Wall Street Journal - Rural Cleansing 7/26/01

Commentary Rural Cleansing By Kimberley A. Strassel. Ms. Strassel is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.

Federal authorities were forced to cut off water to 1,500 farms in Oregon's and California's Klamath Basin in April because of the "endangered" sucker fish. The environmental groups behind the cutoff continue to declare that they are simply concerned for the welfare of a bottom-feeder. But last month, those environmentalists revealed another motive when they submitted a polished proposal for the government to buy out the farmers and move them off their land.

This is what's really happening in Klamath -- call it rural cleansing -- and it's repeating itself in environmental battles across the country. Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups -- from the Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) -- is no longer to protect nature. It's to expunge humans from the countryside.

The Greens' Strategy

The strategy of these environmental groups is nearly always the same: to sue or lobby the government into declaring rural areas off-limits to people who live and work there. The tools for doing this include the Endangered Species Act and local preservation laws, most of which are so loosely crafted as to allow a wide leeway in their implementation.

In some cases owners lose their property outright. More often, the environmentalists' goal is to have restrictions placed on the land that either render it unusable or persuade owners to leave of their own accord.

The Klamath Basin saga began back in 1988, when two species of suckers from the area were listed under the Endangered Species Act. Things worked reasonably well for the first few years after the suckers were listed. The Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the area's irrigation, took direction from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and tried to balance the needs of both fish and farmers. This included programs to promote water conservation and tight control over water flows. The situation was tense, but workable.

But in 1991 the Klamath basin suffered a drought, and Fish and Wildlife noted that the Bureau of Reclamation might need to do more for the fish. That was the environmentalists' cue. Within two months, the ONRC -- the pit bull of Oregon's environmental groups -- was announcing intentions to sue the Bureau of Reclamation for failure to protect the fish.

The group's lawsuits weren't immediately successful, in part because Fish and Wildlife continued to revise its opinions as to what the fish needed, and in part because of the farmers' undeniable water rights, established in 1907. But the ONRC kept at it and finally found a sympathetic ear. This spring, a federal judge -- in deciding yet another lawsuit brought by the ONRC, other environmental groups, fishermen and Indian tribes -- ordered an unwilling Interior Department to shut the water off. The ONRC had succeeded in denying farmers the ability to make a living.

Since that decision, the average value of an acre of farm property in Klamath has dropped from $2,500 to about $35. Most owners have no other source of income. And so with the region suitably desperate, the enviros dropped their bomb. Last month, they submitted a proposal urging the government to buy the farmers off.

The council has suggested a price of $4,000 an acre, which makes it more likely owners will sell only to the government. While the amount is more than the property's original value, it's nowhere near enough to compensate people for the loss of their livelihoods and their children's futures.

The ONRC has picked its fight specifically with the farmers, but its actions will likely mean the death of an entire community. The farming industrywill lose $250 million this year. But property-tax revenues will also decrease under new property assessments. That will strangle road and municipal projects. Local businesses are dependent on the farmers and are now suffering financially. Should the farm acreage be cleared of people entirely, meaning no taxes and no shoppers, the community is likely to disappear.

Nor has the environment won, even at this enormous cost. The fish in the lake may have water, but nothing else does. On the 200,000 acres of parched farmland, animals belonging to dozens of species -- rabbits, deer, ducks, even bald eagles -- are either dead or off searching for water. And there's no evidence the suckers are improving. Indeed, Fish and Wildlife's most recent biological opinions, which concluded that the fish needed more water, have been vociferously questioned by independent biologists. Federal officials are now releasing some water (about 16% of the normal flow) into the irrigation canals, but it doesn't help the farmers or wildlife much this year.

Environmentalists argue that farmers should never have been in the "dry" Klamath valley in the first place and that they put undue stress on the land. But the West is a primarily arid region; its history is one of turning inhospitable areas into thriving communities through prudent and thoughtful reallocation of water. If the Klamath farmers should be moved, why not the residents of San Diego and Los Angeles, not to mention the Southwest and parts of Montana and Wyoming? All of these communities survive because of irrigation -- water that could conceivably go to some other "environmental" use.

But, of course, this is the goal. Environmental groups have spoken openly of their desire to concentrate people into cities, turning everything outside city limits into a giant park. A journalist for the Rocky Mountain News recently noted that in June the Sierra Club posted on its Web site a claim that "efficient" urban density is about 500 households an acre. This, in case you're wondering, is about three times the density of Manhattan's most tightly packed areas. And it's not as if there were any shortage of open space in the West. The federal government already owns 58% of the western U.S., with state and local government holdings bumping the public percentage even higher.

Balanced Stewardship

Do the people who give money to environmental groups realize the endgame is to evict people from their land? I doubt it. The American dream has always been to own a bit of property on which to pursue happiness. This dream involves some compromises, including a good, balanced stewardship of nature -- much like what was happening in Klamath before the ONRC arrived. But this dream will disappear -- as it already is in Oregon and California -- if environmental groups and complicit government agencies are allowed to continue their rural cleansing.

-- somebody (something@somewhere.com), July 30, 2001

Answers

Response to Rural Cleansing- Wall St. Journal Article

This is very slanted reporting, and a vast oversimplification of hte situation. I live in the "neighborhood" of K Falls, and if you want to know what's really going on, do some research. There are plenty of good articles on the net. If you can't figure it out for yourself, go look at the Freedom-Self Reliance forum, where there is a discussion happening on the subject. Here's the url for the topic:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 005rox

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

Response to Rural Cleansing- Wall St. Journal Article

While it is dreadful to think of someone running me off the land I work so hard to develop as I please, one of the initial things I took into account when looking for land was available water. "They" already control my electricity, (till I can afford to get off the grid) my information, (which is why I am here right now and not watching tv) and my accessability, (gas prices--it costs alot to live way out) so I wasn't going to give them the power over the most basic need there is. I have water. I don't count on anyone but God to continue that. I know not everyone gets to choose where to be, but an otherwise arid region where water is controlled by anyone other than a group in which you have some reasonable say seems like a loaded bet to me...

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), July 30, 2001.

I cannot say for sure that Klamath is part of a rural cleansing conspiracy, but I can say that environmentalists do want many parts of our country depopulated and they are using every means in the courts and ballot boxes they can. I saw the map that the Massachusettes group presented as their plan for Maine, the question was not which part would be depopulated, but which parts would they leave populated! I found it hard to believe and thought I was being given mis-information about their plans so I called my local representative. I told him that it was explained to me that when their park initiative failed that they decided to take it piece by piece instead while the newspapers quoted them as saying they gave up their park idea altogether because of the opposition to it. My representative said that what I heard was correct, they are trying to take it piece by piece if they cannot get it all at once. Now the Bangor Daily newspaper is full of the battle once again because a woman from Mass bought land to donate to the park when it does become a reality. I checked the UN's own website for the list of lands they intend to take over for environmental areas and every state in every country is included on that list as containing lands they intend to turn into areas for depopulation to preserve the environemnt. I'll have to find that list again to see if the Klamath area is on it.

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.

Properties under UNESCO listed as World Heritage sites:http://www.unesco.org/whc/heritage.htm

Properties under UNESCO listed as biospheres:http://www.unesco.org/mab/brlist.htm

Also of note is that these biospheres have buffer zones and various layers around them controlled by the UNESCO policies.

We can add to the list of lands the Marine Protected Areas I'm still searching of the list of proposed lands

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.

