Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
From The Oregonian, Nov. 14, 2002, p B9
Report says Klamath panel erred Two OSU scientists criticize a national panel's finding that withholding water from farms was unjustified By MICHAEL MILSTEIN, The Oregonian A national science panel's finding that the 2001 federal decision to withhold water from Klamath Basin farms was unjustified is laden with errors and has mainly served to fuel resentment of environmental laws, two Oregon State University researchers say. The science panel chose data selectively to support its rushed conclusions, and in one instance its chairman referred to a species of fish that does not exist in the Klamath Basin, the Oregon researchers said in a paper submitted for publication in the journal Fisheries. "Politicians have assumed that (the review) has primacy in the scientific debate, when in fact its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness," say the researchers, fisheries professor Douglas Markle and graduate student Michael Cooperman. They are among the first outside scientists to scrutinize the work of the panel formed by the National Research Council at Interior Secretary Gale Norton's request after the Klamath Basin's bitter water struggles of 2001. The researchers said it is wrong to treat the panel's findings as the "definitive opinion for Klamath Basin water management," as federal agencies have done. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation used the findings to justify cutting back water for fish this year. That left less for salmon, which later suffered a massive die-off in the Klamath River. The Oregon State paper has undergone peer review. Markle and Cooperman declined to release it, but The Oregonian obtained a pre-publication copy. One of the 12 members of the National Research Council panel said the group would weight the Oregon researchers' criticism when compiling a final Klamath Basin report, due out in January. "It's like everything else; we'll read it, and we'll think about it," said Michael Pace of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y. After three months of work, the national panel issued an interim report early this year. The panel concluded there was no scientific justification for last year's federal decision to hold water in Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River for fish protected by the Endangered Species Act. The federal move had left little water for farms in the Klamath Project as they weathered a severe drought. Farmers and politicians welcomed the national panel's finding as proof that cutting off water to farms was not based on "sound science." They have used it nationally to argue for reform of the Endangered Species Act. But Markle and Cooperman said the National Research Council group looked for simple biological explanations that are rare in a complex ecosystem such as the Klamath Basin. It also discarded competing opinions that are routine within the science world, they said. "Unfortunately, the committee missed an opportunity to help the public understand the process of science," they wrote. "Instead, its staff, in a public forum, claimed infallibility in this debate, and its chair, in a congressional forum, dismissed dissenting peer reviews of their report as coming from people with 'obvious bias.'" The OSU researchers said "the primary impact has been to increase resentment of resource laws and agencies." Their paper was submitted to the journal Fisheries about two months ago an reviewed by seven anonymous scientists, who returned it with comments and criticisms. Markle and Cooperman revised the paper to address the comments and resubmitted it to the journal, where it is awaiting publication, they said. The paper also has circulated among Klamath basin farmers. Last week, Dan Keppen of the Klamath Water Users Association said the paper "appears to be more a political assessment instead of an objective look at the science." Markle and Cooperman cite a series of factual errors in the National Research Council panel's conclusions, such as giving incorrect years when water quality in Upper Klamath Lake was especially poor, using faulty fish population models and selecting data that supported "a conclusion they had already reached." Five months after the panel was formed, its chairman referred to problems involving longnose suckers - a fish species that does not exist in the Klamath Basin, they said. The scientific work of both federal agencies an the national panel has shortcomings, the two researchers said, but neither should be labeled "not sound science." Posted as a courtesy by Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
Klamath Basin water fight has highly organized interests attempting to
assert domination over finite water supplies. The large number of organizations and the financial clout of these organizations calls into question any "scientific report" of only two researchers, who widely circulated their report to one side of the issue before publication. Bias and conflict of interest investigations are appropriate. The "questions" raised by this report are insubstantial, interim mistakes likely to be caught before final decisions, such as misidentifying the name of a fish species. Other reports, made at such grave risk to employment security as to invoke whistleblower protection, provide a contrary viewpoint, and lead to opposite conclusions. While issues reported in the press may be hastily published without thorough fact-checking, over time the underlying biosociopathy will be evident. Below are a few of the special interest webpages promoting private property interests above treaty obligations to affected Klamath tribes, and biosociopathically ignoring duty to future generations to preserve a world as good as they got. ============================== http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/ "Klamath Basin Farmers and Ranchers, Fighting for Their Rights to Irrigate and Caretake Their Natural