Klamath Falls?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

Is there anyone from the Klamath Falls area that knows what is going on up there??? I've heard a fair amount, but I guess I am a bit fuzzy on the geneis of the problem and would like some clarification. Thanks!

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), July 24, 2001


Doreen Here's an article I found on worldnetdaily.com: http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi- free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0680_BC_WaterFight&&news&newsflash-national

(copy and paste the URL into your adress line above and click go.)

-- Skip in Western WA (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), July 24, 2001.

Thanks, Skip!

-- Dreen (bisquit@here.com), July 25, 2001.

Sorry guys, been busy.

Klamath Police Officer Redfield's Letter - FULL TEXT

Source: KlamathBasinCrisis.org
Author: Jack Redfield

Many residents of Klamath County reading this letter will identify my name with law enforcement as I have been a member of the Klamath Falls Police Department for over 39 years. The content of this letter is not necessarily the opinion of the City of Klamath Falls or the Klamath Falls Police Department. It is my opinion as a private citizen of Oregon and the United States and as a small ranch operator. I am not affected financially to the degree of other Klamath Basin ranchers due to non-ranch related income. I am also one of the fortunate few who irrigates from a well (for the time being), but there is no doubt that the so-called environmentalists will be initiating an effort to control or stop irrigation from ground water in the near future.

My considered opinion of the recent water crisis in the Klamath Basin, which has been initiated by the so-called environmentalists and our federal agencies, is that it is nothing more than an act of thinly disguised domestic terrorism directed at the economy of the US. I believe that the people who are orchestrating this atrocity are not environmentalists at all (although they may be being manipulated into believing they are doing the right thing), but that they are actually acting in the capacity of environmental and/or economic terrorists (or at least extremists) who are launching a severe and effective attack upon the economy of the United States. The same environmentalist extremists enjoyed a good deal of success in recent years with the spotted owl, which was also nothing more than an excuse to destroy the logging industry. There is no doubt that had the spotted owl not been considered an endangered species, they would have easily found another creature, be it a reptile, fish, other bird, rodent, etc. that needed to be protected to further their cause. So be it with the suckers. In other parts of the nation where such nonsense is starting, I am hearing reports of endangered gnatcatchers, shrimp, turtles, other fish, etc.

Recently the terrorists/extremists have enjoyed a tremendous success in shutting down our local agriculture with no regards at all to the misery and destruction of thousands of local ranchers, farmers, local business people, etc. They have also found a great amount of support through the liberal federal court system within the ninth district. I don't see that changing until the case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that takes time and I am afraid that it will be too late for many of our local people by then. Our only hope is that Congress will recognize where this is going within the entire nation and take action to modify the endangered species act to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of endangered species and the livelihood of American citizens.

This is NOT a local issue. I would suggest that the Klamath Basin attack is nothing more than a test case. With the success that the environmental extremists and some out of control federal agents (so called public servants, HAH) have recently enjoyed, they will not stop in the Klamath Basin. They are already up to their devious evil in other parts of Oregon and other states. Considering that there is a good deal of agriculture in nearly every state in the nation, this thing will spread like wildfire and before long I believe that our way of life as we now know it will be very different.

We have seen a great deal of restraint among our local agriculture community and our local business people who are threatened, despite the extreme emotional trauma that they are experiencing and their understandable anger. Their professionalism and restraint during the recent bucket brigade demonstration was remarkable. This will not last.

As the extremists and out of control federal agents continue to push and as they agricultural people see their fields turn brown and their entire lives destroyed, their frustration will undoubtedly escalate to the point of boiling over. It won't take much from Andy Kerr or Wendell Wood or their like to spark an extremely violent response. I am talking about rioting, homicides and destruction of property like dams that hold the precious water from the agricultural community.

When you expand the crisis to our 50 states over the next year or two as this madness progresses, you are looking at the destruction of the livelihoods of millions of people and businesses. Will that strike a violent response? I think so!