Yes, me again. I looked over the Sierra Club website, they are behind the Maine North Woods Park(or at least helping RESTORE push it)as well as Klamath and other projects, they are big on population control, and they are working with the UN. We know that all these groups would like to see population growth reversed. I guess the only way we'll know for sure is if the Klamath area does become a biosphere.

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.

Again, I will be the "oddball" here and fervently agree with the Greens point of view, probably because I AM a Green, and a 'tree- hugger" and a paying supporter of Earth First organization.

The farmer folks in the parched West seriously need their heads examined for trying to farm or run cattle in a semi-arid region, we have way too much land capable of supporting all the crops and livestock necessary for our use and export on the lands that get ample rainfall each and every year!!! Like around here, no one has trouble growing 13 foot tall corn without irrigation, 3 or 4 crops of alfalfa hay a year, without irrigation, why try to fight Mother nature when there are PLENTY of places you don't ever have to irrigate?

My personal opinion is this, the folks out West got their land literally "dirt cheap", and they used to get their Federally subsidised water to irrigate with "dirt cheap" too, and now that water is getting in short supply ( all those people now, way more than used to live out West), the farmers have to face REALITY in a hurry!!!

Should we let the farmers have their way at the expense of Mother Nature? And keep paying for it with our tax dolllars? No way!!! Not in my book, let them get land that HAS water, and gets ample rainfall naturally, like we had the sense to do!

We farm 104 acres, it's too steep for row crops, so we do organic hay, this year we gots lots and lots of rain, should be three crops of it, all done without irrigation and chemicals of any kind, so we practice what we preach.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), July 30, 2001.

Annie, I appreciate concern for the environment, and yes there are lots of lands with plenty of water. We have a well and do not use government funded irrigation, we do not use pesticides or chemicals, I'm an all-natural kind of gal who speaks with her horses and views her cats as part of the family. HOWEVER, those farmers will not be able to move up here when you greenies get your way because MY LAND IS SLATED FOR DEPOPULATION as well. I live in a county aimed to be part of RESTORE's park in Maine. When they come for YOUR land, will you still view it as what's best for everyone. Will you move to the city? When the only food available is from third world countries because you gave up all your land to biospheres, will you feel the same? And remember, those third world countries are arrid and there are irrigation projects going on there, that may threaten a species, that will have to be shut down, repeat, repeat....It's easy enough when you look at the small Klamath picture, but when you look at the whole package: small things going on everywhere, your view of the Klamath situation is narrow minded and lacking in foresight.

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.

I appreciate your situation Epona, and understand it, but, I researched the area before we moved here, and due to the steepness of the terrain and far distance from "commerce areas", this place will never become desirable as a "depopulated area", more likely an addition to the National Forest maybe! Since it is willed after our deaths to the Nature Conservancy this is moot anyway!

As a third generation farmer, I still cannot fathom why folks insist on farming semi-arid land when more suitable ground is plentiful, and can be done without being on the Government Farm Welfare programs, which our family has never done! The whole idea of getting paid to NOT grow things is nonsensical and goes against the grain of a true farmer!

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), July 30, 2001.

Ya' know ... I have a poser on all this. I've lived in the country most of my life, where the air is fresh, the water is sweet, the grass is green, and my eyes don't sting! Ever been to LA, CA for any length of time (or any congested city, for that matter)? I have, and I'm convinced that the whackiness of folks out there ain't due to siftin' and scratchin' for the almighty dollar at all ... it comes from breathin' in all that green air! Yep, that's what I figure - seen mostly the same behavior and attitudes in all the big, populated cities I've visited. Anyone of you what's traveled any will most likely agree with me, and any of you what can that live in them places - MOVE QUICK whilst ya still have functioning brain cells!

Now ... to set the record straight - this is an attempt at humor in the face of all this, slighted as it may be. I'm not real familiar with all that the environmentalists want to do concerning moving everyone to the cities, but let them live in the cities and suck in enough of the "green goo" that passes for air and maybe they won't be so quick to want to put everyone on earth in lumped up concentrations!

As for those of us who've been fortunate enough to have lived most of our lives on Mother Earth's best (country livin'), you'll find few that take it for granted or that aren't grateful for what they've had. And the majority of us take care of it better than any city dwellin', green goo breathin' environmentalists would ever know how!

Now (not humorous any more, didjya notice) as for puttin' me off "my" land ... it's no more "my" land than it's the environmentalists land! A person finds out real quick just how much it isn't "his/her" land when a flood, drought, tornado, or other acts of nature come through and wipe it clean or bury it under molten lava or whatever. We all need to wake up to that, I think! We don't "own" the land just because we have a piece of paper that says we do ... we just borrow it for a while, and (in my opinion) we better damn well take care of what we've been lent ... we will answer to a Higher Power one day!

I know I've opened a great big can of worms in this post ... meant to! I've tried to do it with a little humor and without name calling and without malice ... hope I've succedded! I also hope I've given cause for thought and mullin' over the issue some more! On that note I will simply end this post by saying:

I hope your day is filled with as much laughter and sunshine as mine is! Happy Day!

-- Cap'in' (cptnktal@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.

Most irrigated farmland in arid climates exists because the climate allows for a much longer (or even year-round) growing season, which produces more human/animal food than land that gets sufficient rainfall but is nonproductive during harsh winter months. In addition, it is possible for a wide variety of foods to be grown and shipped to areas where such foods may be out of season. And finally, without irrigation, the citrus and avocado crops would be greatly diminished.

I have no desire to comment on pros or cons of the points I've just mentioned, because there are plenty of both. I just want to say that any changes in water allocation or restriction must be made at the government level, which has so far shown truly phenomenal short-sightedness. So good luck to us all!

-- Leslie A. (lesliea@home.com), July 30, 2001.

Hi,

I'm new to this board (today), and hate to be so strong with only my second post, but this situation is out of hand.

Number one....I do own my own land as long as I'm alive. If I pass it to my kids after death, sell it to someone else etc...then someone else will own it. This UN, you have zero rights in anything stuff is getting out of hand

From my understanding of the Klamath situation, (having spoken people in that area, and know some that traveled out there to be with them) Klamath is man made. If it is man made, not much is indigenous with the exception of cactus and other desert creatures.

The bottom line on Klamath is that the sucker fish and coho salmon are not indigineous to that region. How fish are indigenous in a man made area is beyond comprehension.

Epona....I live in Maine as well, and am familiar with Restore and Carter the clearcut guy. Carter has been lying about things and now Restore is doing exactly what they say their not doing. What they couldn't do based on their truthfulness, their doing via lies.

Annie....how are the land grabs in Ohio coming along? I understand the govt is trying to vacate quite a few farmers in Ohio as well. Think they held some rallies out their last year too about it.

Maybe you're lot of land isn't so far behind.

Recently, (yesterday) the govt. told cattle farmers they couldn't use grazing land that they've been using for generations. I believe they actually took his herd if I'm not mistaken.

Looking at the UN, (Project 21) and Wildlandproject information, you can see exactly what the push is. There's no question that good stewardship of land is important, but if anyone thinks the UN or the Federal govt. can do a better job of taking care of my land, they've got rocks in their heads. All you have to do is look at the track record of both. It's a no brainer.

Lew

-- lew (lewr93@aol.com), July 31, 2001.