Resources" ============================== http://www.klamathwaterfoundation.org/ The Klamath Water Foundation is a local non-profit organization to unite the agricultural, business and community interests to network with one another, while retaining their individual autonomies. The Foundation strives to secure and sustain reliable irrigation water for the Klamath Basin. * * * The foundation is comprised of various specialized departments which focus on a large variety of pertinent Klamath Basin water issues such as communications, education, political awareness and the environment. Each department is chaired by interested and qualified Klamath Basin residents and offers extensive participation and interaction by local individuals. ============================== http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/klamath%20crisis.htm ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS Montanans for Multiple Use Mission Statement: Our goal is to enhance access to public lands for everyone. Our purpose is to educate the public on the need for balanced environmental laws and public land use issues.** MFMU believes that through the intelligent use of natural resources we can meet the needs of people as well as the needs of the rest of our natural world. With this in mind MFMU supports the "New Environmentalism" based on hope instead of fear, solutions instead of conflict, education instead of litigation, science instead of emotion, and employing rather than destroying human resources.* Klamath Water Fight... ============================== http://www.waterforlife.net/Klamath/ The Klamath Basin Water Crisis ** ***** Following consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine fisheries service.* The Bureau of Reclamation shut down irrigation deliveries to over 150,000 acres of family farms, cutting off their life blood for survival.* The human cost is massive, not only to those farmers who depend upon the water to grow crops, but to all elements of the economy, including Hispanic farmworkers, equipment dealerships, irrigation district workers, and lost tax revenues for basic services. **** This is just the latest event in a lengthy saga to effect farmers and Ranchers in the Klamath Basin, Irrigators are enduring a* lengthy Klamath Adjudication, where the Oregon Water Resources Department is attempting to divide up the water.* The Klamath Tribes and the US Government have filed claims for substantially more water than physically exists. ****** * Thanks to all those who supported Klamath Agriculture in the peaceful rally May 7th at Veterans Memorial Park, and along Main Street.* The Bucket Brigade was a huge success with 12,000-20,000 people attending. ============================== http://www.petitiononline.com/klamath/petition.html * Let the Irrigation Water Flow in the Klamath Basin of Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * View Current Signatures * - * Sign the Petition To:* The County Commissioners of Klamath County Oregon, the Sheriff of Klamath County Oregon, the Governor of Oregon, the Oregon House of Representatives, the Oregon Senate, the President of the United States of America, the Senate of the United States of America, the House of Representatives of the United States of America, the Citizens of Klamath County, the citizens of the State of Oregon and the citizens of the United States of America We, the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, being aware of the emergency water and irrigation situation in the Klamath Basin of Oregon State, and being aware of the blatantly harmful and unconstitutional actions of Agencies of the Federal government with respect to that situation (please review The Klamath Basin Crisis at www.klamathbasincrisis.org and articles posted regarding the same at www.freerepublic.com and at www.sierratimes.com), make the following statements: ============================== http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/f...arjj070701.htm Klamath Falls: Where Civil Rights Meets Water Rights ============================== http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/klamwatr.html KlamathWater Use Rights Links ============================== http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/extremeagenda.html Extreme Environmentalist's Agendas***** Article Siskiyou Daily news - "What you need to be aware of is that we are at war," U.S. Congressman Wally Herger told a small group of Siskiyou County residents. "The extreme environmental movement has declared war on us, and we need to declare war back on them."; Press Release, New Report from Environmental Extremists Cites Need For Endangered Species Act: Call On Bush To Save ESA, Species; Letter to Congress Report: Safeguarding Citizen's Rights Under the Endangered Species Act ============================== http://www.perc.org/publications/per...mathfalls.html Klamath's 100-Year Misunderstanding Not just an endangered species issue ============================== http://www.cascadepolicy.org/..%5Cpdf%5Cenv%5CI_119.htm The Klamath Basin crisis: A need for property rights By John A. Charles Introduction On April 5, 2001 the federal government declared that water stored in various reservoirs of the Klamath Project would be withheld from most agricultural uses and used as habitat for the endangered shortnose sucker fish. As a result, nearly 1,400 farmers have gone without irrigation water for most of this summer. While the press has understandably focused on the drama in terms of endangered species versus agriculture, the problem goes much deeper than that. Fundamentally this is a conflict caused by unclear property rights and inappropriate government intervention in the economy. The solution lies in clarifying those rights, creating a market where they can be traded, and minimizing the role of government. Reformers should resist the urge to pick sides in this crisis, and allow changes to emerge gradually through a market process. ============================== |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
Before the fishkill...
