Bin Laden might not defeat us, but these guys can.

[illflem]

An organization that has been highly successful in preserving unique land is the Nature Conservatory. Much better approch than the Wildlands Project. When they gain ownership of a piece of land it doesn't mean it's off limits to people, just development, a good deal in my book. A very interesting case is where the long time owners of one of the Santa Barbara Channel Islands CA refused a several million dollar offer on the island from the National Park Service. They instead opted to donate the island to the Nature Conservatory where it remains a working ranch, they didn't want the government taking control and screwing it up. I agree with the NC's take on land stewardship, they are an organization worth supporting.

 

[Power Wagon]

The Nature Conservancy is little better. It still has the same goals overall. It has been known to buy private land and swap it with the government... removing ordinary people from land that was low value, and take high-value recreational land and sell it to developers... MAKING MONEY.



All have the same basic premise - to remove land from use, and permanently idle it. In some cases, such as the island in CA, it just needs a higher price. And, since government has an endless supply of money it doesnt work for (us), they will eventually own it.



I don't belive the people who run nature conservancy are actually of the same stripe as TWP is, but the nature of the organization, and the goals it seeks are as transitory as the management. In 10 years it could be run by radical earth first types, for all we know. However, it's ownership and control over what it buys isn't. That will remain.



Development isn't a dirty word, illflem... I believe much of our problems are not caused by development, but a lack of it. Because of the increasing inability to move away from each other, we are intensively developing the wrong areas.



For instance, here in the WW Valley, we've built over almost all the flat onion growing land, and the WW Sweet Onion is almost extinct. That our population grows is inevitable. That we grow just in the few "approved" areas left is not.



Outside of Walla Walla, specifically, just to the east, is a lot of mountainside. It is not really viable for farming (some is), but we're not allowed to build there or to develop there. Instead, we're left with growing over our farm land, and in the narrow corridors along the highways. Not only would it be wonderful living, if partitioned off in larger plots (several acres), but it would have almost no impact on the rivers (runoff from our streets and parking lots and such, as well as from our lawns, etc, etc), reduce congestion, not hurt wildlife (there is very little, just a few deer and a lot of rodents), and retain lower-priced housing, as the supply would more equal demand.



Some would not like it. They would feel thier "view" of the mountains would be "ruined" (it does make nice pictures sometimes), but they are the very same who whine and moan we've paved over our good farmland. But, in this case, development would be good, not bad. Just a short ways up the hill from me is an area that was settled by a lot of ranchers at the turn of the century. Most of it is either grazed by cattle (not very many per acre) or just left idle. Nobody can build up there even though it's all privately owned. Why? 160 or 230 acres per house minimum because "deer and elk forage". Of all the times I've been there, I can't recall the deer caring a whit I drove by and I never saw an elk. Instead, we're crammed into this town like I am on a 50 foot wide lot.



Basically, intelligent development is required. And we should be trying to do that. The federales should attempting to get us to spread out, to minimize our impact, rather than intensify human activity in increasingly smaller areas.



To make a simple analogy... If the kids playing on your grass tended to wear it down, would the situation be helped if you roped off a bunch and told them they could only play on part of it? No, it would destroy the small area completely. You'd be better off if you could get them to play on the front lawn, back lawn, and the field out back in turns.



But, this is what we're doing. We're taking our national forests and telling people they can use increasingly smaller areas for recreation... and the more impact it has on those, the smaller we make the areas. And, when that doesn't work, the environmentalists say... "Well, that's proof you should NEVER be there. " Come on... I KNOW you can't be in agreement with that kind of thinking.

