More environmental impact from the Bush administration:

California Report Supports Critics of Water Diversion

U.S. Trying to Save Washington Forest by Cutting It Down

If sportspeople (politically correct) and environmentalists banded together, maybe we could do some good politically.

Sincerely,
Roger

ps and here is a related AP wire service report on the same Klamath river flow issue:

Biologists: Klamath Irrigation Kills Fish

RRR

Here is the article:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 7, 2003
California Report Supports Critics of Water Diversion
By DEAN E. MURPHY


AN FRANCISCO, Jan. 6 — A new state report on the Klamath River supports contentions by fishermen, environmentalists and several American Indian tribes that 33,000 fish died on the lower river last fall because the Bush administration allowed too much water to be diverted to farmers.

The report by biologists at the California Department of Fish and Game is expected to figure prominently in a lawsuit against the federal government that seeks to reduce water supplies to farmers before the spring irrigation season, which begins in April.

Lawyers for both sides are scheduled to appear on Thursday in federal court in Oakland, Calif. A similar legal challenge against the Department of the Interior, which regulates the river's flows, failed last year, but the extensive die-off has given opponents of the federal policy new resolve.

"This time around, Exhibit A will be 33,000 dead spawners," said Glen H. Spain, the Northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "The water has been overcommitted and the demand has to be brought back into balance with the supply."

The state report, which was released on Friday, warns that if conditions on the river remain the same and water flows are not increased, the Klamath could experience another major fish kill. Last year's die-off was the largest ever in California of adult chinook salmon, which accounted for about 95 percent of the dead fish. A smaller number of coho salmon and steelhead trout also died.

One author of the report, Neil Manji, a fish biologist in Redding, Calif., said the study was not intended "to point fingers" at the Bush administration. Instead, he said, it was meant to make the case for having more water in the river as "a common sense approach" to managing the fisheries' needs.

The report says that of all the factors that contributed to the die-off, from the large number of fish to the presence of bacterial pathogens in the water, "flow is the only factor that can be controlled to any degree."

"Man can only do so much at this particular time," Mr. Manji said. "I think every scientist would agree that increased flows would reduce the potential for a big kill."

Last March, in a reversal of a curtailment the year before, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton presided over a ceremony at Klamath Falls, Ore., in which water was released to farmers that had been held back because of concern about endangered fish. The policy switch was denounced by fishermen, Indian tribes and many environmentalists, who vowed to fight it and a new 10-year management plan for the river that would keep water flowing to the farmers.

Kristen Boyles, a lawyer with Earthjustice, an environmental legal group that represents the opponents of the administration's policy, said the state report contributes to a growing consensus among scientists that diversions from the river for agriculture are harmful. The 230-mile Klamath River, which flows from Oregon to the Pacific Ocean near Redwood National Park in California, supplies irrigation water to about 200,000 acres of farmland through the federal Klamath Reclamation Project.

Last October, a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service sought federal whistle-blower protection after claiming his agency was pressured by the Bush administration to accept water flows in the 10-year plan that were too low to support fish. The biologist, Michael Kelly, said the low flows threatened coho salmon, which are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Jeffrey S. McCracken, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior Department agency that administers federal water policies, defended the decision last year to divert more water to farmers, saying it was based on advice from federal biologists. He said a decision about this year's flows would not be made until studies of the fish die-off are completed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. McCracken questioned the objectivity of the new report by the California biologists, since state officials began blaming the federal government for the fish kill last September, when the fish were still dying.

"The conclusions really aren't a surprise to us, given they arrived at these same conclusions even before they did the study," he said. "It is nothing that they haven't already said."

Jonathan Birdsong, a spokesman for Representative Mike Thompson of California, who in October introduced legislation to block the Bush administration plan for the river, denounced the bureau's attitude toward the state report.

"This administration has always said the best science is in the states, that the states are closer to the people," Mr. Birdsong said. "The fact that they are discounting the state experts is a little disheartening. It is more than that. It is hypocritical."