Epona, and others, I read the list of Biosphere reserves. The ones I'm familiar with appear to be areas which are "special" areas, e.g. Yellowstone, Big Bend, etc. I am skeptical that there is some evil force trying to herd people into cities through the implementation of Biosphere Reserves. I went to the following url, for the history of Biosphere Reserves, and their goals, etc. I suggest you read the info there before reaching any conclusions.

http://www.unesco.org/mab/brfaq.htm

The information at the bottom of the World Heritage Sites list Epona gave us appears even more benign. I am not worried about the UN depopulating, for instance:

1978 Mesa Verde 1978 Yellowstone 1979 Grand Canyon National Park 1979 Everglades National Park  1979 Independence Hall 1980 Redwood National Park  1981 Mammoth Cave National Park  1981 Olympic National Park  1983 Great Smoky Mountains National Park  1984 Statue of Liberty 1984 Yosemite National Park 1987 Monticello and University of Virginia in Charlottesville 1995 Carlsbad Caverns National Park

This includes ALL the National Heritage Sites except four or five, and that's because I'm not familiar enough with the others to evaluate whether I should be concerned about them.

I think the conclusion we draw about all this may be predicated more on our existing outlooks than on what is really happening; I'm not saying I don't have biases based on my world view, but rather am trying to point out that it's hard to look at this whole issue WITHOUT our built in biases.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 31, 2001.

Hi, Lew, welcome!

Whoever told you that Klamath Lake is man made is clueless. It happens to be the largest natural lake in Oregon.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), July 31, 2001.

There IS a concerted effort with land grabs. All that really has to be done is to connect the dots. Evironmental NGO's are funded by federal tax money, they go to UN meetings, and work in conjunction with federal, state and local govt. to purchase land before a private individual gets to do so.

American Planners Association is a member NGO of the UN. The American Planners just happen to be the largest association of city board planners in the country. They're the ones who control and come up with all the city plans. They carry a huge amount of weight.

Another example from New Hampshire just a week ago.

A paper company was in the market to sell off much of it's land since it wasn't economically viable because of a few reasons. Anyway, the conservation group had a sale price on the land before the public even knew it was thought about being sold. The papers reported that the company supposedly wanting to sell it, and the conservation group already had the final numbers they were going to present.

Guess what? The number was exactly what the company wanted! Coincidence? Yeah, and I'm the pope!

As far as emminent domain is concerned, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the govt. does what it wants. In a growing amount of cases, the Fed's are taking land and giving "owners" way below market value.

Two weeks ago in New Hampshire, the legislature gave unlimited power to enforce domain WITHOUT notifying the owners of the land before they come to take it. Just come in and bye bye.

To think all of this is just coincidence.....well, I guess I really am the pope after all. LOL

A couple of sites to look at.

http://www.wildlandsproject.org/index.shtml

UN's Agenda 21 http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/agenda21/index.html

The idea behind people handing over their land after they die, works right into the plans.

I know the concept is "old", but we still do have something called basic constitutional rights in this country. I know their far fetched, but ...... I guess it's better than the rights that Global institutions like the UN gave the Rwandian people. We could go on there for quite some time, but I won't.

I guess it's sorta like the camera's and heat sensory equipment being used by police these days.

People feel that as long as it doesn't happen to them, it's ok. Hang on a while...it will probably happen to you.

Lew

-- lew (lewr93@aol.com), July 31, 2001.

Hi, Lew, welcome!

Whoever told you that Klamath Lake is man made is clueless. It happens to be the largest natural lake in Oregon

----------------------------------------------------------------- Hi and thank you.

Maybe I should clarified.... not the lake itself, but some of the "interconnected" waters are.

Under the 1902 Reclamation Act, the States of California and Oregon ceded lake and wetlands areas of the Klamath Basin to the federal government for the purpose of draining and "reclaiming" the land for agricultural homesteading. At that time, the United States declared that it would appropriate all unappropriated water use rights in the Basin for use by the Klamath Project. Under Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, these water use rights would attach to the land irrigated as an "appurtenance" or appendage to the land. The Act also stated that the appropriation would be in conformance with State water law. Under such laws, the water had to be put to beneficial use within the mapped area of the Klamath Project.

Prior to commencement of the Project, historical wetlands totaled around 359,000 acres. Many, such as Clear Lake, were not hydrologically connected to the Klamath River and served as evaporation sinks, consuming over a million-acre feet of water annually. As time went on, the land was drained in phases and offered for homesteads. Many of these homesteads were awarded to WWI and WWII veterans in lottery drawings. Currently, the Klamath Project irrigates 210,000 acres of farmland, while remaining wetlands total 141,920 acres. Canals and artificially reduced shoals have created an interconnected water delivery/drainage system that has about a 93% efficiency rate. Agriculture consumes only about 2% of Basin water resources. Together, farmers and Wildlife Refuges need about 350,00 acre feet of water

Marcia Armstrong and the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/sixpositions.htm

Another link: http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/tulelakehomesteaders.htm

(Based on the book The Years of Harvest - A History of the Tule Lake Basin, by Stan Turner (with contributions from the 1981 historical research project of South Eugene High School); the Ave. Press, Eugene, Ore.; c1988)

The Klamath Project was established through the Newlands Reclamation Act, (Reclamation Act of 1902, Statutes at Large vol. 32, p.388; U.S.C. vol. 43, section 416.) The purpose of the Act was to "reclaim" desert land, by constructing federal irrigation projects and reservoirs so that it could be converted for agricultural use. The Act also reclaimed land by draining swamps and lakes. Reclaimed land was to be made available as homesteads to those, who under normal circumstances, would not be able to purchase farm acreage.

Now, if it were desert land, there surely were no salmon, and they certainly wouldn't have been in the newly made reseviours because they seemed to have been made after the fact.

Also, how the fish need 125% of 100% of water is beyond me as well. I don't need 125% of my oxygen intake and the fish don't need 125% more water.

Now, even taking the opposing viewpoint that they were there when it was desert land, the fact of the matter is that the govt. (FDR) gave them full deed and water rights FOREVER.

I guess welching is ok these days.

Lew

-- lew (lewr93@aol.com), July 31, 2001.

JOJ, yeah, I purposely chose beneign sites so it comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Links from those sites also described the buffers around the parks. So the park is regulated, a buffer zone around it, and then even the land outside that which they may allow people to live in, has further restrictions. It makes one clear point: the UN is regulating US land. Then I listed the Sierra club site because they work with the UN(see links from their site)and they openly state they want to take land so people can't use it (RESTORE of Maine, for example). So we have groups using environmental laws to take land, then turn them over to the feds, who in turn, turn them over to the UN. Each group is using the other to accomplish it's purposes. So they are all working together. The end result is the same. Less land for people to live and work on.

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), July 31, 2001.

I would love to see the big picture instead of parts of cut up maps that the wildlands group thinks they are going to set aside for nonhumans.

As it is, they have stated blatantly, "The goal of the Wildlands Project is to set aside approximately fifty (50) percent of the North American continent (Turtle Island) as "wild land" for the preservation of biological diversity."

Their platform:

The eight point platform of Deep Ecology can be summarized as follows: All life (human and non-human) has equal value. Resource consumption above what is needed to supply "vital" human needs is immoral. Human population must be reduced Western civilization must radically change present economic, technological, and ideological structures. Believers have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.

"Schools and children unwittingly support the Wildlands Project. Human-i-Tees, an environmental fundraising company claims to donate 20% of their pre-tax profits to environmental groups. Their Web site indicates they are giving to six Wildlands Project affiliates."

Yep, our rights as human beings and property owners is being taken away by a cult group. If they and they're members value created things more than humans maybe they aught to go to India a worship cows!

The bottom line is, and I don't care who this offends, it is just another part of the New Age, One World agenda.

Now as far as their population control mandate goes, do you really believe that aids comes from monkeys???