 

[Power Wagon]

Re: Civilization

Originally posted by Champane Flight

. We automatically assume they are after our way of life. I still think not.

from here: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=153941&article=18230



just lil' ol' me

I'm afraid it's all over but the funeral

Fri Oct 26 13:04:58 2001





After being in Ag for 30+ years we've called it quits. Our home is officially for sale, our herds are scheduled for auction, sold the tractors this morning. The enviros won. There not right, but they won. We can't afford to keep fighting them. Costs have increased to the point that we make more at our part-time jobs. The animal rights fruitcakes have harassed us to death. The clean water nuts have cut our pasturage by 30%. Now the Department of Ag. has some hair-brained idea that requires us to notify them before we move the location of animals or the facility we use for them. Anti-terrorism is the reason. They are taking GPS readings of all our barns, sheds, wells, as well as the GPS readings of where our livestock are kepy or pastured. The enviros cost us all a fortune with there insanity. I haven't seen one who "works" for a living. They just tell everyone else what to do and how they have to do it. Good luck Klamath, but I think it's all over for you as well as the rest of us who don't want to live in the anthills they want to relegate us to.



Came across this article. Do the enviro-nuts pay for these outrages? No, we do!



Friday, Oct. 26, 2001

Dead Snake Costs California $1 Million





When California officials found a garter snake lying dead at a construction site, alarm bells rang and state officials scurried around while all work was shut down for over two weeks to unlock the mystery surrounding the tiny serpent's death.



The construction delay at San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system airport extension project cost a whopping $1. 04 million.



According to reporter Aaron Davis, finding the snake, which is listed as a member of one of those precious endangered species without which mankind cannot survive, sparked an investigation to determine the cause of the snake's death by the sleuths at California's Department of Fish and Game.



Writing in the Mercury News, Davis reported that the lost time and wages added up to over $1 million.



"Nobody has ever been able to find out what happened to the snake, and there was no evidence of foul play," BART spokesman Mike Healy told the Mercury News. "There was no evidence that the contractor or anyone was directly at fault. "



Healy added that BART has spent nearly $6 million to comply with environmental laws. That included the cost of rounding up 77 snakes and relocating them during construction. They have since been brought back home to slither around their native habitat to their heart's content.



The $1. 04 million expense, Davis reported, is just a tiny fraction of the nearly $50 million already spent out of the $69 million BART set aside for unforeseen costs in the extension.



The BART line to San Francisco Airport is due to open in December 2002 at a total cost of $1. 48 billion, providing no more dead garter snakes show up around the digs.



No plans were announced for a memorial service for the world's most expensive garter snake, or for the taxpayers who got stuck with the bill for the post-mortem costs.





===================



The people at TWP would weep for joy.

 

[Champane Flight]

Over the edge

It seems to me that after reading about the kalamath thing,that man has screwed this whole thing up. From 1910 on it has gotten worse and worse. Until to date I really don't think anyone has a handle on how it got so out of hand. Everyone has a cause just some have NO common sense to go with it.



I have a freind who works on one of Teds ranchs in Northern NM. They have several endangered species on this ranch and are also running buffalo. I do NOT like this man,however from what I hear he has done some good with his wealth.



Water rights and lawsuits have hobbled the farmers in the Arkansas valley of Colo to. After Kansas started the lawsuits against Colo for the so-called water we were taking from them.

After years and years of court battles the only people who got something out of it are the lawyers.

 

[Power Wagon]

Re: Over the edge

Originally posted by Champane Flight

It seems to me that after reading about the kalamath thing,that man has screwed this whole thing up. From 1910 on it has gotten worse and worse. Until to date I really don't think anyone has a handle on how it got so out of hand. Everyone has a cause just some have NO common sense to go with it.

Not at all.



The original Klamath Lake (1800's) was so shallow and so putrid animals would not drink from it. And we are expected to belive that suckers flourished in it. After the Link River Dam was built, the level of the lake has been raised considerably. On the order of some 10-15 feet, even in a drought year. The swampy areas on the edges of the lake have been somewhat abated, flooding ended, and now there's water to put down the river that never existed in 1900.