But Dave Solem, manager of the Klamath Irrigation District, whose members farm about 40,000 acres of land irrigated with Klamath water, said he also viewed the state report with deep suspicion.

"All of these things are focused on one thing: to be used as evidence in court," Mr. Solem said. "I can guarantee this will be regurgitated many times over and over. It becomes scientific fact just because they put it out."

I had high hopes for our pres but now all of my fears regarding the environment are coming to fruition. It seems at this time he is most interested in war and tax breaks for the cronies, a scary time it is right now.

RM

RRR if you jump in bed with the eco-wackos you might get something done alright. You might lobby yourself right off the river. Sportsmen, including anglers, need to be very careful about who they choose to jump into the "political sack" with. One of your friendly environmental groups, PETA, is on a very aggresive campaign to end all fishing.
PETA\'s ANTI-FISHING CAMPAIGN
They're not alone and share sympathies from many others in the so-called environmental lobby. As you know, sportsmen are the real environmentalists who share the rich tradition spearheaded by President Teddy Roosevelt. If we could just unite outdoor sportsmen again, we could do tons of good beyond what we've accomplished already in the past 60 years.
I'm not sure I'd start that battle on the dinner tables of the farmers in the Klamath valley though.

lobo

Well said Lobo. It's just that those damn tree-huggers seem to be so much better funded and organized.

We've gotta do somethin!

In my short time on this earth I have seen very little accomplished by sportsman's groups.

I'm just castin about for any kind of solution.

I'm really scared what with the way the current administration is proceeding on environmental issues. They seem to systematically be trying to reverse all the gains we've made over the last quarter century.

I may be movin back to the GREAT Pacific NW this year and might have some extra time on my hands so am gonna try and become a lil more active on these issues. Take care

Sincerely,
Roger

Okay this is the last one, I promise.

It is just incredible how many items (in just a couple of days!) in the news, which seem to indicate backwards progress on protecting our streams and rivers. I trust the media probably less than anyone, they always play up the most controversial angles, sensationalize -- making mountains outta molehills. In short, they hardly ever tell the whole story. For example, the articles on the Klamath fail to mention, much less address, the economic impact (considerable, to say the least) on the affected farming communities.

Oh, well. As I said this is the last article I will post (today!!) I think I may have gotten my point across.

Feds may limit protected waterways

Like I said, I DO NOT trust the media, some of these measures may actually be good things, but that wouldn’t sell enough newspapers etc. I am sure that there is a lotta red tape n bureaucratic bs that could be safely trimmed without harming our beloved wildlife, rivers n streams. Possibly even free up some money for enhancement etc.
Take care

Sincerely,
Roger

I would like to see a return to the day when sportsmen were leading the charge for the environment. That crusade is now being lead by other groups that may not necessarily have our interest at heart. Many of them are great organizations that deserve your support but others are not. Do your reseach.

I see a tendency of sportsmen always being on the defense. Especially hunters. Always defending itself against gun control, animal rights, tree huggers, etc. That is fine but it should be balanced with taking the offensive on environmental issues and eloquently explaining the lifestyle. It may be inciting to view oneself as the lone soldier of the misunderstood but in the end that gets you nowhere.

As an example, most people that have a problem with hunting/fishing really don't understand deer hunting. Big eyes = more concern. Now, I just read an article that there are 40 times more whitetail deer out there now then in 1900. As a result they are destroying the forest understory and species that live there. With far less predators to control the population, deer hunting is actually helping the environment. Pennsylvania is actually reducing the hunting for bucks and opening up doe hunting to reduce this problem. The average anti-hunter does not understand this. Why? Because environmental groups not associated with hunting or fishing are setting the environmental agenda. They talk to the media and run ads in mainstream print. Too bad for us, the forest, and the critters that live there.

