Posted on 06/28/2007 1:50:22 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
I think that if the Dems get big enough fishing reels and some good bait, they can probably find that Dick Cheney:
1) hired Monica Lewinsky as a mole to infiltrate the White House and force herself on Billy Jeff;
2) secretly arranged for Hillary to make $100,000 trading commodities with no experience and insufficient capital requirements - just because he knew it’d look bad later;
3) was the real power behind the break-in at the Watergate;
4) arranged to off JFK, RFK, MLK, Jr. and, just to cover it up a bit, the wounding of George Wallace and the kidnapping of Elvis by Halliburton-employed aliens, plus sabotaging Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile one night in July, 1969;
5) suckered the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor, knowing that the resulting war would enrich Halliburton;
6) poisoned Warren Harding, so that crony “Silent Cal” could become President (you know why he was silent don’t you - it was Cheney and the shotgun) and so that the real truth behind the Teapot Dome scandal (that it was a plot to enrich Halliburton) would never be known;
7) suckered the Germans into torpedoing the Lusitania and entering into unrestricted submarine warfare against our shipping, knowing that the resulting war would enrich Halliburton; and
8) was the idea man behind faking the Spanish sinking of the Maine, knowing that the resulting war would enrich Halliburton.
Earlier records are quite spotty, so they may have trouble proving that Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were both Halliburton undercover agents hired and trained by Cheney, or that Benedict Arnold was Cheney’s boyhood friend and was easily convinced to betray the Revolution so that Halliburton, P.L.C. could earn larger profits.
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/kwua/kwuanwuaw+plfcoho030104.htm
NWRA graciously allowed us to distribute this recent interview with Russ Brooks (Pacific Legal Foundation) regarding the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on coho salmon. In the following interview, Brooks specifically addresses implications of this ruling for Klamath River coho. - Dan Keppen
Common Sense Victory for the ESA
Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorney Russ Brooks discussed with National Water Resources Association (NWRA) the major victory with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on February 24 that invalidated, once again, the listing of the Oregon Coast coho salmon as a “threatened species” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At issue in the case was how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) counted Oregon Coast coho salmon for protected status under the ESA. According to PLF, NMFS’ counting of only naturally spawned salmon while totally disregarding hatchery spawned salmon kept the fish count artificially low, justifying otherwise needless ESA protections and locking up land use. Below is a transcript of the February 25 interview:
NWRA: Mr. Brooks, I understand that the Pacific Legal Foundation had a tremendous victory yesterday; can you tell us about that?
Russell Brooks: I can. We received a ninth circuit decision in the Alsea Valley case. It was a tremendous victory for PLF, but truly was a victory for common sense and people along the Oregon coast.
NWRA: Would you, beyond salmon, this is also a victory for endangered species propagation efforts?
Russell Brooks: I certainly believe it is, this decision could have wide ranging affects for many different species listed under the ESA. And the fact of the matter is, when the fisheries service considers a species for listing they are going to have to consider all members of all that species and not just simply the species they prefer or members of species they prefer. That decision is probably not only going to affect the salmon but other species which are situated in the same matter.
NWRA: What does this decision mean for species that are currently on the list, similar to the coho salmon, will they be reviewed at this point?
Russell Brooks: When the judge released his decision initially in September of 2001, that decision had wide and far ranging implications for salmon and steelhead listing up and down the west coast in all of the Western States. Basically, his decision said that when the fishery services considers hatchery and so called wild salmon as the same species, and when it finds that hatcheries and wild salmon are swimming side by side out in the same streams and swimming side by side out in the ocean, and when the fisheries finds that hatcheries and wild salmon spawn together then they must be treated in the same matter, together. What this means now, is that the fishery services must consider hatchery salmon in the same way it considers wild salmon, when it decides whether or not a the listing is justified. That has far ranging implicates for salmon and steelhead listing up and down the west coast, simply, because the fishery service has created the same illegal and unlawful listings, as they have in the Oregon coast Coho listing
NWRA: What would your response be to those who say the NMFS could simply reformulate its criteria to say a particular distinct population system only includes wild salmon and not salmon from hatcheries?