============================== http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/.../2judaff3.html Judge affirms Klamath Tribes' water right of time immemorial March 2002 U.S. Water News Online PORTLAND, Ore. -- A federal judge has reaffirmed that the water rights of the Klamath Tribes stretch back to time immemorial, and backed their right to claim water to support food gathering. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Owen M. Panner in Portland did not appear to have an immediate effect on the ongoing battle over water for fish and farms in the Klamath Basin, said tribal attorney Carl Ullman. However, it reaffirms that the tribes have the oldest water right in the basin at a time when that was being challenged under a formal adjudication process to sort out competing claims for water, Ullman said. And it confirms that the tribes have the right to water to support gathering, such as seeds from the wocus plant in basin marshes, as well as hunting and fishing, he said. Last summer, the federal government was forced to shut off irrigation water to most of the Klamath Reclamation Project to maintain reserves for fish, including endangered Lost River suckers and shortnosed suckers which are sacred to the Klamath Tribes. ``This is an important decision for the tribes,'' said tribal chairman Allen Foreman. ``It is vital to protecting the tribes' treaty resources,'' such as hunting, fishing and gathering. The tribes have maintained that the federal government has a responsibility to leave enough water in marshes and lakes to support fishing, hunting and gathering guaranteed by treaty. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...enty150mcom-20
Balancing Water: Restoring the Klamath Basin by Tupper Ansel Blake (Photographer), et al (Hardcover) ISBN: 0520213149 From Book News, Inc. The three collaborators on this oversize (10.5x12.5) volume all have a passionate personal interest in the subject matter. Photographers Tupper Blake and Madeleine Graham Blake use their intimate knowledge of the area to provide the color photos that document the birds, animals, landscape, and human residents of the Klamath Basin of Oregon; writer William Kittredge, who grew up there, provides the text. The book presents a close look at an endangered region whose problems connected with watershed development are echoed throughout the West, and whose restoration efforts--including community involvement--could be models for restoration projects elsewhere.Book News, Inc.®, Portland, OR Book Description The Klamath Basin is a land of teeming wildlife, expansive marshes, blue-ribbon trout streams, tremendous stretches of forests, and large ranches in southern Oregon and northern California. Known to waterfowl, songbirds, and shorebirds, the Klamath Basin's marshlands are a mecca for birds along the Pacific Flyway. This gorgeously illustrated book is a paean to the beauty of the Klamath Basin and at the same time a sophisticated environmental case study of an endangered region whose story parallels that of watershed development throughout the west. A collaboration between two photographers and a writer, Balancing Water tells the story in words and pictures of the complex relationship between the human and natural history of this region. Spectacular images by Tupper Ansel Blake depict resident species of the area, migratory birds, and dramatic landscapes. Madeleine Graham Blake has contributed portraits of local residents, while archival photographs document the history of the area. William Kittredge's essay on the conjunction of conflicting interests in this wildlands paradise is by turns lyrically personal and brimming with historical and scientific facts. He traces the water flowing through the Klamath Basin, the human history of the watershed, and the land-use conflicts that all touch on the availability of water. Ranchers, loggers, town settlers, Native Americans, tourists, and environmentalists are all represented in the narrative, and their diverse perspectives form a complicated web like that of the interactions among organisms in the ecosystem. Kittredge finds hope in the endangered Klamath Basin, both in successful restoration projects recently begun there, and in the community involvement he sees as necessary for watershed restoration and biodiversity preservation. Emphasizing that we must take care of both human economies and the natural environment, he shows how the two are ultimately interconnected. The Klamath Basin can be a model for watershed restoration elsewhere in the west, as we search for creative ways of solving our intertwined ecological and social problems. About the Author Tupper Ansel Blake is a photographer whose books include Tracks in the Sky: Wildlife and Wetlands of the Pacific Flyway (1987), Two Eagles/Dos Aguilas: The Natural World of the United States-Mexico Borderlands (with Peter Steinhart, California, 1994), and Wild California: Vanishing Lands, Vanishing Wildlife (with Peter Steinhart, California, 1985). Madeleine Graham Blake is an exhibiting photographer whose work has appeared at the Pasadena Art Museum, Friends of Photography, and the Monterey Art Museum, as well as other galleries and museums. William Kittredge is a former rancher and creative writing professor at the University of Montana, as well as author of Hole in the Sky: A Memoir (1992), and Who Owns the West (1996). His essays have been published in many collections, including Waste Land: Meditations on a Ravaged Landscape (1997). He grew up in the Klamath Basin. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