The Rockefellars head up the world population control organization, and since they as a family have always had the money and position (they have always been in political arenas in one way or another including governor of WV.) Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they go hand in hand.

I did a study on fybromyalgia once about a year and a half ago. Of the following diseases, they are/were listed as being "stealth viruses", related to each other, and "COMMUNICABLE" and were under heavy scientific research (here goes and it will probably shock you).

rhumetoid arthritis fybromyalgia HIV AIDs

When I saw this, I sat there staring at the monitor for quit awhile out of shock. Yes, folks, I said they are:

1. Related 2. Communicable

And what blows me away are the fact that fibromyalgia, aids and hiv are relatively new. But, my grandmother, god rest her soul, told me how the government did experiments on patients at the mental hospital where she worked when I was younger. She was hushed up by, you guessed it, Rockafeller!

I know I sound like a crackpot, but I don't care.

-- Stephanie Nosacek (pospossum@earthlink.net), July 31, 2001.

Stefanie, it is no secret that the Federal Government created several new diseases in their Ft. Dix facility and others we don't know about in MD, namely CFS, fibro., AIDS and have even messed around with the Ebola virus too. All this was/is done in the name of biological warfare and population control(some folks think), I think just biological warfare, but that is bad enough!

My late uncle was a "lifer" in the Army, NCO, and before he died, told me of the things he knew were happening in the MD facilities, he was based in Aberdeen Proving Grounds most of his career, and had the opportunity to see what was going on personally, he was in "Supplies" and in and out of there frequently.

The general public knows nothing of this however, and will probably not believe it either.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), July 31, 2001.

Stefanie, i'm glad it was you who said, "I know I sound like a crackpot". Saved me from having to say it, and be accused of being "mean" :)

Epona, what do you mean, "Those third world countries are arid"? Hello?

Lew, you said, "Klamath is man made. If it is man made, not much is indigenous with the exception of cactus and other desert creatures. The bottom line on Klamath is that the sucker fish and coho salmon are not indigineous to that region. How fish are indigenous in a man made area is beyond comprehension" No clarification is needed. "Klamath" is not man made. There ARE indigenous fish there. There are, and always have been, native Salmon. Also, the largest native trout in the northern hemisphere live in the lake. Always have. Do more research before joining the herd who is jumping on this bandwagon of paranoia. It may be beyond YOUR comprehension, but I'm sure I don't know why. The facts are there for anyone to see.As for "Also, how the fish need 125% of 100% of water is beyond me as well.", what in the world are you taliking about? How can a fish need 125% of ANYTHING? That's impossible.

Next you say, "Now, even taking the opposing viewpoint that they were there when it was desert land, the fact of the matter is that the govt. (FDR) gave them full deed and water rights FOREVER. " Lew, it's not an "opposing viewpoint". It's a hard fact. If you persist in believing that Klamath Lake is a man made feature of the landscape, that 's up to you. So is the Pacific Ocean, I suppose, if you want it to be bad enough.

By the way, yes, the farmers were granted water from the federal government. In the early twentieth century. but the fact is, the "Tribes" were granted the right to live off the fish, both "suckers" and salmon, way before the farmers were granted their water. The Tribes have precedence, by a long shot. Their treaty is dated 1864. It's not just about fish and farmers. There are other human beings who have rights too. Older rights, in fact.

I don't know where that 2% of water in the entire basin goes to agriculture business comes from. I wish that were true; if it were, we could all forget about it, as there would be no water shortage.

Epona says, "the UN is regulating US land." Epona, read your own sites. The UN does NOT regulate these sites. Your site states that quite clearly. From your site: "Biosphere Reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems which are internationally recognized within the framework of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Collectively, they constitute a World Network. They are nominated by national governments and must meet a minimal set of criteria and adhere to a minimal set of conditions before being admitted into the World Network" Hardly sounds like the UN is coming here and making a land grab to me. The US has to APPLY, for chrissakes!

Look, you guys, if you want to worry your little heads about this, and be totally paranoid, I doubt if anything I say is going to make you change your minds. On the other hand, you can come up with some cogent information to change MY mind, go for it. But get real, ok?

JOJ

Hey Stephanie, could you give me a url or something for this "Wildlands Project" which wants to set aside half the land in the US? Thanks.

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), August 01, 2001.

<<<< I'll GIVE you the point Jumpoff. I won't argue whether parts of it were man made or not. I got my information from others, and what I've read. If all of them are wrong, I guess that's the case. I'm not admitting your right or they are.

Instead, I'll just argue from the standpoint of whether the govt. should be welching on it's citizen's and give some backup on the UN and the Environmental movement behind most of the land grabs. Take your point of the Indians, and one that I was going to place in my email yesterday. Yup...we could say that it is the Indian's land.

Do you live there, and if your not Indian, have you sold your property yet?

If we're going to use the Indian's as a standard, then most American's of any decent should leave now and go back to Britian, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden etc... because we're not native to the land right? I know that in my area there were a lot of Indian tribes such as the Passamaquoddy and MicMacs etc..

Is the federal govt. giving the land back to them? I highly doubt it. So let's argue why the govt. should or shouldn't be welching on agreements in THIS particular case.

<>>

A minimal set of criteria, and national governments. Um....would that be a beating heart and a national govt. of Sudan?

Furthermore, the UN has NO constitutional jurisdication in this country, and other "governments" are not allowed to own land in our country. Our own govt. isn't supposed to own land outside of what's stipulated in the constitution, nor do they have the abilitites to give/sell etc.. land to others government entitites.

Nor are they supposed to be setting up Biospheres in ANY area of the country. Nor is the US govt. supposed to suceed itself to ANY other govt. Including the UN! And....I wouldn't trust an organization that follows pretty closely with the Marxist agenda.

The UN's goal is to be the only govt. You can check that out on their site.

Nor are they supposed to receive monies as no govt. stands over the US govt. Nor are they supposed to receive tax money from United States citizen's, but they do already do. That's unconstitutional, and they still want the Tobin Tax installed as the "UN Tax".

But then again...it's just an old document that has no meaning. There's that welching again.

<< << Please see above, and I'm sure most are willing to give Texas, AZ, NM and CA up to Mexico now too right? Maine, NH and Vt to Canada. How about giving the Louisian Purchase back.

Now you didn't dispute much of the interconnections between the US & UN, "NON-Profit NGO's such as the Sierra Club, American Planners Association etc.... You just said we were paranoid.

I guess the thousands of sites on the Internet, writers that have written about it are all paranoid as well.

Here are a couple of maps on govt. owned land in the US. It just so happens that these lands are closely aligned with the UN's, US Land Management, and most Environmental groups agenda. It's also how most City planners are planning their new construction.

The exact percentages shown, also appear on National geographic maps across the country, and on school walls across the nation. My mother in law is a teacher in another state and they also show the same information.

So the percentages of land ownership under Federal control isn't disputable. Unless National Geographic is wrong too. Maybe they're paranoid as well.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/landgrab/landgrab3.htm

http://www.rangemagazine.com/landgrab/landgrab5.htm

Nor is the fact that the US is working in conjunction with the UN and it's NGO's and planners in the United States on setting this up. It can't all be coincidental.

Here are a couple (in a series of articles)of articles done by someone you may or may not have heard before. He's been researching the UN, NGO's and the people behind it for a great many years. They show some of the big hitters in the movement, and their connections between govt., UN and the Environmental NGO's.