Russell Brooks: Judge Hogan actually addressed that issue in his Sept. 2001 opinion. He noted that “theoretically” NOAA could just simply make two separate populations. However, importantly, after that observation he concluded that two separate populations did not appear possible based on NOAA’s findings that hatchery and wild coho are the same species, that they swim side-by-side in the same streams, and that in many cases they interbreed. The 9th Cir. took note of the argument and of Judge Hogan’s finding in its opinion. The court noted, again “theoretically” that NOAA could simply create two separate populations for hatchery and wild fish. However, most importantly, the court then noted, “the district court legitimately doubts this is possible.” That little phrase is a key to the case because it sends a big message to NOAA, a shot across their bow, if you will — “don’t get silly with the salmon listings.” The court did not have to put that statement in the opinion. Yet, even though it did, it could have just said “the district court doubts this is possible.” But, it didn’t stop there. Instead, it used the qualifier “legitimately doubts.” That’s a strong indication the Ninth Circuit tends to agree with Judge Hogan’s findings.
NWRA: What could this mean for our members in the Klamath Project?
Russell Brooks: Well, in the Klamath project it could have huge implications. Certainly the Klamath Coho listing, it provides a large basis for the water being taken away from the Klamath farmers providing the basis for a lot of the problems and struggles that they have been facing for the last four or five years. If that listing is taken away, as it should be, we expect it will be, then there is not going to be a basis for the federal government to continue shutting off water to those good people down there. As a matter of fact, we have a case before Judge Hogan right now, asking him to invalidate that Klamath Coho listing, just as he did the Oregon Coast Coho listings, simply, for the fact that it contains the same illegal flaw.
NWRA: So the Klamath coho listing has the same counting irregularities as the Coho Salmon counting?
Russell Brooke: It does, the same illegal fatal flaw
NWRA: Well that is good news for our Klamath members. Can you tell us how long you have been working on this case, from first filing it until the ruling yesterday?
Russell Brooks: We filed the complaint back in November 1999, we received Judge Hogan’s thoughtful and well reasoned opinion in September 2001. Shortly there after, just after a couple months after the decision came out, a group of environmentalists intervened and appealed the decision and the Ninth Circuit decision was released yesterday, dismissing the appeal as improper for lack of jurisdiction.
NWRA: Can you give us an idea the status for your case on the Klamath coho listing?
Russell Brooks: Sure, we filed the case challenging the Klamath Coho listing, shortly after Judge Hogan’s Alsea decision came out. We filed that case right back in front of Judge Hogan because we had an indication of what he thought of these illegal listings. Shortly there after, the federal government’s fishery service moved to stay the litigation on that case until the Ninth Circuit released its Alsea opinion. That opinion was released yesterday and we will be marching back to court asking Judge Hogan to list a stay and invalidate the Klamath coho listing for the same reason that he invalidated the Oregon Coast Coho listing.
NWRA: Well when do you think a decision on that case can be expected?
Russell Brooks: It is really hard to say, these things are really up to the judges and the work load they have on their dock it. I would certainly be hopeful have a decision on that case within the next few months.
NWRA: Well that is all good news. We certainly appreciate all your efforts and the efforts of the Pacific Legal Foundation working on this case. It is truly a sea change toward a more common sense and effective implementation of the ESA.
Russell Brooks: Exactly, I believe it is and we thank you for your support, your member’s support and the support of all other the concerned citizens and property owners, out there.
NWRA: Should our members or others have questions for you or would like to discuss the case in more detail, are you available for contact?
Russell Brooks: I am. Please feel free to contact me at 427-576-0484 or by email at rb@signpacificlegal.org
That would be a sight, because it was a Steven Wright joke!