We are the people that have chosen to live a lifestyle in harmony with nature. It may involve catching or shooting but that is nature. Every species and civilization has hunting as a part of their culture. We have gone the step beyond mere observation. We participate in the cycle. However, with that participation comes great responsibility. It means following the rules, throwing some back, studying the biology and health of the environment, educating oneself on legislation, putting our own self interest behind the environment, and supporting groups that do. We take more so we should give more.

I am a member of a number of organizations; Trout Unlimited, Surfrider, Ducks Unlimited, etc. I consider it the other half of my license to be in the water or field. The days of selfishly enjoying the sporting life are long over. It is know time to both give and take. Both time and money. Considering that fishing is the number one past time for American men, if we all participated, the shear number of people would create a very political significant constituency. Wouldn't Teddy be proud of us.

Surffish

well said Surffish...

Yeah! What Stifler said

Unfortunately, now that the Republican-majority Congress is back in session, I expect they'll be a deluge of similar bad-news about rollbacks and attempts to hand our rivers, forests and virtually anything of value over to industry.

I wonder about teh motivation of folks like Lobo when they make comments like _ "One of your friendly environmental groups, PETA, is on a very aggresive campaign to end all fishing."

PETA is certainly NOT an environmental / conservation group. Their cause is 'animal rights' which has only the most tenuous link to conservation.

I've been involved in various fish and forest conservation groups for nearly 20 years and I can say with certainty that conservation organizations - even the most radical ones - are no threat to fishing.

Finally, I too have spent a lot of time thinking about why conservationists and sportsman haven't united for greater effectiveness. The conclusion I've reached is that while they share a common interest, be it rivers or fish or wildlife, for example - they have very different world views.

Briefly, I'd say that fisherman are primarily interested in 'using' the resource while conservationists focus on stewardship and sustaining functioning bio-systems. There IS a substantial overlap between these two groups - when threats arise coalitions are often formed. But I believe it's their differing world-views that keeps them apart.

For this same reason, this is why on these Boards you often see such venom directed at even FISHING conservation groups like Washington Trout, Trout Unlimited, etc.

Just one mans opinion and experence when it comes to TU….and it is strictly my own…T U sucks!

Yes, I am more than willing to defend my statement and show you how much "venom" TU actually does deserves! In my book, a snake is a snake, and TU is defiantly a snake when it comes to working with other opposing views in Washington state!

Do you understand what the word "drone" means? That's just the way that I and many other fishermen feel about TU. I have had the "misfortune of working with TU" for over 5 years, and yes, they truly do suck!

I guest that I have never been known to play with the words! So if the word "sucks" offends you, let me phase it in another way; "TU truly sucks" (just my own opinion)

