LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 16-11-2002, 09:17 AM
Daniel B. Wheeler
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 Post  
Old 16-11-2002, 07:40 PM
Grow Some Brains
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 Post  
Old 16-11-2002, 07:42 PM
Grow Some Brains
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 Post  
Old 17-11-2002, 12:49 AM
Recommended Book
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #5   Report Post  
Old 17-11-2002, 06:56 AM
Daniel B. Wheeler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Report says Klamath panel erred

(Grow Some Brains) wrote in message . com...
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.

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.

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.

No. The fish mentioned in the report does not exist in the Klamath
River drainage. This is not a mere scientific oversight, but a gross
opinion piece.
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.

That well describes the government's viewpoint. I hadn't thought of
using the term "biosociopathy", but it _does_ seem to apply here.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com


  #7   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2002, 01:09 AM
Donald L Ferrt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
Old 23-11-2002, 11:15 PM
Daniel B. Wheeler
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #13   Report Post  
Old 25-11-2002, 07:10 PM
Larry Caldwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 Post  
Old 26-11-2002, 12:22 AM
Biosociopaths to Hell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C&E News editorial on report by President's Cancer Panel Frank Edible Gardening 7 04-06-2010 04:10 AM
[Fwd: Report Says More Farmers Don't Follow Biotech Rules] [email protected] sci.agriculture 0 24-06-2003 01:32 AM
(LONG) Drought likely for 3rd year in Klamath Basin Daniel B. Wheeler alt.forestry 0 23-02-2003 01:54 AM
Klamath River dispute rages despite salmon deaths Psalm 110 alt.forestry 0 09-12-2002 09:33 PM
Klamath Water study alledgedly suppressed Daniel B. Wheeler alt.forestry 1 04-11-2002 06:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017