Man has not "ruined" the Klamath Lake, nor the Klamath Basin. Without his intervention, the habitat and food supply of many migratory birds would be considerably reduced. The farmers even pumped water from their wells to put into the wildlife preserve after the greens had it cut off.



Man AND fish AND foul all exist there and the use of the land and the activities of all can and do benefit all.



I have found original research by scientists that show that the green's insistence upon maintaining artificially high lake levels is the probable CAUSE of the fish dying in it. As if we REALLY needed to cultivate a fish that nobody wants and serves no purpose we can find. It's as if we found that tumbleweeds were an endangered species. Would to God it were so!



There has been no "deterioration" of the area until the last 2 decades. Strangely enough, the suckerfish have lived for more than 8 decades of the water being used for power and irrigation, and suddenly, in the course of 8 or so years, they have suddenly become "endangered" by the very thing that gave them a place to live.



The supposed "endangered" coho in the Klamath are really just hatchery fish that spawned in the area after having been imported to the area near the turn of the century.



As I've told you before... the green movement is a massive scam, preying upon reasonable people who believe in good stewardship and responsible use for goals that don't even faintly resemble either.

 

[Power Wagon]

Here is the summary of the research

Hearing: To conduct oversight on the Klamath Project in Oregon, including implementation of PL 106-498 and how the project might operate in what is projected to be a short water year.

Date and Time:

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 2:00 p. m.



Location:

Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 628



Witness Name and Title:

Alex Horne, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA

Testimony:



Chairman Smith and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing. My name is Alex Horne and for the last 30 years I have been a professor of Ecological Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Ecological Engineering involves the manipulation of aquatic environments to improve water quality and wildlife habitat using renewable resources. It is the "green" version of Environmental Engineering. My education includes degrees in Zoology, Biochemistry, Limnology and Oceanography and I am the author of the best-selling textbook on limnology (the study of inland waters). I have carried out research on lakes and their management since 1964 and have worked on hundreds of lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, rivers, estuaries, and oceans in most continents. I have worked on shallow lakes and reservoirs and wetlands in the semi-arid Western United States. In particular, I have designed systems for large reservoirs that have stopped the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fish and have designed several large wetlands that remove hundreds of tons of nutrients annually. I have designed several systems that reversed eutrophication in large water bodies. I am actively working on other large systems, including a $15 million five-method project in Lake Elsinore that uses in-lake techniques and watershed wetlands for the prevention of fish kills and eutrophication in several shallow lakes.



Upper Klamath Lake is the largest reservoir for the Klamath Irrigation Project. Its quality is poor, especially in summer, a condition that has occurred for many decades. The lake is also a habitat for endangered fish species. Poor water quality is a problem for these species and has been associated with fish kills. Recently, regulatory requirements have been proposed that would hold the lake at higher than historic elevations in the belief that could improve water quality and avoid fish kills. I was retained in October 2000 by Klamath Water Users Association to investigate the relationships between lake depth, water quality and fish kills, as well as to identify means for water quality improvement. My analysis and recommendations appear in the report entitled "Protecting the Beneficial Uses of Waters of Upper Klamath Lake: A Plan to Accelerate Recovery of the Lost River and Shortnose Suckers. " With me today is David Vogel, a biologist, who also contributed to the report.



Summary



In Upper Klamath Lake, as in many lakes, determining the cause of fish kills is extraordinarily difficult. Fish kills are rapid and unexpected and often occur at night. When a fish kill is discovered, the conditions that caused it have usually vanished. All parties seem to agree that eutrophication in Upper Klamath Lake causes poor water quality that directly or indirectly promotes fish kills. If the lake were less eutrophic fish kills would be reduced or eliminated.



Reversal of eutrophication is possible. The 1972 Clean Water Act funded domestic and industrial sewage treatment that reduced algae-stimulating nutrients and cleaned up many of the Nation’s lakes and rivers. However, shallow lakes with large drainage basins have not been so easily restored, in part because nutrients come from many diffuse sources.