In article ,
writes: I think you are confusing reports issued by political action groups and scientists. It is easy to tell which report is being controlled by which biased reporting site. It also puts a lot of egg on supposed "government" scientists which were acting, in actuality, as stooges for the Bush administration. As opposed to the supposed "independent" scientists which were acting, in actuality, as stooges for anti-farming political pressure groups? The Klamath Basin got along fine for decades with routine water management. The drought just opened the door for the preservationists to destroy one more rural community. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
From The Oregonian, Nov. 14, 2002, p B9 Report says Klamath panel erred Two OSU scientists criticize a national panel's finding that withholding water from farms was unjustified By MICHAEL MILSTEIN, The Oregonian A national science panel's finding that the 2001 federal decision to withhold water from Klamath Basin farms was unjustified is laden with errors and has mainly served to fuel resentment of environmental laws, two Oregon State University researchers say. The science panel chose data selectively to support its rushed conclusions, and in one instance its chairman referred to a species of fish that does not exist in the Klamath Basin, the Oregon researchers said in a paper submitted for publication in the journal Fisheries. "Politicians have assumed that (the review) has primacy in the scientific debate, when in fact its speedy construction contributed to multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness," say the researchers, fisheries professor Douglas Markle and graduate student Michael Cooperman. They are among the first outside scientists to scrutinize the work of the panel formed by the National Research Council at Interior Secretary Gale Norton's request after the Klamath Basin's bitter water struggles of 2001. The researchers said it is wrong to treat the panel's findings as the "definitive opinion for Klamath Basin water management," as federal agencies have done. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation used the findings to justify cutting back water for fish this year. That left less for salmon, which later suffered a massive die-off in the Klamath River. The Oregon State paper has undergone peer review. Markle and Cooperman declined to release it, but The Oregonian obtained a pre-publication copy. One of the 12 members of the National Research Council panel said the group would weight the Oregon researchers' criticism when compiling a final Klamath Basin report, due out in January. "It's like everything else; we'll read it, and we'll think about it," said Michael Pace of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y. After three months of work, the national panel issued an interim report early this year. The panel concluded there was no scientific justification for last year's federal decision to hold water in Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River for fish protected by the Endangered Species Act. The federal move had left little water for farms in the Klamath Project as they weathered a severe drought. Farmers and politicians welcomed the national panel's finding as proof that cutting off water to farms was not based on "sound science." They have used it nationally to argue for reform of the Endangered Species Act. But Markle and Cooperman said the National Research Council group looked for simple biological explanations that are rare in a complex ecosystem such as the Klamath Basin. It also discarded competing opinions that are routine within the science world, they said. "Unfortunately, the committee missed an opportunity to help the public understand the process of science," they wrote. "Instead, its staff, in a public forum, claimed infallibility in this debate, and its chair, in a congressional forum, dismissed dissenting peer reviews of their report as coming from people with 'obvious bias.'" The OSU researchers said "the primary impact has been to increase resentment of resource laws and agencies." Their paper was submitted to the journal Fisheries about two months ago an reviewed by seven anonymous scientists, who returned it with comments and criticisms. Markle and Cooperman revised the paper to address the comments and resubmitted it to the journal, where it is awaiting publication, they said. The paper also has circulated among Klamath basin farmers. Last week, Dan Keppen of the Klamath Water Users Association said the paper "appears to be more a political assessment instead of an objective look at the science." Markle and Cooperman cite a series of factual errors in the National Research Council panel's conclusions, such as giving incorrect years when water quality in Upper Klamath Lake was especially poor, using faulty fish population models