As the economy of the entire nation is threatened and crumbles, I think that the leaders of other nations who are not necessarily friends of the United States will be smiling broadly. Will our national security be threatened? I certainly think so! (Is it possible that there are foreign governments who would enjoy a severe economic crisis in the United States and is it possible that these foreign governments who are not friendly to the United States might be rendering substantial financial support to his economic attack? What better way to bring a nation to its knees than to attack their agriculture water supply?) Is there a possibility that this could lead to civil war within the United States? I think the potential for extreme violence, even to the extent of Civil war is possible if action is not taken in the very near future to remedy this tragedy.

Compare this to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. Is it possible that a foreign power was instrumental in their economic collapse? Is the U.S. next? Are other nations who depend heavily on agriculture, such as Australia experiencing an attack of the same nature?

I am seriously afraid that if our United States Congress and the Federal Court System does not wake up and stop this madness, this nation is about to experience an era that has the potential to severely damage or completely destroy our nation's economy. Should this happen all the efforts of our political leaders, military forces and loyal U.S. citizens in the history of our nation will have gone for naught. The promises of the United States government to all those veterans of foreign wars and other United States citizens will become as worthless as their dry fields. God help us if our federal government doesn't come to their senses and recognize the extreme danger of this fiasco before it is too late!

Jack Redfield
Klamath Falls, Oregon

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), July 27, 2001.

I'm glad that Redfield works in K Falls, rather than a couple of counties over, where I live. I would hate to have someone that short sighted and paranoid in a position of power where I live!

Redfield says, "Recently the terrorists/extremists have enjoyed a tremendous success in shutting down our local agriculture with no regards at all to the misery and destruction of thousands of local ranchers, farmers, local business people, etc"

No one who is doing this "enjoys" shutting down anybody. However, Redfield is ignoring the fact that the farmers' agreement with the federal government is voided by an older agreement made with various Indian tribes, way back in I think 1864. These people have relied on both Salmon and so called "Suckers" for at least ten thousand years, and only recently VOLUNTARILY stopped fishing for the "suckers", because they could see that the fish's numbers were declining to an unacceptably low, and unsustainable, level.

This problem is not just about fish and farmers. It's also about farmers and fishermen. It's about overallocation of a limited resource, water.

Incidentally, I canoed the Wood River a couple of years ago. This river was a gurgling, cold, crystal clear stream where I put in. A couple or three miles later, most of the river was diverted into an irrigation canal. I continued down the natural channel. A couple or three miles further down the river, the "return water" came back into the river. Gross! From that point down the river had the appearance and smell of the water coming out of a dairy when they are washing it out. It smelled like very fresh cow shit, in other words.

Also, the temperature of the water from that point downstream was very warm--almost hot.

The cow shit's nitrogen, not to mention the increased water temperature, is causing eutrophication of Klamath Lake. Eutrophication is resulting in huge algae blooms, which can occassionally deplete the oxygen in the water, with resulting fish kills. Lots of birds rely on these fish, and others rely on the wetlands. I've heard that between 75-80% of ALL WATERFOWL IN NORTH AMERICA utilize these wetlands, including LOTS of Bald Eagles, our national emblem.

So, not only are we short of water, the water we have is being ILLEGALLY polluted by the ranchers and farmers.

There are, unfortunately, no real good solutions. Possibly the best would be to stop paying some of the farmers up in Idaho NOT to grow potatoes, pay them TO grow potatoes, and pay the farmers in the Klamath Lake area to not grow potatoes. This is, of course, only a partial solution. Another solution would be for the feds to buy the farmland, and let it go back to being wildlife territory.

The best solution, which is way long term, is to get our population in check, so that we'll all be able to live together without all this animosity, because then there will be enough water, space, etc, for all of us.

Currently, our foolish governor, Kitzhaber, and Secretary Norton have agreed to allow the lake to be lowered to a foot lower than its natural minimum level, in order to "compromise". A spokesman for the local farmers's organization Thursday, on the Jeff Golden show on NPR, said that lowering the lake "improves conditions" for wildlife and sucker fish. I think he was really having a wet dream on that one. He claimed the normal, high lake levels KILL the fish. Go figure.