A major concern at Upper Klamath Lake is the effect of small changes in water elevation on eutrophication, the health of the fish and water quality. Most limnologists and lake managers believe that "more is better" in terms of lake size and depth. However, this is not always true in relatively shallow lakes. Fish kills in Upper Klamath Lake are not correlated with lake elevation. Fish kills have occurred at higher elevations and have not occurred at the lowest elevations. The same conclusion has been reached for other large shallow lakes. The only common factor is that kills occur in the warmest season and this weather condition results in periods of temporary thermal stratification. Unlike the more familiar seasonal stratification in deep lakes that lasts from spring to fall, temporary stratification lasts only a few days or weeks and may involve only small temperature differences. Temporary stratification is common in shallow lakes in warm weather. Following certain kinds of weather patterns, temporary stratification produces a layer of warmer buoyant water that floats on top of a cooler denser layer. The two layers do not mix for several days but when mixing (de-stratification) does occur fish kills can result. I conclude that this temporary thermal Stratification and DeStratification (SDS) is the reason for most fish kills in shallow lakes. I believe that others concur that SDS is an important, if not the only, cause of fish kills. In my opinion, SDS is the most probable cause, direct and indirect, of fish kills in Upper Klamath Lake.



The mechanism by which fish die from SDS is that during the temporary stratification in the warmest part of the year, toxicants and nutrients build up in the deeper water. When the water mixes again the fish are exposed to toxicants and have no refuge. The nutrients mixed into the surface waters stimulate eutrophication and algae growth and the process re-enforces itself over time. In particular, hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and soluble gas, is produced in sediments that are anoxic (lacking oxygen). Ammonia, phosphate and other undesirable chemicals are produced under the same anoxic conditions. SDS causes kills of fish and other water creatures in the summer in the very large Salton Sea where only the shallow edge water contains healthy biota in summer. Fish kills caused by toxic substances released by SDS are often rapid. However, if sufficient dilution is available, toxic effects may be chronic and the fish become sick rather than dead. During this time they are more susceptible to disease, especially gill diseases and hydrogen sulfide produced by SDS causes damage to gill membranes.



When temporary thermal stratification occurs in shallow water, the thickness of the buoyant upper layer is similar, regardless of the total depth. However, the thickness of the deeper less buoyant layer is very different and larger for the deeper water. Fish in water with only a thin deep layer are less likely to suffer SDS-induced toxicity than fish in water with a thick deep layer. The shallower total depth results in a smaller volume of deeper anoxic water relative to the fixed volume of the upper oxygenated layer. For example in relatively shallow water, if the two layers produced by temporary thermal stratification had equal volume and the sediment releases 1 mg/L of toxicants to the lower layer, then the toxicant will be diluted to 0. 5 mg/L when the two layers mixed. If the water were one-third deeper, the lower layer would be twice the volume of the upper layer and the concentration of the pollutant when the layers mixed would be 0. 67 mg/L. After mixing the deeper water would be more toxic to fish after mixing (0. 67 mg/L of toxicant) than the shallower water (0. 5 mg/L of toxicant).



For these reasons, the probable effect of requiring Upper Klamath Lake to operate to greater depth is to promote rather than discourage fish kills. At other relatively shallow lakes where I have worked, the presumption or argument was initially made, incorrectly, that deeper is better. It would be very unfortunate to repeat this experience, given the significant stakes involved.



Solutions



A major purpose of our report is to promote recovery of endangered suckers. This includes many measures identified by Mr. Vogel, which are described in the report. Suggested solutions to the water quality problems at Upper Klamath Lake include active and passive management strategies. Prime among these solutions are deeper water oxygenation and nutrient removal wetlands near the inflows. Oxygenation would prevent toxicity following SDS and would reverse eutrophication. Wetlands could remove nutrients before they reach they lake and thus reduce eutrophication. I have used these methods to successfully eliminate fish kills and reverse eutrophication in other lakes. Other methods to improve water quality are also described in the report. Studies to clean up the lake and reverse eutrophication and research to determine the effectiveness of lake management techniques should be carried out alongside the other studies at Upper Klamath Lake.