and selecting data that supported "a conclusion they had already reached." Five months after the panel was formed, its chairman referred to problems involving longnose suckers - a fish species that does not exist in the Klamath Basin, they said. The scientific work of both federal agencies an the national panel has shortcomings, the two researchers said, but neither should be labeled "not sound science." Posted as a courtesy by Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com Hard to say = Look how wrong the experts were on Eye site in HUMANS: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993082 The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service Eye correction is seriously short sighted 19:00 20 November 02 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition Millions of people worldwide may have worse eyesight and even be more likely to go blind because of a long-held but misguided idea about how to correct short-sightedness. A study intended to confirm the theory has instead been stopped because the children's eyesight was getting worse, New Scientist has learned. Decline in eyesight For decades, many optometrists have been routinely "undercorrecting" short-sightedness, or myopia, when prescribing glasses or contact lenses. "What was done was done with the best of intentions," says optometrist Daniel O'Leary of Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, England. Indeed, his study of 94 children in Malaysia sought to prove the value of undercorrection. Instead, it showed the opposite. While the number of children involved was small, amazingly it is the largest and most rigorous study to date. "The study was meant to run for three years but after two years, when we found out we were making the children's eyes worse, we had to stop it prematurely," O'Leary says. "Short-sighted people need to know it's not the thing to do." The results have been hailed by some optometrists as key evidence that could change the way children are treated. "It's the strongest evidence I've seen in this field," says Paul Adler, a spokesman for Britain's College of Optometrists. "It could change prescribing practice worldwide." Epidemic proportions There is still much debate about the causes of myopia, but it is certainly common in children who spend a lot of time reading or doing close work. It has reached epidemic proportions in Far Eastern countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, where 90 per cent of young people are short-sighted, compared with 15 to 30 per cent in Europe and the US. Short-sighted theory In short-sighted people, the muscles in the eye cannot flatten the lens enough to focus light from distant objects directly on the retina. Instead, the point of focus is in front of the retina, creating a blurred image (see graphic). Glasses can fully correct this problem, moving the focal point back onto the retina. But when people wearing normal glasses look at close objects, the focus point is usually behind the retina. The theory is that to try to "refind" this focal point for near objects, their eyeballs actually elongate. Not only does this make distance vision even worse, it also increases the risk of serious eye diseases such as retinal detachment, glaucoma and retinopathy, all of which can lead to blindness. According to this theory, undercorrection should help stop the eyeball elongating. When they undercorrect, optometrists prescribe a lens that focuses light from distant objects just in front of the retina, rather than exactly on the retina. Children and chicks Yet the only proof that it works comes from a study of just 33 Japanese children in 1965, and from studies on chicks in the 1990s. And these studies have since been attacked as lacking rigour or relevance. In their trial, O'Leary and his colleagues at the National University of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, undercorrected the sight of half the children and fully corrected the rest. Then they measured the length of the eyeball with ultrasound every six months. To their surprise, they found that the eyeball elongates faster when vision is undercorrected. As a result, the team reports in a paper that will appear in Vision Research, on average the vision of the 47 children with undercorrected myopia deteriorated more rapidly than those given full correction (see graph). Yet full correction has long been out of fashion. "I had to go back to 1938 to find someone in the literature saying a full correction should be made," O'Leary says. The explanation for his results, O'Leary speculates, is that the eye cannot tell whether the focal point is in front of the retina or behind it. It just grows backwards if the image is out of focus - which means that not wearing glasses might be even worse than undercorrection. "Any blurred vision will make myopia worse," he says. Demolishing assumptions Related Stories Short-sightedness may be tied to refined diet 5 April 2002 Eyeball squeezing could correct sight 21 March 2002 Severed optical nerves can be made to grow again 5 December 2001 For more related stories search the print edition Archive Weblinks Optometry, Anglia Polytechnic University British College of Optometrists Eye development