Redfield continues, "Considering that there is a good deal of agriculture in nearly every state in the nation, this thing will spread like wildfire and before long I believe that our way of life as we now know it will be very different. "

I agree that "our way of life as we now know it will be very different" in the future, but not because of some mysterious conspiracy of environmentalists and "liberal' politicians. It will be very different because we are pushing the envelope on many, many natural resources. Water is a finite resource, folks. We need to think about where we are going. "Grow" is a four letter word, which has become the siren call which will draw us onto the rocks of starvation, war, pestilence, and famine, if we keep kneeling down to it.

I understand Redfield's frustration and anger, and that of the farmers in K Falls. But it's misdirected, in my opinion. We need to work together to find the best solution out of a bunch of bad choices.

All this ranting by Redfield, and I don't see where he says one thing constructive. What, officer Redfield, do you suggest that we do? Ignore the environment, ignore the other people whose livlihood depends on these water resources? Focus only on your own town's economy while ignoring everyone else?


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 28, 2001.

So are the farmers there of the large dump pesticides on everything variety?

Although we completely disagree on population issues,Joe, I definitely think there is a better way of doing things. Agri business is a unsustainable brutal despot. However, the Feds buying the land will only allow wildfires to go crazy in a few years, and are they actually famous for taking care of it?? We have undoubtedly not done a good job of stewardship in regards to taking care of what keeps us alive, and the reasons are a bit more complex than this, but it's a fair summation...We've lost diversity in agriculture, and we've treated living things like machines, to the detriment of ourselves and the planet. I think there are workable solutions, but more government isn't likely to bring them about.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), July 28, 2001.

Doreen, I have no idea what the farmers' pesticide habits are. I live a couple of hours away. Interesting you should mention agri business, though. On the Jeff Golden show Thursday or yesterday, it was pointed out that a lot of the family farms in the area have been bought up by big "California" agribusinesses.

It was also pointed out that there are almost as many Idaho license plates as there are Oregon plates in K Falls right now, because this has become a "freedom" issue. This is all great, but I hope the freedom folks don't lose sight of the real problems

Doreen, I'd like to hear some workable solutions. If you have any suggestions, fire away! It's seeming like a lose/lose situation at this poiint, unfortunately.

As far as the government solving the problem, unfortunately the government caused the problem in the first place, although it surely must not have felt that way at the time. The government built the dam (Link River Dam), and blasted a huge channel through the natural outlet of the river, so they could store water, but also so they could LOWER the level of the lake. The original outlet of the lake prevented the lake from getting any lower than 4140 foot elevation, but now the lake could conceivably be lowered to 4131 feet. We "environmental terrorists" believe the lake should not be lowered below its natural minimum level, especially considering this is the most valuable wildlife refuge in the country, apparently.

Before the "Klamath Project", which was a government deal, which subsidizes all the farmers in the region, there were many, many thousands more acres of wildlife refuge, which have already been drained and turned into farms. Do we have to drain the whole lake? I hope not.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 28, 2001.

I would be willing to bet that ConAgra shows it's face somewhere in this. See the "gubbamint' and these hyperconglomoliths are almost one in the same, IMO. Follow the money. If what ends up happening there in klamath is anything like what happened around here because of cave bugs, and a non indigenious species of warbler, the privately owned property will be bought by the government and then in a few years sold to the aforementioned hyperconglomoliths.grrrrrr.

Solutions....many and sundry. But I am afraid it's too late for the Klamath Falls deal. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will happen without a major tragedy occuring. First of all the corporations need to be banned from having any pull with the elected officials in the country from city level on up. 2) Diversification of agriculture is sustainable and sensible. The monoculture farming we have now is completely dependent on chemical everything because it destroys land and it needs to be falsely bolstered up. 3) Regional production of foods would be more healthful for society at large, perhaps a bit more expensive, but not in the long run......The regulations on farmers and the paying people to not raise crops all of that nonsensical garbage is just tied to control of the food supply. Which is how it becomes a freedom issue.