Be warned, it might have words some may not like to hear. --------------------------------------------------------- STRANGE EQUALITY Eco-elitists save private playgrounds in California. By Tom DeWeese Those who have read George Orwell's classic book, Animal Farm will be familiar with the phrase everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. The line was used by the ruling pigs in the story to justify why they were giving themselves special privileges over the other animals. It was necessary, you see, that the leaders have the best, the better to deal with the pressing issues of State.

Citizens of communist countries (the political and economic force Orwell sought to parody) fully understand the reality of the phrase. They well know how communist leaders grow rich, take the best homes and ride in chauffeured limousines. Meanwhile, their “equal” fellow citizens shiver on cold winter nights, lacking fuel for the stove, their cupboards bare as a result of corrupt government control over the private sector. THE HYPOCRISY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADICALS: The Big Flat Conservation Trust compound, located on lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). While other property owners have been systematically removed from the King Range National Conservation Area, the environmentalist’s Trust is allowed to build and maintain this private retreat complex. According to BLM’s own rules, it is illegal. At left is the communal cooking building where a wood-fueled cooking stove is used. The wood-heated hot tub is located between the main lodge and the communal cooking area.

Americans, too, are learning of the injustice that can result from government agents having far too much power. In rural areas, many homeowners have been fighting a losing battle to hang on to their personal piece of the American dream. There, government agents wage a war of attrition to wear them down and force them off property that often has been in the family for generations. Agents close off access roads; they determine that simple home repairs are actually new illegal development; and they join with powerful, rich private-interest groups to ensure that elected government representatives create the needed regulations to increase the intimidation.

It's all necessary, you see, because such lands must be saved from the ravages of the predators called homeowners for the sake of protecting the environment.

If one looks a little closer, one might just find that new human predators have moved in to occupy the now-liberated land. They are environmentalists, happily homesteading on once-private property. After being liberated by government goons, the property is supposed to be off-limits to development or private use. But those with power are free to break the rules. Who would enforce them?

So elitist environmental warriors can be found arm in arm with the federal storm troopers, deep in the wood, out of sight of the prying eyes of the public. Deeds to the land can now be placed in green hands. Illegal development can be constructed. Roads can be accessed. And a good time can be had by all. When powerful interest groups team up with federal enforcers to protect the “common good,” mutual profit and personal gain know no bounds.

Apparently, when the elite declare themselves protectors of the environment, they really must be more equal than others. Don't bother rubbing your eyes if it appears that the environmentalists are beginning to morph into little green pigs.

LAND MANAGEMENT FOR THE GOOD OF THE ENVIRONMENT We will be good neighbors. We will practice good science. We will promote multiple use. Former BLM Director Pat Shea

Linda Smith Franklin is a fifth generation native of Mattole Valley in Humboldt County. The area is one of the most remote in California. Typical of the pioneer stock that settled the West, the residents are rugged, honest, and believe a man’s word is his bond.

Franklin's father, the late Paul Smith, prospered in the area. In 1959, he held grazing leases at Big Flat in the King Range. In 1960, with permission from the local office of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Smith built a road from his ranch to his holdings on the beach at Spanish Flat. For 22 years, Smith personally maintained the road, receiving no financial assistance from the government. Acquired with the 40 acres of land at Spanish Flat was an old one-room log cabin. In 1961 Smith built an additional two-room cabin onto the front of the existing one, and the family maintained the cabin for over 35 years. There, Franklin and her husband spent their honeymoon; there, many a weary hiker spent a safe night. The doors were not locked.

In 1970, by an act of Congress, the area was designated as part of the King Range National Conservation Area.” Under the plan, Congress charged the BLM with the task of writing and implementing a land management plan. The plan was completed in 1974 and while it prohibited new, private development on the lands of the designated conservation area, it also clearly protected the private property rights of those already living there. In addition, property owners would be allowed to continue to use and maintain habitable cabins that existed prior to 1970.

The trouble began when a new management plan was developed in 1990. Local residents, including Linda Franklin, served on the BLM Core Planning Team for the Management Plan. She traveled thousands of miles attending regular monthly, then bi-monthly meetings to develop a plan that would serve the needs of the majority of the public, as well as protect private property rights. Compromises were made on both sides and an agreement was reached and submitted to the BLM for inclusion in its Management Plan. But when the BLM released its final plan, there was literally no resemblance to the planning teams document. Apparently, the BLM had simply cast aside the Core Planning Team's recommendations and, instead, implemented one of its own.

The BLM's new Management Plan severely diverged from the original Act of Congress that established the King Range National Conservation Area. The Act prohibited the use of condemnation proceedings or eminent domain except for right-of-way. And the BLM was to purchase lands from willing sellers only.

But there was a major flaw in the original Act because it failed to anticipate the BLM using coercive practices to encourage unwilling sellers to change their minds. Another flaw allowed the BLM to manage private as well as public lands. The original purpose of that clause was to prevent the private development of beach-front condos, casinos, or private resorts. It was not intended to prevent landowners from building their own homes or repairing their private roads. These two flaws now turned up in the new BLM Management Plan of 1990. The war against land owners was on.

CLOSING THE DOOR ON THE KING RANGE The government does recognize deeded right-of-way, but they deem what right-of-way is, and if they deem you shall crawl on your knees then you shall crawl on your knees. Charlotte Hawks, land acquisition specialist, BLM Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, federal agencies involved in land management began to take on a new mission–land acquisition. Where once their job was to manage public property, the focus now turned to expanding public domain over as much private land as possible. It began in the most rural areas, and has only recently begun to spread to more populated areas.

The King Range National Conservation Area was one of the first to fall victim to the federal land grab.

A telling example of the change in the BLM's direction can be seen in a series of letters to Paul Smith and later to Linda Smith Franklin, dealing with the issue of the right-of-way for the access road to their property. A letter from the BLM to Smith dated Nov. 10, 1960 states, “You do not need a permit to use and repair the existing ranch access roads over BLM lands in the Kings Peak area. There is no specific law providing for such a permit or easement and no law or regulation prohibiting the use and repair of BLM roads in the area for ranch access, prospecting and mining purposes.

Again in 1980, in response to another Smith inquiry pertaining to access to the road, the BLM wrote, In checking into this matter with the Ukiah District, we find that your concerns over the use of the road have been resolved, and a right-of-way issued. Again, the BLM was working with the property owners and acknowledging that there was no hindrance in the use of the road.

Somewhere along the way, things changed. In a letter to Linda Smith Franklin, dated Nov. 19, 1997, the BLM answered a similar inquiry, saying, The Bureau of Land Management has no record, documentation or corporate knowledge of having issued a right-of-way to Paul Smith.

Limiting or closing access roads into the conservation area has apparently become a common practice by the BLM in an attempt to pressure property owners to give up their land and become willing sellers. There are many more incidences of such coercive practices.

ITEM: In 1989, Leonard Pietila, a property owner, planned to build a private home on his land located in the King Range. In accordance with the law and with proper procedure, Pietila applied for, and obtained, a building permit from the Humboldt County Building Department. Lumber was delivered to the property in preparation for the building. Without warning, Pietila received a registered letter from the BLM indicating that his property was being condemned for use not compatible with the BLM area plan. By the time he received the notice, the BLM legal machine had moved into full operational mode. There was literally nothing he could do but wrangle with the BLM for a better price from the government for the taking of his land. Pietila had become a willing seller.

Neighboring property owners looked upon the condemnation of Pietila's land with shock and a realization that the harsh BLM action was a warning to the rest of them. They were now afraid to do anything to their property that might prompt similar action. They were afraid to repair an access road, or bring in a small tractor to bury water lines, or make repairs on homes. All normal, daily actions could now be construed to be “a violation of the management plan.

