Posted on 10/29/2007 8:33:08 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
Enough to make them rich and influential, I'd say.
Short answer? When hell freezes over...or only after 6ft of God’s green earth is mounded up o’re top of ‘em, whichever comes first.
Hey! CON-Artists have always been able to deceive the very elect!!! Sometimes the very elected, too!!!
Yes... This is where the "BOHICA" thang comes from!
Bend Over, Here It Comes AGAIN!!! (BOHICA)
[hanging head in shame] I admit to forgetting AuntB. LOL.
The names I pinged are from one of the prior threads where a Klamath ping list was started (I now added AuntB). If anyone wants to be added or deleted, please freepmail me. The list:
69ConvertibleFirebird, AuntB, B4Ranch, backhoe, Boot Hill, brazzaville, Carry_Okie, Czar, dandelion, DoughtyOne, Dukie, ElkGroveDan, fish hawk, forester, freepatriot32, Grampa Dave, Gritty, hedgetrimmer, Iconoclast2, Issaquahking, Jeff Head, joanie-f, marsh2, OregonRancher , Paloma_55, Phil V., poindexter, prisoner6, sasquatch, SC Swamp Fox, sergeantdave, SierraWasp, TenthAmendmentChampion, tertiary01, tubebender,
I wandered on their website the other day. I found that 5 days before the San Diego wildfires broke out, the Nature Conservancy had acquired another 1350 acres of ranchland to add to their 8,000 acre "Ramona Grasslands Project," paying $11 million for the land, more than 90% of which was from our tax dollars. They were touting the preservation of chaparral, coastal sage brush and others as habitat for "golden eagles, burrowing owls, hawks, black-tailed jack rabbits and bobcats, as well as three endangered animal species – the arroyo toad, Stephens’ kangaroo rat and San Diego fairy shrimp."
This area is in the heart of the Witch Fire, that has burned 200,000 acres and destroyed over 1,000 homes. The chaparral and coastal sage fueled the fire.
The Nature Conservancy put up a Q&A page about the fires on their website. They can't acknowledge that taking productive ranchland and turning it into a largely un-tended area of brush would only fuel a fire and risk the safety of the adjacent homes. Instead, they said: "these fires are also highly correlated with urban development — when natural areas are surrounded by human land use, we see an increase in wildfire ignition." And of course, their solution is to acquire yet more land saying: "we must create a network of conservation reserves that is larger than the largest catastrophic event."
The whole discussion was maddening.
Since the canal gates had been closed by BOR, he simply helped the farmers and ranchers, (of which he was one, down here) to rig up pumps and aluminum irrigation pipes to create a water lifeline BY-PASS that was really in their stupid faces!!! It was wonderful!!!
So by the time I got there in my old "Wonder Wagon" motorhome that I just sold so's somebody else could wonder when it's gonna break down for good, it was all over but the shoutin, as they say! That's when Mrs. Wasp and I met some guy named "Rocky" who was workin an organizin and sleepin right with them Lays Potato Chip farmers and ranchers, keepin 'em all from quarrelling with one another while continuing their quarrel with the dumb government doin the bidding of the "Hemp Rope" Environ-Whacko knothead militant enviros!!!
Some of us will never forget either Phil V., or Issaquahking, aka "Rocky!" What a saga that was!!! (and still is, evidently) If I'm not mistaken, AuntB was there at that time also, but I never got to meet her.
From “wildlife,” to “wildflowers,” to WILDFIRES!!! “The tradegy of the commons!” (As Carry_Okie points out in his great book)
I'm just about ready to start strangling these destructive idiots.
They hate their lives so much they project it on "humanity," so that they can't see what good people can do. They're digging their own graves by destroying productive land around them, thinking that "natural" means no human participation. You'd think they just want to lay down and die.
I don't want my family taken with them.
I hear ya! Here’s a link to one of those idiots and the Ramona Grasslands (preceded by a short ad)
http://video.ap.org/v/Legacy.aspx?g=c6a919f0-7f07-466c-a032-1a3db37feef1&mk=en-ap&f=cadiu
bump
Why should one area be economically destroyed so that people downstream can benefit.