Sorry...we have made a real mess of it and it really would be simple to solve if common sense were in abundance, and on smaller regional levels, but the system is now so large it consumes half of people's energy just to whack thru it. What works in Oregon may not work in Texas, but only people with a vested interest in the real value of the land (beyond $$$) will make good decisions. I'm not at 100% right now so I can't even make a decent representation on the aspects I know. I'll leave it at that!

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), July 28, 2001.

Here are a couple of rather long, but interesting articles. First is a history of the area, and the Klamath Project written by WRD, state of Oregon. Second is an address by :

Statement of Sue Ellen Wooldridge Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Interior

on Water Management and Endangered Species Issues in the Klamath Basin before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives Klamath Falls, Oregon June 16, 2001


http://www.wrd.state.or.us/programs/klamath/summary/textonly.s html

To tell you the truth, there is so much about the Klamath Project that I didn't know when I first answered your post, that I'm amazed at its complexity. Fascinating.

I haven't changed my opinion, other than to say that there may be some techniques, including emergency ground water development, which could foreseeably solve the problem of water QUANTITY. Solving the problem of water QUALITY, seems almost hopeless, still. I think the flood irrigation, with it's incredible nutrient loading, has terribly damaged an already struggling lake's ecosystem. Whether it can ever be repaired seems unlikely. I hope some bright young limnologist can come up with a miracle cure, but I'm not holding MY breath.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 29, 2001.

I'm not at 100% either, if I ever was, so I'm going to hang it up for the night, and check back tomorrow. Buenas noches.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 29, 2001.

Those are very long. Interesting, too. It seems that the government or governance in the entire scope of the issue has made promises that it can't keep up.

I had heard that the farmers were the ones who had paid for the irrigation systems to be put into place and also some of the damming. I haven't been able to check that out, though. Certainly it was done with tax dollars which would in essence make them the owners of the irrigation and dam gates, but that 'ownership" is compromised by the federal promises to all the various organizations and then the Endangered species act. It's a mess. Did you catch in the government address that they quoted well prices at close to 300k??? 700 to 1,000 foot depth and 300k??? Wow.

I wonder if the land getting a build up of salts from all of the irrigation? In the San Joaquin valley that was happening several years ago. Of course there was a tremendous fight going on over water rights at the time as well and I can't recall how it all turned out, but irrigation has some problems when it is the only method to water crops. Some areas are simply not meant for large agricultural development. I don't know enough about the land itself up there to make any kind of opinion on it, but large scale agriculture is rough on land. Yet the systems of this country arre set up for large scale ag, more and more each day.

I'm going to fish around for more info. Thanks for the links, Joe.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), July 29, 2001.

This one shows the 'original agreement between the gov't and homesteader's in 1905, it also asserts that this a land grab deal, not unlike what I referenced above regarding the Austin Texas situation. It has quite a few references to duplicitous studies. Government ffunded always say the fish are dying off and endangered and non government say they are doing fine...Who do you believe??? http://www.aaalivestock.com/pages/issues/iss_sckr.html This is a study saying that the fish poulation seems to be recovering...admittedly there was a decline. It's interesting, yet not conclusive: http://www.orst.edu/dept/kes/sucker.htm

I took the excerpt below from this page:


"The historical range of the Lost River and shortnose suckers has been fragmented by construction of dams, instream diversion structures, irrigation canals, and the general development of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project and related agricultural processes. Because habitat fragmentation limits or prevents genetic interchange among populations, extinction could result as genetic diversity decreases and populations become more susceptible to environmental change. The combined effects of damming of rivers, instream flow diversions, draining of marshes, dredging of Upper Klamath lake, and other water manipulations has threatened both species with extinction (53 FR 27130). Additionally, water quality degradation in the Upper Klamath Lake watershed has led to large-scale fish kills related to algal bloom cycles in the lake (Kann and Smith 1993). Introduced exotic fishes may reduce recruitment through competition with, or predation upon, suckers and sucker larvae (USFWS 1993, Dunsmoor 1993). Conservation of the Lost River and shortnose suckers will require the identification of actions to reduce threats of water quality-induced fish kills, provide the wide range of habitats needed by all size and age classes of the fishes, reduce the impacts of exotic fishes, improve migration corridors between habitats and populations, and establish refugial populations (USFWS 1993). "

Again Joe, thanks for the links. I really do wish that I knew more about the area, but hands on isn't possible! The truth is probably right in the middle somewhere.

-- (bisquit@here.com), July 29, 2001.

Thanks for the other links. As to the first, I immediately became suspicious when I read the first sentence: " At the end of both World Wars a grateful nation gave veterans the opportunity to homestead land on the California and Oregon border." This appears to be an emotional ploy to gain favor by playing the "veteran" card. In fact, the Klamath project started before either World War had even broken out.

I don't personally believe that any of the folks dealing with this problem are immune to feelings about the farmers--veterans or not. It's definitely a very unfortunate situation.

Look, I KNOW what a joke (make that a SICK joke) the boo-rats can be. I worked for Siskiyou National Forest for a few years doing hydrology studies. The beaurocratic bullshit got to be too much for me to handle. Example: one fish scientist comes up with the idea that the fish can't get past the log jams in the streams. I get to go out and locate these jams, and bring crews out and remove them, using hand power, winches, chain saws, even dynamite occassionally. A few years later, another fish scientist decides these log jams were giving the fish valuable habitat. So they ask me to take more crews out and drop $2000 trees, and install them with cables in the stream bed to "create habitat". I refuse, for reasons you can imagine. The Forest Circus sends someone else to run the crews.

In a series of short money years, I volunteeer to take tree planting crews out to plant fresh road cuts for erosion control (and, in my mind, beautification). We planted over a quarter million trees in two short seasons. First I consulted with the road engineering department, to make sure that we planted them in such a way as to not be in conflict with their road maintenance activities, or be in a place where they would block drivers' view of oncoming traffic on curves, and so forth.

Then comes the "timber buy back", when the Forest Circus ended up cancelling lots of timber contracts, because the price of timber had gone down so much that the logging companies whined about how much they money they were going to lose if they fulfilled their contracts.

So the road engineers were left with no roads to design, since they had already done all the work for these cancelled contracts. Some engineering boorat found a "rule" written by someone back in Michigan, of all places, which said all vegetation should be removed from all Forest Circus roads within six feet of the bottom of the drainage ditches. The number we had previously agreed to was four feet, except higher on curves, where visual problems would have existed otherwise.

So, just to "keep busy" the engineers started cutting down the trees I and my crews had planted! I was fit to be tied! I had to make a "federal case" out of it, which no one understood, as they were all better at following "rules" than I was, I suppose. Anyway, the District Ranger finally sided with me, and got the engineers to cut all the trees on the cutslopes within six feet of the bottom of the ditches EXCEPT those planted by me and my crew.

I could give you other examples of booratic stupidity. LOTS of other examples. I finally go so fed up with the whole mess that I quit and got my contractor's license, and started building houses.

My point in all this rambling is that I understand that govt scientists can, and do make bad decisions, based on poor logic, or poor data, or both. But that does not mean that they are deliberately trying for a land grab. I suppose it's possible, but I have think that this is paranoia only. I certainly hope so.

This is getting too long, and I'm afraid I'll lose it all. I'm going to send it, then sign off while I read the rest of your links.

Meanwhile, here's some more interesting reading on the subject:


Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Causes and Consequences by Peter M. Vitousek, Chair, John Aber, Robert W. Howarth, Gene E. Likens, Pamela A. Matson, David W. Schindler, William H. Schlesinger, and G. David Tilman


Curtailing this growth in nitrogen fertilizer production will be a difficult challenge. Nevertheless, there are ways to slow the growth of fertilizer use and also to reduce the mobility — and hence the regional and global impacts — of the nitrogen that is applied to fields.

