on the Bush administration's dismal environmental record in the pages of the December 2004 issue, it was guaranteed to raise the hackles of the publications' more conservative readers. While the letters that rolled in were a mixed lot, judging from those printed in the February 2005 issue, those from the right side of the spectrum seemed slightly out of touch.

A complaint, seen in the letters of Rusty Gideon of Hazelton, Idaho, and James McCombs of Concord, California, was that the timing of the article prevented a rebuttal prior to the election, and was seen as an attempt to influence it. This seems to imply that the magazine has some obligation to be non-partisan. This simply is not the case.

Fly Fisherman prides itself, and rightly so, for being a voice for conservation and sustainability. Those of us who enjoy the sport of fly fishing, and especially those who subsist off of what the land provides, should stand behind leaders with sound environmental policies. Bush is not that leader.

As Ralph Cutter's article showed, the administration is doing all it can to parcel out our resources to any corporation willing to use it. As an Alaskan, I've watched our National Forests handed over to the logging industry, the continuing battle to destroy the North Slope and wildlife reserves for indeterminate amounts of oil, and the mining industry turn pristine landscape into pockmarked scars.

As for me, I'm now a new subscriber to Fly Fisherman. It seems a strange thing to battle over, a magazine subscription. But in a time when questioning our leaders is deemed unpatriotic, it's nice to see a magazine that sticks to the principles it was founded on, regardless of the backlash. Perhaps my subscription will offset one of those lost.