 

[illflem]

I've wondered if the Klamath Basin farmers actually came out ahead with the water shut off. With the profits in agriculture being as they are paying the water bill would just put them deeper in the hole, as would just growing a crop period. I know that before I got out of the apple business it was more economic to leave the land bare. I just hope they didn't have to pay for water they didn't receive. In my case I had to pay the water bill even if I didn't use a drop.

 

[Power Wagon]

Sadly, no. The preponderance of farmers in the area have yet to see dollar one from any source whatsoever, except for the generosity of individuals who have contributed to the relief funds.



Government money amounts to roughly 20 to 40 dollars per acre... In other words, from about 10 bucks to less, to about 10 bucks more than just the assessment for maintaining the water system. Or, at least that's the analysis of the local county ag offices.



So far, I am unsure if any funding has been distributed at all, although if it hasn't been, it will be shortly.



Some farmers made out reasonably well be selling their water to the BOR early in the year. Those that didn't sell just got the water taken without even a thank you. As with your situation, failure to pay the assessments to the KID (irrigation dist) result in liens and foreclosure on your land.



For most of the summer, the BOR has been releasing water down the river at considerably greater rates than have been mandated, as much as 40% greater than the rate demanded by the various agencies. In other words, there COULD have been some water, but it has been dumped down the river while the BOR said there was no way to maintain lake levels and irrigate. While the level of the lake was see-sawing back and forth this fall, the BOR kept releasing more and more water to continue the downward level of the lake. At one point, it was determined that 1000 units (cfs? cubc feet/second) were required for adequate river flow, the BOR never fell below 1010, and at one point had almost 1400 flowing while their lawyers were in court saying it was impossible to meet streamflow needs (at 1000) and maintain the lake level at the demanded elevation. Yet, they were able to produce a s treamflow of 1400 and the lake never did reach the minimum level.



About a week after this became public, several agencies suddenly revised their demands, and now say that 1300 is required, not 1000, as was before. And the green groups are now making rumblings that what they really want is more like 1500 to 2000. If perchance we had a wet winter, the 1000 figure and even the 1400 figure would leave water for the farmers. So, constant revisions are being made sometimes within a week of each other, to stay ahead of next year's predicted water supply. In the meantime, the Klamath Lake continues to produce water far in excess of the "legal" requirements, yet the BOR will NOT allow the excess to be used for irrigation. As it is now, many of of the farms cut off needed to be deep-watering the ground in preparation for a low-water summer next year, but the water is being dumped down the river instead.



And so, over 200 wells in the area have dried up. This has NEVER happened before. There have been many years and even a spell of much worse drought in the past, yet there is no record of wells going dry. Basically, cutting off the irrigation has also caused pumping and has polluted the underground aquifer as well. Yet, without any particularly valid (and very easily disputable) opinions by researchers paid for by the green groups, the entire region is basically being destroyed from the underground up.



But, as I have said all along. . . the green groups don't really care abou that. They just want the farmers gone. They said so a decade ago. In meetings and rallies by outsiders in Klamath Falls, directors of various oregon and nationally based told the residents of the region that "In ten years you will not be here". They've missed it by a few years, but that was their intention and so far, they are slowly succeeding.



Never mind that the lack of water and farming activity has caused considerable losses to the bald eagle population of the area... The eagles fished in the reserve's lakes (fed by the klamath irrigation project, no less), and consumed rodents and other small life that lived in abundance on the farms. Local authorities fear that the numbers will have decreased considerably just from this year's events, and that if it happens again next year, we'll see a huge loss. When confronted with this information, the green groups merely respond "you're lying and you should never have been there in the first place". I guess they mean the eagles and geese and other migratory birds too.

