Posted on 07/16/2002 11:54:59 PM PDT by forest
7/16/02
By RYAN HARPER
Klamath Falls Herald and News
A Democratic congressman from Portland planned to introduce legislation today that would limit agriculture on a portion of the lease lands in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath national wildlife refuges.
Some local interests say the measure could do more harm than good.
Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District, is offering an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that would prevent alfalfa and row crops from being grown on lands whose leases expire this year. It would also prevent chemical use on those lands.
The amendment would be effective this year only, and would cover about 2,000 of the 22,000 acres of lease lands on the two refuges. It would still allow less intensive agriculture on the affected lands.
“The evidence is that we have too many water demands in the Basin,” Blumenauer said. “We should take advantage of every opportunity, even if it’s a small one, to make things better.”
The debate about farming on the two refuges is an old one, going back at least 40 years.
Guidelines for the lease land system on the two refuges were established by the Kuchel Act in 1964. The act applies only to the two Basin refuges, and they are the only refuges in the nation that allow intensive commercial agriculture.
A departure from policy established by the Kuchel Act would require an act of Congress, which has been a significant stumbling block to those who have sought to end farming on the refuges.
Blumenauer said his amendment is not an attempt to overturn the act. According the Kuchel Act, agricultural activities are supposed to be consistent with wildlife purposes, and Blumenauer contends that growing crops like alfalfa, potatoes and onions is not.
“If you look at the wording, it’s entirely consistent,” he said.
But some local agriculture groups disagree.
According to Deb Crisp of the Tulelake Growers Association, the lease land system provides benefits to both farmers and wildlife, because farmers only use only a small portion of the lease lands for more profitable row crops and plant the rest with grains that provide food to migrating waterfowl.
Crisp said limiting lease land production, even on such a small scale, would harm wildlife by taking away a significant source of food.
“It would be devastating to the refuge,” she said. “It would eliminate a precious food source for wildlife.”
Dan Keppen of the Klamath Water Users Association said the proposed amendment and a press release regarding it misrepresent lease land farming.
“It really shies away from a couple of key points,” he said.
Keppen pointed out that chemical use on the refuges is already restricted, and has not been found by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to have a negative impact on wildlife.
“They haven’t demonstrated that there is a problem,” he said.
He also said that, because of the way water is allocated in the Basin, limiting commercial agriculture on lease lands will not likely provide more water to the refuge.
“What is it going to do for wildlife?” he asked. “I just don’t see it.”
Keppen said that the amendment, which is supported by conservation groups, is just another attempt to push farmers off the lease lands unnecessarily.
“This isn’t being driven by legislative necessity,” he said.
He said if limiting lease land agriculture truly offered a solution, Reps. Greg Walden and Wally Herger would have pursued it long ago.
“This is their back yard,” he said.
Walden spokesman Dallas Boyd said Walden is opposed to Blumenauer’s amendment and does not support limiting lease land agriculture.
“Farmers have been an integral part of the refuge for 100 years,” he said. “The notion that agriculture in the Klamath wildlife refuges detracts from the quality of the environment is nonsense.”
Reporter Ryan Harper covers natural resources and the environment. He can be reached at 885-4471 or (800) 275-0982, or by e-mail at rharper@heraldandnews.com.
©2002 MyWebPal.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
All other trademarks and Registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Nope. That is how they operate. Hound, hound, hound and blow out of proportion. Anything to get their foot in the door.
Which begs the question: Better for whom?
Guess it's more like Rep. Blumenidiot.
Until we can eliminate the UN's Agenda 21 and the Socialists in Congress it will never be over.
Thanks for the ping, FRiend.
pinging B4 and bttt.
Apparently there are just far too many Americans who have to struggle through life without the benefit of every possible layer of bureaucracy. They are being denied their fundamental right to more government, and we owe it to them, to all of us, to make it right.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
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.