-PJ
I know that!!! It was a sick, sourchastic JOKE!!!
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles01/klamath_river_salmon_protections.htm
“Klamath River Salmon Protections Ruled Illegal!”
: )
Once again, those rascally neocon Zionists!
There’s something fishy about this...
The Department of Fish and Game claims that was a mistake.
To reach their conclusions department biologists said they eliminated other factors that could have killed the fish, including drought, a late summer heat wave and a possible spill of toxics into the river. They found the only difference in the Klamath River in the fall of 2002 compared to other dry years was that the number of salmon returning for their annual spawning run was high and the amount of water in the river was low.
David Vogel, who worked for 14 years for the Fishery Research and Fishery Resources Divisions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before starting his own environmental consulting firm in Redding, Calif., is sharply critical of the report – not only its conclusions, but its methodology. He said he has not prepared a point-by-point analysis and rebuttal but will do so in the near future.
Vogel told WorldNetDaily he was "shocked" and "astounded" at the department's conclusion that the fish kill was due to insufficient water.
"Let me put it this way – if it is [the cause], you certainly can't use Fish and Game's report to make that conclusion," said Vogel, adding that the most "striking feature" of the report is that "the Department of Fish and Game is building a strong case for its lack of scientific objectivity."
"They're trying to build a case – and I believe it's a very weak case – by trying to attack low-flow releases from Irongate Dam without looking at all the factors in a holistic fashion that is always necessary in scientific analysis," he remarked. Irongate Dam, in California near the Oregon border, is the main dam on the Klamath.
"There's a lot of speculation and a lot of innuendo in their report, and a lot of technical information that Fish and Game did not include," said Vogel. "Notably lacking from the report is an analysis of the water temperatures that were present in the Upper Klamath River downstream of Irongate Dam during the time of the fish kill," he explained, adding that the information was available.
"I did have water temperature thermographs in the Upper Klamath River downstream of Irongate Dam and I did examine the data – which clearly demonstrate that the water temperatures from Irongate Dam in the main stem of the Upper Klamath were within lethal range for salmon."
"Lethal range," he emphasized. "They were too high. So Fish and Game attempts to build an argument for increased flow below Irongate Dam during early September, but the problem with that is that even if the flow had been increased the water temperatures were unsuitably warm for salmon in the upper river. In other words, there was no place for the fish to go."
Make a democrat happy and content while he is outside the grave.
Didn’t know that. It just seemed like something you would have seen on “The Jerk”.
I believe I see the "root cause" of the problem. Whoever they are, they aren't "many" and whatever they are doing, it's not "thinking".
No worries though... The Democrats have promised me two new, morally ambiguous, bisexual girlfriends, and a cure for shrunken genitals if I vote for them in '08. :-)
LOL
I had to salmon all my energy to reply.
LOL
This gives me a haddock.
This is so pathetic. I read the whole article and they don’t even offer any information about how Cheney supposedly intervened, etc... Talk about horrible journalism. If they’ve got a case why not give at least a FEW of the reasons they want the hearings — oh, yeah, it really is a fishing expedition isn’t it???
I’m kind of familiar with the Klamath Water Basin dispute, but not at all aware of Cheney’s involvement. What astounds me is the environmentalists that don’t realize that THEIR interference with proper management of water and other resources CREATES more problems. (Like when they prevent cleaning up of downed timber, etc... which leads to even BIGGER fires and more unnecessary destruction, as another person mentioned on this thread).
—I thought he did it for the Halibut—
It’s Halibutton’s fault!
Grampa Dave, Drewsdad and Carry_Okie are making some very major points here that can be readily used to make REAL laughing stocks out of these Dumbocrats and their committeemen who are trying to make horses, but are turning out camels, instead! (I'd walk a mile for one of their Camels!)
This could turn into as much fun as "Dan's Bakesale" was!!! These hearings could turn into a laff riot!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.