ITEM: Prior to the passage of the King Range National Conservation Act, Paul Smith purposely sold two 10-acre parcels of land for the primary purpose of establishing a market value before the BLM took control of the land. It was a defensive measure to protect his investment if land values were affected adversely by BLM land management.

Before the Conservation Act was passed, the first parcel was sold to a Mr. Moon who intended to build a cabin on the land. The Smiths even built a pad for the house that Moon intended to build. But Moon was blocked from building the cabin because he didn’t complete it before the Act went into effect. As a result, the property had literally no value. He was forced to sell it to the BLM. Was Moon a “willing” seller, or was his land held hostage until he agreed to sell it to the BLM?

ITEM: The second Smith parcel was sold to the Goss family. Again they intended to build a cabin, and again they were blocked because nothing could be built after 1970. Goss has resisted selling the property to the BLM. He has tried to find something, anything, that can be done with the land in order to recover his investment. But there is simply nothing Goss can do with the 10 acres that is not in violation of the BLM management plan. He has been denied normal economic appreciation of the property due to the management plan. Because of that plan, Goss has no choice but to sell it to the BLM. Does that make Goss a willing seller?

ITEM: Leland Hadley is 78 years old. At one time he owned all of a section called Big Flat. The BLM had prevented him from building a structure on his land. New BLM proposals will cut off his access road. That would require him to walk through terrain consisting of a quarter mile on a steep incline, about three miles of sand and a half mile over a dry stream bed. How long will it take Leland Hadley, lifelong resident of the King Range, to become a willing seller?

There are only about six of the original owners left in the King Range. One by one the BLM is picking them off. When the last one goes, access to the entire area will be blocked off, and private property will cease to exist. It will all be through voluntary means, of course. Nice and legal. The record will show they were all willing sellers. Through government edict, people will cease to exist on the King Range. Why?

WHO SLAMMED THE DOOR? TAKE A LOOK AT THE WILDLANDS PROJECT

The project calls on the establishment of core wilderness areas where human activity is prohibited, linked with biological corridors. Tom McDonnell

The answer may be traced to an all-encompassing land management environmental program called The Wildlands Project. In 1992, the radical environmental journal, Wild Earth, published by Earth First!, produced a special issue announcing what it called The Wildlands Project, Plotting A North American Wilderness Recovery Strategy.

This radical plan calls for the rewilding of at least 50 percent of all the land in every state in the nation. In the introduction to the plan, author Dave Foreman writes, “(T)he idea is simple. To stem the disappearance of wildlife and wilderness we must allow the recovery of whole ecosystems and landscapes in every region of North America. Allowing these systems to recover requires a long-term master plan. Foreman intended for the Wildlands Project to be that master plan.

The project mapped out eco-regions and biosphere reserves that intermingled. It didn't matter if private homes and farms or even whole towns were caught in the middle. The project called for redistributing people, homes and towns out of the predetermined biosphere reserves. The Wildlands Project also ignored community, state and national boundaries. Foreman wrote, We live to see the day when grizzlies in [Mexico] have an unbroken connection to grizzlies in Alaska; when the gray wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columbian populations of plants and animals....

The Wildlands Project was co-developed by Foreman and Dr. Reed Noss. Noss works with the Department of the Interior developing federal ecosystem management policies. With such a force as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt on the inside of the federal policymaking structure, it didn't take long for major aspects of the Wildlands Project to be found in federal land management policy. In fact, a host of Clinton appointees, now in a position to create policy, came from the ranks of the environmental movement.

Babbitt himself, was the former head of the League of Conservation Voters. In addition, there was George Frampton, former head of the Wilderness Society; Raft Pomerance, former policy analyst for the World Resources Institute; Brooks Yeager, former vice president of the National Audubon Society; Thomas Lovejoy, science advisor to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and former officer of the World Wildlife Fund; Jessica Truchman Mathews, former vice president of the World Resources Institute; David Gardiner, former legislative director for the Sierra Club; and John Leshy, former official at the Natural Resources Defense Council. All were now in positions to direct policy and all were dedicated to the radical Wildlands Project land management plan.

In addition, an entire network of environmental groups, including most of those once led by the now-Clinton appointees, jumped into action to build momentum for the plan, both on the national and local levels. Add to the mix a host of willing politicians and massive funding resources, and the Wildlands Project became the driving force in federal land management policy. Many of the environmental groups became “Wildlands Project affiliates, receiving grants (tax dollars) to develop local, state and regional plans to implement the project.

Such a radical policy change in federal land management clearly explains why the Interior Department took such a hard-nosed attitude in dealing with property owners in the King Range National Conservation Area.

Obviously the plans had changed from simply trying to conserve land while protecting the property rights of those who lived there, to a deliberate plan to move all people out of the region, as called for in the Wildlands Project.

The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) is listed as a “Wildlands Project member, as is Jim Eaton, founder of the Coalition. Eaton has served as California's representative to the Wilderness Society. California Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, is a member of the Governing Council of the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society is a member of the CWC. The CWC is working with numerous former Earth First! organizations and individuals, including Dave Foreman, who is co-founder of Earth First!.

Eight members of Congress (all democrats from California) have worked with the CWC to shut down motorized use of Black Sands Beach in the King Range National Conservation Area. They are Rep. Pete Stark, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Vic Fazio, Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Ellen Tausher, Rep. Howard Berman, and Rep. Lynn Woolsey.

An article in the January 1999 edition of Wilderness Record, published by CWC, refers to the BLM closure of the Black Sands Beach in the King Range. Credit is given by CWC to the Sierra Club and Environmental Protection Information Center for successfully rallying support for the BLM's closure of the beach to motorized vehicles. A large photo of the Black Sands Beach is shown in the story, with photo credit given to the BLM.

Clearly there is solid collusion among federal land management policy makers at the Department of the Interior, federal policy enforcers at the BLM, and the massive, highly funded environmental establishment. Just as clearly, the Wildlands Project, and its radical goal to turn vast areas of North America into wilderness, seems to be federal policy. That policy is what has made the new federal land management program the largest land grab in U.S. history.

SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS It may be that human nature is too strong to be countered. Yet man is still a reasoning animal. Even if he perishes, he would like to know, in his agony, what it was that doomed him. “Book review of Animal Farm

The rules enforced by the BLM in the King Range say there is to be no new development after 1970. One resident, Leonard Pietila, had his property condemned because he planned to build a new cabin after the 1970 deadline.

The BLM refused to allow Linda Franklin to make repairs to her access road. The BLM has made it clear–there will be no new development, no new dwellings, no roads, and no modernization in the King Range. Period.

But fly over the Big Flat today and notice an uncommon sight. New buildings–in fact, several buildings. How can that be? Where are the BLM storm troopers? Where are the fines? Where is the condemnation for these blatant violators of the environment? Where is the usual organized outcry from the environmentalist network? There's not a peep. Because a quick check of deeds will show that the record owner of the land is William Devall.

William Devall is a leader in the Deep Ecology movement and has direct connections with Earth First! that expand over a decade. According to a book entitled "In a Dark Wood", by Alston Chase, Devall was an early member of the Board of Directors of the Earth First Foundation, which was organized to raise funds for the movement. Currently Devall is listed as an editorial advisor for Wild Earth, the publishing voice of the Wildlands Project. Devall is not only the co-author of a book called Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, but is also the editor of the Sierra Club's publication, Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry.

Devall, a former sociology professor at Humboldt State University, is heavily involved in promoting environmental policy. As such, he presented the wilderness proposal for an enlarged King Range wilderness area. That presentation was made in Humboldt County, at a public hearing on May 8, 1985.