Because lobbyists and politicians have made sales and purchases of land tracts that will provide them with enormous profits once this is accomplished.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Karl, thank you very much for posting this and giving those of us who fought this in ‘01 more GovernMental EnvironMental near terminal FATIGUE!!! (grin)
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/384431.html
The County’s editorial on the dams in the Sacramento Bee:
(It’s ok, I have permission of an author to post it.)
Behind the dams on the Klamath River
Jim Cook and Marcia H. Armstrong -
Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B7
There is a clamor on the Klamath River for the removal of dams. As representatives of the region that encompasses all three California dams on this important river and the people who will be most affected by dam removal, we have serious doubts that this is the best environmental strategy, or even the best solution to enhance our fishery resource, the driver of this policy choice.
Unfortunately, this has become one of those issues in which reasoned discussion and scientific due diligence has given way to the power of important political interests, ideological stances and romanticized visions of run of the river results.
This debate has intensified, and is now coming to a head, as a result of a request by PacifiCorp for a new federal license to continue to operate its California and Oregon hydro-electric facilities on the Klamath River. Despite the fact that PacifiCorp has agreed to invest more than $300 million to provide significantly greater protection for Coho salmon and other fishery resources, opponents are nonetheless insisting on dam removal.
Yet, there is a very important reason why PacifiCorp has made it absolutely clear that it will not bear any responsibility for taking out dams. They have no clear idea as to what is in the tons and tons of sludge and sediment that have been collecting at the bottom of these structures for more than 50 years or how to remove the material safely. Quite simply, they are scared stiff by the prospect of so much legal liability.
As a result, if the dams are to be removed, it will only be if some other entity is created to buy them and take them out. If the utility that owns them is so fearful that removal could potentially unleash an environmental disaster, it naturally makes those of us who live here very apprehensive. Given these legitimate concerns, which no definitive studies have yet to allay, it is particularly frustrating that so little focus and creative energy have been expended on looking at other options to help promote our fishery resource.
No community in Northern California has done more to lead in Coho recovery than Siskiyou County. We are the home to two pilot projects that the Department of Fish and Game believes will be a model for the state in working collaboratively and with a minimum of bureaucracy to promote Coho recovery.
And certainly more must be done on the Klamath, including the installation of more fish ladders and ensuring that those upstream are prudent in their use of water for irrigation and agricultural purpose. There is much evidence to suggest that these, and other similar measures, would substantially improve Coho conditions without the fear of an environmental catastrophe that dam removal poses.
Moreover, scant attention has been paid to the other major environmental consideration — in an era of global warming consciousness, substantial amounts of clean, cheap hydro power is being precipitously removed and potentially replaced by coal-fired power. This is hardly a plus for our planet or our ratepayers.
Finally, there needs to be some appreciation of the cumulative impacts of environmental regulations on communities such as Siskiyou County. The natural resource industry that historically employed our citizens and gave us the tax base to provide services to our people is now a shadow of its former self. Totally apart from the environmental considerations, dam removal will, among other things, further harm our tax base, reduce property values, dramatically curtail world-class white water rafting recreational opportunities, and, unless fully mitigated, negatively impact the quality of life in our community.
We understand that we are swimming against the current on this issue. Yet, we hope that this explanation of the perspective of those whose day-to-day life would be most affected promotes a more rigorous and thoughtful public discourse over the most prudent approach to returning the Klamath to health.
About the writer:
* Jim Cook is chairman of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. Marcia H. Armstrong is a member of the Board of Supervisors. Other supervisors who signed on as authors of this commentary are La Vada Erickson, Michael Kobseff and Bill Overman. (unanimous)
Thank you!
Thank you for all you do!
God absolutely bless all five of you highest elected officials in the county where most of these 4 dams reside for trying so valiently to stem the tide of these dubious dam delinquents!!!
Oops! I think that was a “Short Nosed Sucker” fish!!! (reply #67) Oh well... What in the name of all that’s natural does it matter, anyways???
It is a set up. The guv is going to back ripping out the Klamath dams in exchange for the enviros backing the two new dams in the central valley
Unfortunately, left wingers often continue to vote after getting their 6’ under their beloved green. Also, many of the lies of the departed Greens continue to spewed as gospel instead exposed as lies.
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.