 

[CGoyette]

wow we have got way to serious

I left for a day and wow you guys are getting right serious.



I just love the woods and I enjoy it more when I come back from a overseas dump..... I will enjoy it again in the spring.

Curt

 

[Champane Flight]

Best

I am talking about the policys of man that affect nature here. Everyone has a axe to grind it seems and the people in general that always think they know what is best for nature. Does anyone really know(except the enity who created it)?I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle as usual. As far as large conspiracy,Naaa. Just another example of mis-managment by goverment and policy makers. And the fact of severe drought.

 

[Power Wagon]

Direct from those who live it...

Original posting here: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=153941&article=18280

<b>

marsh

"Winning Strategy"

Sat Oct 27 21:48:50 2001





Just heard tonight that farmers and ranchers in our Shasta Valley just got letters from The Nature Conservancy (I believe) offering options on the purchase of their land for "fair market value. "



Just like the Klamath Basin, the land has been rendered virtually valueless by the proposed CA state coho listing. Realators must disclose that the DWR and DFG have stated that it is their opinion that minimum instream flow requirements for fish will supercede pre-1914 adjudicated water use rights. (Our water use rights in this area date back to the Gold Rush - many as early as the 1850s. )



Although under CESA, the irrigator is held only to a "no kill" standard, the Shasta system's adjudication is administered by the state watermaster and it is felt he will be required to assert the flows.



Ironically, the flows don't do a damned (thing) on the Shasta as far as temperature (prime limmiting factor) is concerned. http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/stockman.html



Anyway, now that the conservancies have had such a winning strategy in the Klamath Basin by force-creation of willing sellers, they have decided to duplicate the strategy here. I gues it will be replicated across the West until the Greenies "preserve" most of it from man.



This is obviously a full blown strategy from their Hexagon Project. http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/overview.html#need

If they don't do it, the California Legacy Program will http://ccrisp.ca.gov/



This makes me so angry I could spit nails. How the blazes is Siskiyou County supposed to survive if timber, ag and mining are taken from it? We have no industry and tourism requires a destination. </b>

Tell me, CF, what evil have these people done? None. And you advocate that we should be "somewhere in the middle". In the middle of what? Somewhere between "destruction" and "complete destruction" of everything in their lives?



That's why I say, to bloody heck with compromise. We must WIN. Our national existence depends on it.

 

[Power Wagon]

http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/new_page_59.htm



http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/



http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/news.htm



http://www.ruralcleansing.com/



http://fof-pfusa.org/



http://www.saveourdams.com/



http://www.green-watch.com/



http://www.landrights.org/



http://www.oia.org/



http://www.buchal.com/



http://www.savetrailsend.org/





There are some here who take our liberties for granted, and even speak against those who try to sound an alarm about few and powerful and wealthy who have decided to try to hijack the entire country for their own foolish desires. I hope you read at least some of the links above and realize that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. That freedom cannot EVER be compromised... not even a little. Because compromise is never on the side of more, it is always on the side of less. Our country has compromised immensely in it's freedoms, yet those compromises have provided us absolutely nothing in return except empty promises by politicians who forget their words the day they speak them.

 

[Champane Flight]

Tend to

I am tending to agree with you PW. The cases you stated above are good proof that there are people within our own goverment out for private gains. I know myself in same poisition as Hage,would have opened up on the forest service when I found them moving my cattle. And surely would have sent some lead their way at the sight of armed agents on my property!



However at that point I would have been labeled an extremist and had the FBI,ATF,and several other agencies out after me. We need to have some right to protect our property and if all else fails,arm. If enough people do this it just might wake up a few.



Most of the ranchers in my area have good repore with the forest service and are grazing on national grassland for pennys. They also have the forest service put in wells and water tanks on said property. No cost to them. Every once in awhile there is a squable over how much per acre or who has what section,but all in all it works out.