It was at that meeting where the environmental impact statement for the BLM's King Range wilderness review was under consideration. Clearly, Devall is a major player in helping to create BLM land management policy especially that based on the Wildlands Project.

Now Devall is found to be the record owner of property right in the middle of the King Range area. The buildings on the property make up a private retreat operating under the Big Flat Conservation Trust. According to the Trust's attorney, Bryan Gaynor, the original buildings on the property burned in the 1930s. Says Gaynor; replacement of this structure was determined by the BLM to be permitted under the Act. The destroyed structure was replaced by a house of the same size and located on the same footprint as the original building.

But this is not just a house, it is a private retreat with a complex of buildings. There is a communal cooking building next to the main lodge. All of the buildings in this private complex are wood heated. Between the house and cooking building is an elaborate, heated hot tub building.

Situated in front of the property, between the buildings and the ocean, is an airplane landing strip. According to attorney Gaynor, “The Big Flat property is available to a limited number of private groups each year who wish to use it in conjunction with appropriate wilderness activities conducted on the surrounding public lands.

In spite of denials from Gaynor and the Trust, county records show Devall as record owner of private property, parcel No. 107-184-07, located right in the middle of the King Range National Conservation Area. All lands adjacent to and in the immediate area of Devall's property are registered in county documents as belonging to the United States of America-Bureau of Land Management. Date of the sale of the land is March 5, 1990. Well after the 1970 deadline for allowing the building of new or refurbished buildings.

How did Devall get the land? Why has the BLM allowed him and the Trust an exception when property owners who have lived in the region (some as long as five generations) have been targeted for extinction? Why did the BLM approve reconstruction of these buildings when local homeowners fear BLM repercussions if they simply want to repair a porch or roof to their existing homes?

As in George Orwell's Animal Farm, new tyranny replaces old in the wake of revolutions, as power corrupts even the noblest of causes. Now, with the hated property owners banished from their lands, the little green pigs of the environmental movement dance and laugh and frolic on public lands they've made their own at public expense. http://www.rangemagazine.com/stories/fall99/strange equality.htm

-- lew (lewr93@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Epona says, "the UN is regulating US land." Epona, read your own sites. The UN does NOT regulate these sites. Your site states that quite clearly. From your site: "Biosphere Reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems which are internationally recognized within the framework of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Collectively, they constitute a World Network. They are nominated by national governments and must meet a minimal set of criteria and adhere to a minimal set of conditions before being admitted into the World Network" Hardly sounds like the UN is coming here and making a land grab to me. The US has to APPLY, for chrissakes!

By the way.....the UN was started and financed by the United States. As a matter of fact, we still fund 25% of it, and it would have a very hard time staying afloat if we didn't.

-- lew (lewr93@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

No problem, JOJ

www.wildlandsproject.org/htm/summary.htm

There ya go...they want to set aside 50% of the North American continent.

No humans allowed.

-- Stephanie Nosacek (pospossum@earthlink.net), August 01, 2001.

Hey...joh,

Govt. wouldn't do anything underhanded like try to kill and sicken their own countrymen? Ummmmm.......

Here's a nice article that was done by a "reputable mainstream" organization called CBSNews last year.

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,194947-412,00.shtml

lew

-- lew ricker (lewr93@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Oh...here's another beautiful article that didn't get too much airplay yesterday. Did anyone see this one? Check out why the fire personnel in Washington died.

The govt's care of national forests has been pretty shoddy to say the least.

Here's the link in case it's not believable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31019,00.html

Endangered Fish Policy May Have Cost Firefighters' Lives

Tuesday, July 31, 2001

Firefighters struggling to contain a blaze in central Washington State that ultimately killed four of their own were hampered in their efforts by a federal policy to protect endangered fish, Fox News has learned.

Firefighters were unable to douse the deadly fire in Okanogan National Forest in Winthrop, Wash., in July because of delays in granting permission for fire-fighting helicopters to use water from nearby streams and rivers protected by the Endangered Species Act, according to sources close to the fire.

Firefighters Tom L. Craven, 30, Karen L. Fitzpatrick, 18, Devin A Weaver, 21, and Jessica L. Johnson, 19, burned to death while cowering under protective tents near the Chewuch River, home to protected species salmon and trout. Seventeen other firefighters survived the ordeal.

Forest Service policy in the Northwest requires that special permission be obtained before fire helicopters can dip into certain restricted rivers, lakes and streams. The fear is that the dippers could accidentally scoop up protected species of fish.

A 17-member team from the Forest Service and other federal agencies is now investigating whether the four firefighters died as a result of the policy.

Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., chairman of the House Subcommittee on Forests & Forest Health, said the committee is also looking into allegations that environmental policy and bureaucracy were factors in the deaths.

Testifying before the committee Tuesday, USFS Fire Chief Dale Bosworth said that under standard procedure, firefighters would have used the Chewuch water to fight the fire and addressed any environmental violations or restrictions after the fire was extinguished. He said he was investigating why dispatch waited for approval before sending the helicopters.

"We get the water where we can get it and ask questions later," Bosworth said.

Forest Service District Commander John Newcom told Fox News last week that the Chewuch River’s population of salmon, steelhead trout and bull trout are all considered when fighting fires, but insisted helicopter permission was never delayed or denied because of the policy.

But the USFS reversed that position Tuesday with the release of a timeline of events that depicts the harrowing plight of a band of very young, inexperienced firefighters waiting desperately for helicopter relief that never came.

According to the timeline, the first team of firefighters, an elite crew called "Hot Shots," had contained what came to be known as the "30-mile fire" by the very early morning and requested a helicopter water drop at 5:30 a.m. However, they were told one would not be available until 10 a.m.

At 9 a.m., the Hot Shots were replaced with a young "mop-up" crew expecting helicopter relief to arrive within the hour. When the mop- up crew inquired about the missing helicopter just after noon, the dispatch office told the crew field boss that helicopters could not be used in the area because the Chewuch River contained endangered fish.

Final permission to use Chewuch water wasn’t granted until 2 p.m.

Jan Flatten, the environmental officer for the Okanogan and Wenatchee Natural forests, confirmed that environmental concerns caused crucial delays in dispatching the helicopter.

"At 12:08, the dispatch office ordered the helicopter," Flatten told Fox News. "However, because there are endangered species in the Chewuch River, they wanted to get permission from the district in order to dip into the river."

However, the dispatch office could not reach anyone at the district with the authority to approve the helicopter drop. Flatten said those authorities — Newcom, Fire Manager Peter Sodoquist and the Methow Valley biologist — were actually meeting during that time to approve an exemption to the policy.

"That time lag of about two hours was when they were trying to locate someone with the authority to tell them they could go ahead and take water out of the Chewuch River," Flatten said.

The USFS did not explain why the intra-agency team required to approve an exemption did not convene until 12 p.m., two hours after firefighters had been told the helicopter would be available.

Two former USFS firefighters familiar with the Thirty Mile Fire said getting permission to dip into the Chewuch caused the delays that led to the death of their colleagues.

"(The crew) were told that (the Chewuch River) was a protected water source and they needed to go through channels to use this water source," one of the former firefighters told Fox News.

The first load of helicopter water was dumped on the fire around 3 p.m., but the fire was by then out of control. An hour later, air tankers had to be turned back and the ground crew fled on foot to the river where they deployed their survival tents. The crew was completely surrounded by the flames with no avenue for escape.