Myopia Vision Research Adler thinks this is a key conclusion that demolishes previous assumptions and could help optometrists develop better treatments in the future. Other researchers, however, think further studies are needed to prove that any kind of blurred vision makes myopia worse. Undercorrection could be bad for adults as well, O'Leary thinks, although any decline is likely to be slower than in children. His findings suggest that generations of people worldwide could have somewhat worse eyesight because of the popularity of undercorrection. The reason is that vision research is not a priority in Europe and the US, O'Leary says. "Studies have been few and far between. It's hard to get funding for myopia research in the West." O'Leary's message to doctors, patients and parents is unequivocal. "No glasses is the worst option of all," he says. "But don't undercorrect. Go for full correction." Andy Coghlan and Michael Le Page For more exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist print edition. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article , writes: Not according to Klamath Tribe members, who had the land before farmers moved in. Of course, their views were not considered by the government... This may come as a shock, but the Indians have their own agenda, as well as having superior water rights in the Klamath Basin. Their agenda is only concerned with fish when it suits their purposes. The Klamath tribes have filed water claims for more water than exists in the Klamath Basin as a bargaining piece in their effort to regain their reservation lands. They will align with any party that furthers their cause, and will abandon any party that hinders their cause. And how exactly does that make them different than land-grabbing water-abusing whites? If it is NOT OK for idians to do it, why is it OK for whites to do it? -Lion_Kuntz- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article , writes: Not according to Klamath Tribe members, who had the land before farmers moved in. Of course, their views were not considered by the government... This may come as a shock, but the Indians have their own agenda, as well as having superior water rights in the Klamath Basin. Their agenda is only concerned with fish when it suits their purposes. The Klamath tribes have filed water claims for more water than exists in the Klamath Basin as a bargaining piece in their effort to regain their reservation lands. They will align with any party that furthers their cause, and will abandon any party that hinders their cause. Interesting allegation. I'd like to see some backup data if you don't mind. I went to school with a Klamath Indian at OSU in 1972, the date the US government abolished the tribe. From what I learned from him, I'd say the opposite was true: that the US government had their own agenda, and it emphatically did _not_ include the tribe. Apparently the government had earmarked all available water for irrigation purposes. And a lot of the water from the Klamath drainage now feeds into the Central Valley of California, where it is mostly used for agricultural irrigation. There does appear to be an agenda. I don't see the Klamath tribe involved in it, since their tribe legally doesn't exist at this time to my knowledge. Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
In article ,
writes: There does appear to be an agenda. I don't see the Klamath tribe involved in it, since their tribe legally doesn't exist at this time to my knowledge. You are very mistaken. Plus, it is the Klamath TribeS. There are Modoc, Paiute and Klamath tribes involved in the Klamath Basin. They have all had official tribal status restored, but they didn't get their reservations back. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
In article ,
writes: And how exactly does that make them different than land-grabbing water-abusing whites? If it is NOT OK for idians to do it, why is it OK for whites to do it? Why don't you tell us, since that is your proposal. My point was that they are no more virtuous than any other pressure group that lives in the area, though like the farmers, they at least have a dog in the fight. There is a lot of outside interference from people who ought to learn to mind their own business. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article , writes: There does appear to be an agenda. I don't see the Klamath tribe involved in it, since their tribe legally doesn't exist at this time to my knowledge. You are very mistaken. Plus, it is the Klamath TribeS. There are Modoc, Paiute and Klamath tribes involved in the Klamath Basin. They have all had official tribal status restored, but they didn't get their reservations back. I'd still like to see something more than just your informed opinion, Larry. If I am mistaken, a citation would certainly prove that allegation. Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
In article ,