 One way to reduce the amount of fertilizer used is to increase its efficiency. Often at least half of the fertilizer applied to fields is lost to the air or water. This leakage represents an expensive waste to the farmer as well as a significant driver of environmental change. A number of management practices have been identified that can reduce the amounts of fertilizer used and cut losses of nitrogen to the air and water without sacrificing yields or profits (and in some cases, increasing them). For instance, one commercial sugar cane plantation in Hawaii was able to cut nitrogen fertilizer use by one third and reduce losses of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide ten-fold by dissolving the fertilizer in irrigation water, delivering it below the soil surface, and timing multiple applications to meet the needs of the growing crop. This knowledge-intensive system also proved more profitable than broadcasting fewer, larger applications of fertilizer onto the soil surface. The widespread implementation of such practices, particularly in developing regions, should be a high priority for agronomists as well as ecologists since improved practices provide an opportunity to reduce the costs of food production while slowing the rate of global change.

 There are also ways to prevent the nitrogen that leaches from fertilized farmland from reaching streams, estuaries and coastal waters where it contributes to eutrophication. In many regions, agricultural lands have been expanded by channelizing streams, clearing riparian forests, and draining wetlands. Yet these areas serve as important natural nitrogen traps. Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas and even construction of artificial wetlands have been shown to be effective in preventing excess nitrogen from entering waters.


Another issue which should be addressed, and which could be done relatively cheaply, using existing technology and equipment, is to install fish screens at points of irrigation water diversion. I recently canoed the Wood River, one of the main sources of water feeding Klamath Lake. At the put in, the water was crystal clear; I'm talking clear as vodka, here. A couple of miles downstream, at least half the flow was diverted into a canal. We actually paddled a short distance into the canal before we even realized that we weren't in the river anymore! If my canoe could go into the canal, needless to say, the fish could, as well. Amy fish which chooses the wrong path, as we did, ends up on some farmer's field. They don't do well in fields!



-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 29, 2001.

In Sucker Punch, proceeding from my other post, Lee Pitts also says, "In 1905 the United States government signed a contract with Klamath Basin homesteaders to provide water for their agricultural operations FOREVER. On April 6 of this year the Bureau of Reclamation announced that farmers and ranchers within the Klamath Project would receive no water. None. Zip"

Not true. Some farmers got no water, others were unaffected. Most were cut off, but not all. Was this deliberately misleading?

He continues,"The Fish and Wildlife Department now recommends that the level in Klamath Lake at the end of the irrigation season be maintained a foot higher than previous minimums. They contend this is being done to protect bottom dwelling sucker fish that, in the past, the very same government tried to kill off." I don't know where he gets this "a foot higher" business. Before the Klamath Project, the lake could not get lower than the proposed level, because there was a reef which prevented this from happening. The project dug a huge trench through the reef to enable them to drain the lake lower than normal levels.

The story about the govt trying to kill of these fish is an urban legend, presumably started by someone for propaganda purposes.

Pitts repeatedly accuses the govt of sacrificing people (farmers) for fish. He cites the govt's agreement to provide water to the farmers. But he does not mention, even in passing, that there are other people involved in this equation (now merely known as "the Tribes", since they have been so repeatedly located by the govt over the last few hundred years that their individual tribes are hard to place; they were called Klamath, Modoc, etc.). The Klamath Project was begun early in the 20th century-1902, I believe. But the "Tribes" have a treaty from the same govt signed in 1864! Which agreement should take priority? Obviously, the govt screwed up, by not having a big old crystal ball which would have told them that they were overallocating the resources. But who would have known back in 1905? Whose fault is it, really?