Cowlitzfisherman

I watched the going ons in the klamath river case prety closely when it was happeneing and I want to share a little info on that fiasco by the califaorna (my home state) goverment. The klamath water project was bulit in the 40's for the farmer so they could take a semi-desert area and turn it in to a productive food producing area.(we all have eaten food or beef from here) last year the serria club had one of its bought and paid for judges in the bay area rule to cut water to thousand of farmes and ranches( the people who feed us) to save Not the salmon but the pike minnow and the sqaw fish(native species) Oh by the way you can not call it a sqaw fish in ca. you have to call it a northen ca. pike minnow or some damm thing. The natives got thier feelings hurt by the name sqaw (a indain word).This action by the courts coused thousands (yes over a thousand) farmer to sell land in order to cover the cost of seed that they had planted and that died from lack of water. Some of them lost the farms and homes that had been in the family for a long time.the courts refused to broker a compremice of say half the water so the farmers could grow enough crops to at least cover their cost. The feds had to come in and stop the whole thing before it turned in to a shooting match. As for the salmon that are on the state endangered list. ( I won't argue about this becouse like religon every one knows what the facts are and no one ) argees). The state of californa dept of fish and game (serria club members that now work for the state) has made the decisson to brake salmon in to two different speics. Wild and hatchary( I wonder where the hatchery fish came from?) by doing so they have artifaicly lowered the numbers to a point that they can call the salmon endangered when in fact they( LIKE THE SPOTTED OWL)( dont get me started) are not . This is all so they can stop the destustion of the holly mother earth. The destrution of mother earth includes the driving of cars(any cars) the eating of meat(yes that inclueds fish) the buliding of homes (except thiers) logging (see homes and toliot paper and printing sts)The farming of land (so we can eat) the shooting of animals and the practice of hunting( fishing is hunting just cheak the peta web site) the building of roads citys schools and everything else in life that a healty socity needs. If you think that I am crazy just read some of their web site. The stated goal of the serria club,elf,alf, peta,the nature conservtory(these people talk the state in to selling them public lands and then do not allow the public on them. they support T-f-ing-U and I have lost mile of fishing access on the cosumes and other rivers in ca. to these a-holes but dont worry they buy land here too) sorry back to the stated goals . They want and expect to get all buildings and roads in the serria range removed above 3000 ft. here 3000 feet may be up the mouantian but in the serras thats the foot hills. They want all vechicals (cars boat bikes horses, a non-native species,atv's 4x4's) restricted from going into the mountains or desert or beach or swamp ( sorry wet lands) plains, deserts water ways , bays,sorry tidal zones and any where else out doors. They include the following means to achive there goals. The forced control of population growth (that does not include their own famlies) The removal of a road based socity.( you know highways) The forced relocation of the population. (they figure the citys are great ,they all live there and we should all live there to, ) The removal of all borders between countries (one big happen veggien world) . The list goes on . They want it and they expcet to get it if it takes a 100 years. The problen is they tell groups like TU that they will not bug them (sue) or they will allow TU members to contiune to fish and hunt if they help them with this or that. the closesure of the hatcharies is a great example . The push by these oginzations to close hatchories is not to benifit the wild salmon stocks but to lower the number of salmon to allow then to be placed on the endagered list and to remain there so no one (not even T-f-ing-U) can fish becouse fishing is hunting and hunting is murder. I lived for one year in davis ca. and have heard people talk about all this as if it is a fact of life that will happen. Please if you think Iam full of it log on to the ELF web site Or the PETA web site. surf the boards and see what is beening said. it will scare you. I know I am off the subject from where i started , but not as far as you think I am.

WOW. Brilliant deduction, wording and spelling. It sure seems to stink of the "hatchery's should be counted as wild" debate. Let's see....we had some of the best returns of fish the last two years due to....drum roll please....the ESA! Otherwise the odds are we would still have declining runs. Of course the ESA is a thorn to some. Hopefully I quote this right....I think it was Senator Hatfield from Oregon when ESA was looming...."We have no salmon problem. There are plenty of Salmon in Alaska".

drum rool please HATCHIERS.

P.S sorry about the spelling and some of the wording. I posted when I should have previewed. I like to write then edit not both at once. Of coure i would never have attacked someones writing skills just becouce i can't make a argument. Its not the ESA that I have a problen with. Its the abuse of the act I have a problen with. The purpose of the act is two protect wildlife untill they reach the numbers needed to remove them from the act. not stop the recovery soley to keep the wildlife on the protected list becouse a group does not argee with fishing and hunting etc.. (long p.s)

WOW!
That wuz a 'ell of a post!
You don't tend towards paranoia or conspiracy theories, do ya? administration is hell bent on removing what lil hard earned checks and balances protecting what is left of our natural resources -- ultimately reversing any recovery that is taking place. This scares me because there doesn't seem to be any opposition!

On a lighter note Bob Mottram reported in the TNT today that fish are finally being caught in appreciable numbers off the West coast of Whidbey Island . Didn't mention if they were long overdue hatchery fish or unclipped wild fish. I fished that fishery a bit and always caught more wild fish than hatchery...