writes: Larry Caldwell wrote in message t... In article , writes: There does appear to be an agenda. I don't see the Klamath tribe involved in it, since their tribe legally doesn't exist at this time to my knowledge. You are very mistaken. Plus, it is the Klamath TribeS. There are Modoc, Paiute and Klamath tribes involved in the Klamath Basin. They have all had official tribal status restored, but they didn't get their reservations back. I'd still like to see something more than just your informed opinion, Larry. If I am mistaken, a citation would certainly prove that allegation. Why not check with the tribes themselves? http://www.klamathtribes.org/history.html "In 1986, we were successful in regaining Restoration of Federal Recognition for our Tribes. Although our land base was not returned to us, we were directed to compose a plan to regain economic self- sufficiency. Our Economic Self-sufficiency Plan reflects the Klamath Tribes' continued commitment to playing a pivotal role in the local economy." I live in a rural area outside the Willamette Valley. While the Indian population of Oregon is not huge, you don't have to go very far before you rub elbows with one. I used to work for a Modoc, who employed several Indians from various tribes. There was never a hint of discrimination. They always treated me like a regular person. I'm no expert, but when you work with Indians you hear a lot of conversations from the Indian viewpoint, and get a picture of their politics. The Klamath Tribes were once pretty prosperous, before the feds took the reservation away. I think most Klamath Basin Indians want to return to a land based economy, rather than cashing in on the gambling craze. I have always supported the return of tribal lands. There is no doubt that the termination movement was nothing but a land grab clothed in high sounding phrases. The environmentalists don't like the idea, because turning a whole national forest back to the Indians would erode their power base. The Whites in the Klamath Basin are of mixed opinion about the restoration. On one hand, the Indians historically did a great job of managing the land and were a big part of the local economy. Farm stores, restaurants, shopping malls and similar businesses stand to benefit in a big way if the Indians get their land back. OTOH, whites would lose their hunting and fishing privileges on millions of acres of land, which would be a big hit to the local recreation industry. A lot of people show up to hunt mulies and waterfowl each year, and leave big wads of green at local vendors. Some ranches would lose profitable grazing leases. So you see, besides fishery concerns, the Klamath Tribes are using the water issues to leverage their cause. Sometimes they may use the environmentalists to make a point, but they have no illusions that the environmentalists would support the tribes. They may dispute with the farmers, but know that the farming community contains some of their most solid supporters. Farmers and Indians are united in their loathing of Washington DC. If the feds destroy the local economy, it will hurt the Indians bad, because they depend on the white community for jobs. If you destroy the farming economy of the basin, you push another 20% of the Indian population below the poverty line. The general public just gets sound bites, and has no clue about the historic basis for local politics. At this point, everybody is praying for rain. Twenty years ago, they had to raise the road bed of US97 because Klamath Lake was flooding the highway. This was right after the severe droughts of the late 1970s. A couple years of double snow packs and this entire issue would sink into the water and drown. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article , writes: And how exactly does that make them different than land-grabbing water-abusing whites? If it is NOT OK for indians to do it, why is it OK for whites to do it? Why don't you tell us, since that is your proposal. My point was that they are no more virtuous than any other pressure group that lives in the area, though like the farmers, they at least have a dog in the fight. There is a lot of outside interference from people who ought to learn to mind their own business. As one of the stakeholders, co-owner of a wildlife preserve, co-steward of several endangered species, I have personally toured the area and informed myself on the issues. Among other things I found out that Billionaire Simplot with 24,000 acres watered with federal water is one of the "family farmers". That explains the mystery of the high level of financing that the various "dogs in the fight" have to make noise with. By the way, if you look, you won't find Simplot on a deed in the area: he gave the land to the Nature Conservancy with reservation that he gets to run cows on it for basically the rest of his life, so Nature Conservancy is the source of the cow pollution getting in the water upstream. I am minding my business, but if you object we can meet in a dark alley somewhere and straighten out your mistaken opinion of what business I can mind. I get to all parts of Oregon very often. Sincerely, Lion Kuntz American Citizen. From: Recommended Book ) Subject: Report says Klamath panel erred View: Complete Thread (14 articles) Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.forestry, bionet.agroforestry, sci.environment Date: 2002-11-16 15:49:01 PST http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...enty150mcom-20 Balancing Water: Restoring the Klamath Basin by Tupper Ansel Blake (Photographer), et al (Hardcover) ISBN: 0520213149 From Book News, Inc. The three collaborators on this oversize (10.5x12.5) volume all have a passionate personal interest in the subject matter. Photographers Tupper Blake and Madeleine Graham Blake use their intimate knowledge of the area to provide the color photos that document the birds, animals, landscape, and human residents of the Klamath Basin of Oregon; writer William Kittredge, who grew up there, provides the text. The book presents a close look at an endangered region whose problems connected with watershed development are echoed throughout the West, and whose restoration efforts--including community involvement--could be models for restoration projects elsewhere.Book News, Inc.