" Area resident John Staunton has called it "the largest taking of private property by the government in history". Did he forget about all the land grabs the govt made against so many natives who lived here for millenia? Or don't they count? Actually, I suppose this land grab is how the govt happened to have the land available to give away to the farmers in the first place!

"Almost without warning they turned the tap off completely. Their timing was critical, if not suspect. They waited until water was needed at planting time." I think this is inflammatory rhetoric, as well. I understand that this has been several years in the making, with all kinds of studies and public meetings. I'd have to do more research to affirm this, though.

"Others suggest that the farmers should have bought crop insurance. But why would they, if for seventy-five years there has been an uninterrupted flow of irrigation water from their irrigation project?" This doesn't make a lot of sense. While I feel for the farmers' plight, Pitt is wrong to say they didn't need crop insurance. They probably need it more than many farm areas. For one thing, there is NO month when there is not the potential for killing frost.

"This is what we don't know: how many of the suckers there are. According to Mark Buettner, fishery biologist for the U.S Bureau of Reclamation, the population figures for the shortnosed sucker "are not precisely known." The numbers they use are referred to as "guess numbers" and determined by the "best professional judgment." What would Pitts have us do? Count every individual fish? Of course these are "guess numbers", as he calls them. I'd call them "best estimates".

I'm getting tired of rebutting practically everything Pitts has to say. My conclusion? He's fast and loose with his figures, and has an agenda he wants to prove, regardless of whether or not the facts support his agenda. He's not doing his cause any favors, either, IMO, since his arguments are fairly transparent.

I did notice that the first link you posted, above, agrees with one of my posts, above, insofar as restoration of wetlands would go a long ways to help de-eutrophy the lake, over a period of time. Perhaps there is hope, if farmers stop flood irrigating, with the resultant nutrient loading of the lake, put up fish screens, and/ or start relying to a certain extent on groundwater. Perhaps it will be necessary for SOME of the farmland to return to welands.

By the way, nowadays, if you even want to build a house on a single acre lot, here in Oregon, you won't be able to if there is a wetland on it. We're talking something as seemingly insignificant as groundwater within 18" of the surface, with the presence of hydrophytes. Imagine what would happen if someone were to propose eliminating a couple of HUNDRED THOUSAND acres of fine weland habitat today!


Wow, I just looked outside, and it's raining. The problem's over!

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 29, 2001.

Hey Joe, don't look now, but we seem to be agreeing on some things! I think the scenarios you offered up from your personal experience are excellent examples of why the government can't be effective at solving this problem. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone but God Himself telling me that there would be water available FOREVER. Does it come with an extended warranty???{smirk} ---I hope that you got that I was a bit skeptical of the aaalivestock article....it did, however, show clearly that promises were made to way too many people on this.

Your suggestions are good ones.....hopefully common sense can get a rare victory in this situation. Thanks for helping me learn more about this.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), July 30, 2001.

I hope it didn't sound like ALL govt employees are total idiots. Only about 25-30%, in my experience, and there are actually some truly dedicated people as well. I was just to spoiled and idealistic to cut through the bullshit, especially when a lot of the management was part of the 25-35%.

Before working for the Forest Circus, I worked for the USGS Water Resources Division for six years, and 90% of the folks I worked with there werer pretty straight shooters.

I have also run intto at LEAST as many idiots at the power company (privately owned) and a few other large companies, as at the Circus, so govt doesn't have a monopoly, that's for sure.

I can only hope that enough people studying this Klamath problem have their shit together, and maybe can make the best out of a bad situation.

I'm particularly worried, though, about this Wheatley (?) guy, who appears to be trying to start some serious violence. This can lead nowhere good, imho.

for a cop to make a speech like that, in uniform no less...

Oh, yeah, I forgot for a minute; he changed his HAT.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 30, 2001.

Does anyone have a current e-mail contact for Joe and Doreen from messages above? Both come back rejected. Please respond directly to davemcdowell@surfbest.net. Thanks.

-- Dave McDowell (davemcdowell@surfbest.net), October 05, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