Great discussion, some very good points -- Thanx

Sincerely,
Roger

Tom hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned especially with the Sierra Club and all of its followers.
We were gonna have the world finals for pwc (jet-ski) racing down in san diego to help promote the sport instead of in lake havasu, AZ where it was held for over a decade. Everything was going good till the environmentalist found out and killed the whole deal at a city council meeting. They stated we would pollute the local marine environment with 200,000 gallons of oil and spilled gas or something stupid like that, they had this whole ellaborate bs presentation they did. Our racing organization the IJSBA just got pummeled by the million dollar backed eco freaks and the city council, many of which were financially supported by eco's cancelled the event. Just to give you an idea of the tactics they use.
Look Bush in my view is a great guy, he's an outdoorsman like his dad and enjoys it as much as we do I'm sure. The problem is they get bombarded by enviro's all the time, his administration doesnt get to hear our views on anything because we dont talk or get organized. I have no doubt that the President would willingly listen to a fisherman passionately speak about his sport and how to help improve it. Us telling the story, asking for help is way different than environmentalists. Their ideas are blinded and will not work, for example yanking down a few dams on the snake. Big woop, there is a lot more to improving the river quality there an just removing cement. And if they did, we would lose and many hard working farmers would lose just like in the California incident. The environmentalists will side with us just to defeat a common enemies policy and swiftly turn on us, they hate who we are and what we do just as bad as they hate bush. Just think about how it would be with the alternitive! Gore. Ya we might get to greener forests and cleaner streams faster but it would be "oh put the fishing poles and guns down you barbarians, you cant use those waterways or forests anyway, only nature walks and songs of happiness are allowed bla bla bla bla".
See why my generation is so violent, we have morons like gore telling us how to live our lives.

Waterboy

oops forgot to edit before posting, oh well. It was suppose to say "there is a lot more to improving the quality of that river than just removing some cement"


waterboy

Ban all PWC

Don't forget to blame Bush for SUVs! You know they only have become popular since he became president! If you don't support Bush, you aren't driving an SUV, are you?

(Dammit, I told myself I wasn't going to post on this thread.)

As I stated before, it appears to me the outdoors men are always on the defensive. This thread started with a post about some b.s. policies the current administration is undergoing that are environmentally harmful to fish. That has been replaced by complaints about environmental groups and PETA (which is an animal rights group. Don't know how they got in there. By the way, they are such a fringe group who's supporter are dwarfed by outdoor enthusiasts. How in the hell do they command so much attention on this sight is beyond me. You legitimize them by your acknowledgement.)

The facts are that there are a lot of industries that harm rivers, lakes, wetlands, uplands, ocean, etc. There are also a lot of lobbyist and politicians that support them. Our job is to work hard to confront and reverse this destruction. How do you do this? Complaining about environmental groups that go too far is not going to help. Voting for people opposed to these groups but have a poor environmental record certainly will not help. Complaining about fishing/hunting conservation organizations that are not perfect will not help.

What will help is doing your research and giving money and time to groups that you are mostly comfortable with and are trying their best to preserve the wildlands and our lifestyle. TU is not perfect but would they be closer if they had more support and money? Would they have to compromise less and form less “partnerships” with other environmental groups if they had more cash? I'd like to find out.

Get on the offensive. Give money and time so that fishing/hunting environmental groups have a bigger constituency, bigger lobby and more power to influence public policy. Maybe then, we could stand up to the b.s. out there without feeling like our rights to fish/hunt is going to be taken away. How does Sierra Club become so influential? There are more fisherman and hunters out there then birdwatchers.
S.C. got there because they are aggressive. They lobby, market themselves, etc. They get cash from these folks. We get our license and pray that G.W. is a sportsman like his daddy and will protect our individual rights. Unfortunately, Washington D.C. does not answer prayers.

Last thought, what are these groups really for? Are they to protect the fish, watershed, and fisherman or only to protect our individual rights to fish? I hope the former. I love fishing and do a hell of a lot of it. As a result, I love the fish I catch and the water they come from. Because of that, if I'm shown good science that states that I should not be fishing an area because it is in trouble, I'll take heed and my rod elsewhere. Can you say them same or is all to make sure nobody screws with your right do whatever you damn well please?

Fsih but fish enlightened.

Surffish