®, Portland, OR Book Description The Klamath Basin is a land of teeming wildlife, expansive marshes, blue-ribbon trout streams, tremendous stretches of forests, and large ranches in southern Oregon and northern California. Known to waterfowl, songbirds, and shorebirds, the Klamath Basin's marshlands are a mecca for birds along the Pacific Flyway. This gorgeously illustrated book is a paean to the beauty of the Klamath Basin and at the same time a sophisticated environmental case study of an endangered region whose story parallels that of watershed development throughout the west. A collaboration between two photographers and a writer, Balancing Water tells the story in words and pictures of the complex relationship between the human and natural history of this region. Spectacular images by Tupper Ansel Blake depict resident species of the area, migratory birds, and dramatic landscapes. Madeleine Graham Blake has contributed portraits of local residents, while archival photographs document the history of the area. William Kittredge's essay on the conjunction of conflicting interests in this wildlands paradise is by turns lyrically personal and brimming with historical and scientific facts. He traces the water flowing through the Klamath Basin, the human history of the watershed, and the land-use conflicts that all touch on the availability of water. Ranchers, loggers, town settlers, Native Americans, tourists, and environmentalists are all represented in the narrative, and their diverse perspectives form a complicated web like that of the interactions among organisms in the ecosystem. Kittredge finds hope in the endangered Klamath Basin, both in successful restoration projects recently begun there, and in the community involvement he sees as necessary for watershed restoration and biodiversity preservation. Emphasizing that we must take care of both human economies and the natural environment, he shows how the two are ultimately interconnected. The Klamath Basin can be a model for watershed restoration elsewhere in the west, as we search for creative ways of solving our intertwined ecological and social problems. About the Author Tupper Ansel Blake is a photographer whose books include Tracks in the Sky: Wildlife and Wetlands of the Pacific Flyway (1987), Two Eagles/Dos Aguilas: The Natural World of the United States-Mexico Borderlands (with Peter Steinhart, California, 1994), and Wild California: Vanishing Lands, Vanishing Wildlife (with Peter Steinhart, California, 1985). Madeleine Graham Blake is an exhibiting photographer whose work has appeared at the Pasadena Art Museum, Friends of Photography, and the Monterey Art Museum, as well as other galleries and museums. William Kittredge is a former rancher and creative writing professor at the University of Montana, as well as author of Hole in the Sky: A Memoir (1992), and Who Owns the West (1996). His essays have been published in many collections, including Waste Land: Meditations on a Ravaged Landscape (1997). He grew up in the Klamath Basin. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Report says Klamath panel erred
In article ,
writes: As one of the stakeholders, co-owner of a wildlife preserve, co-steward of several endangered species, I have personally toured the area and informed myself on the issues. Among other things I found out that Billionaire Simplot with 24,000 acres watered with federal water is one of the "family farmers". That explains the mystery of the high level of financing that the various "dogs in the fight" have to make noise with. By the way, if you look, you won't find Simplot on a deed in the area: he gave the land to the Nature Conservancy with reservation that he gets to run cows on it for basically the rest of his life, so Nature Conservancy is the source of the cow pollution getting in the water upstream. Yeah, I know the radical enviros hate the Nature Conservancy with a blind passion. Not only do they pasture cows on their land, but they log their forests too. It drives the extremists nuts to see actual management for habitat rather than preservationist neglect. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel | Edible Gardening | |||
[Fwd: Report Says More Farmers Don't Follow Biotech Rules] | sci.agriculture | |||
(LONG) Drought likely for 3rd year in Klamath Basin | alt.forestry | |||
Klamath River dispute rages despite salmon deaths | alt.forestry | |||
Klamath Water study alledgedly suppressed | alt.forestry |