Fox News' William LaJeunnesse and Robin Wallace contributed to this report

-- lew ricker (lewr93@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Sorry for all the posts, but.....

Here's another article backed up with specific references to specific UN agenda items. This portion which appears near the bottom, is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. I fail to see any benefits to any communist nation at this time, or at anytime actually.

It comes in handy to be reading Engels and Marx.

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

--------------- Klamath Falls' invisible foe By Henry Lamb

Is there any connection between Klamath Falls, Oregon and the town of LaVerkin, Utah? Very definitely - but few people realize it.

The LaVerkin City Council adopted a "U.N.-Free Zone" on July 4th. The media and other vociferous liberals have had a field day ridiculing the town officials for their "black-helicopter" paranoia. But had Klamath Falls adopted such an ordinance some years ago, the farmers in the Klamath basin might not be battling for their very existence today.

Yes, there is a connection between the two towns, and other towns and cities across the country. That connection also includes Vancouver, BC, Rio de Janeiro, and other cities around the world. The connection is the public policy which now places a higher value on a sucker fish than on human beings. LaVerkin, Utah has good reason to try to protect its citizens from the intrusion of similar policies that can disrupt and destroy their way of life.

Let's back up a moment. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is the legal authority by which the federal government must withhold water from the farmers - to protect the bottom-feeding sucker fish, which is said to be endangered or threatened.

There is a vigorous debate about the validity of the listing, since the listing came as an "emergency," which avoided any scientific review of the evidence, or any deliberate input from those who are directly affected. But that's another battle.

The fish are listed. The farmers are denied water. And their land and their livelihoods are literally twisting in the wind.

Why?

Section 2, paragraph (4) of the Endangered Species Act provides the answer. It says the law is enacted "pursuant to: the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora," and five other international treaties.

Most of the treaties were actually drafted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in Gland, Switzerland. This IUCN's membership consists mostly of environmental organizations, and government agencies. Six U.S. federal Departments maintain independent membership in the IUCN, at an annual membership fee in excess of $50,000 each.

The same NGOs (non-government organizations) which, as members of the IUCN, helped draft the international treaties, are on the ground in the United States, lobbying Congress to ratify the treaties and enact laws such as the Endangered Species Act, to implement the treaties.

Klamath farmers are victims of public policy that originated in the international community.

Citizens of LaVerkin, Utah are directly in the path of public policy which threatens their land and livelihoods. These policies, too, originated in the international community.

LaVerkin is in Washington County, Utah. So is Zion National Park, less than 10 miles from the small town. LaVerkin is within 100 miles of four other properties inventoried for future nomination as U.N. World Heritage Sites, according to a Federal Register notice of January 8, 1982 (Vol. 47, No. 5).

What does this have to do with anything? Ask the people who live within 100 miles of Yellowstone National Park - a World Heritage Site. Throughout the early 1990s, a gold mine near the park spent more than $30 million trying to satisfy federal permit requirements. Months before the process would have been completed, environmental organizations, many of which are members of the IUCN, petitioned the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is also a member of the IUCN, to declare Yellowstone to be a World Heritage Site "in danger."

The World Heritage Committee, at the request of the Fish & Wildlife Service, sent a team of international "experts," one of which represented the IUCN, which has a consultative advisory contract with UNESCO, to evaluate the park.

Surprise, surprise! When the team reported to UNESCO, the park was declared to be "in danger." The treaty, which the U.S. has ratified, requires that when a site is declared to be "in danger," the host nation must take "protective" measures, even beyond the boundaries of the site.

One proposal advanced by the environmental organizations called for protecting 18-million acres around the 2.9-million acre park, much of which was private property. The gold mine was not allowed to mine the gold.

It is more than a coincidence that many of the environmental organizations which signed the letter urging UNESCO intervention in Yellowstone, also signed a similar letter to U.S. and Mexican government agencies, urging that "international" standards be established to govern water rights in the Colorado river. The Sierra Club, and the National Audubon Society are among the several organizations which signed the Colorado River letter and the Yellowstone letter. Two Audubon Society affiliates, along with the Glen Canyon Institute, are headquartered in Utah, and have an interest in the five sites near LaVerkin, as well as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, all of which are subject to land management policies that originate in the international community.

The letter calling for international standards to govern water rights on the Colorado River, cites as authority: the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands; Agenda 21; the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Rio Declaration - all products of the United Nations.

It is especially significant that the Audubon Society is among the NGOs clamoring for more international control. The Audubon Society, along with The Nature Conservancy, funded the work of Dr. Reed Noss, known as "The Wildlands Project."

This is the land management scheme that starts with core wilderness areas - off limits to humans - connected by corridors of wilderness, surrounded by government-managed "buffer zones," which are surrounded by "zones of cooperation." Each of these zones is designed to continually expand as the result of "restoration and rehabilitation," projects. Restoration means returning the land to the same condition as it was before Columbus arrived. There are 47 such U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States, and more than 380 around the world.

The Wildlands Project is described as "central" to the effective implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, according to the U.N.'s Global Biodiversity Assessment (page 993).

The LaVerkin City Council is not afraid of black helicopters, or blue- helmets, or white tanks - as shallow-minded media masters would like people to believe. LaVerkin officials have a genuine concern about the silent, sinister expansion of U.N. influence over domestic land use policies, especially as they relate to land in Washington County, Utah.

The farmers in the Klamath basin do not know that the U.N.'s policy on land (M), adopted in 1976 in Vancouver, BC. says explicitly that:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

The Klamath basin is an area that environmental elitists want to "restore" to its pre-Columbian condition. The sucker fish, like the spotted owl, and the red-legged frog, is simply a surrogate, an excuse to invoke the Endangered Species Act, to force people off the land.

Virtually every area of the United States is under siege, from policies that originate in the international community, which are incorporated into law or rule, and imposed upon unsuspecting citizens.

Hold your heads high, LaVerkin, you may prove to be among the wisest.

Hold on as long as you can, Klamath farmers, your courage is helping to reveal the sinister, ulterior motives of the environmental extremists who think they know best how everyone else should live

http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20010801/laverkin.shtml

-- lew ricker (lewr93@aol.com), August 01, 2001.

Well, you two have succeeded in totally overwhelming me. I certainly don't have time to attempt to even READ all that stuff, much less analyze it!

Sorry, but I have another life. Wow; did you guys write all that, or copy and paste?

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), August 02, 2001.

This piece by former congresswoman Elizabeth Furse sheds a lot of light on the Klamath Basin issue. It was published in the Seattle Times recently. ---------- Editorials & Opinion : Thursday, July 12, 2001

Guest columnist Government made right call on Klamath Basin irrigation

By Elizabeth Furse Special to The Times A congressional hearing in Oregon last month provided a glimpse of how a handful of politicians intend to exploit a severe drought in the Klamath Basin to further their long-standing goal of repealing the Endangered Species Act. The American people, however, overwhelmingly support the act and efforts to protect the nation's imperiled fish and wildlife. Some farmers in the Klamath Basin, an area that straddles the California-Oregon border, will not be able to use the amount of water they typically receive from the government. There is a reason for that; there is too little water. The region is a high, dry desert to begin with, and 2001 is the driest year in the basin since record keeping began.

This spring the government decided that federally subsidized irrigation would have to be substantially reduced to avoid the extinction of several species of fish, including wild Klamath River coho salmon. That decision, although difficult and controversial, was absolutely correct.

In 1909, the federal government began a foolish and ill-conceived policy of replumbing the entire Klamath River system with the intention of turning this high desert plateau into farmland. The area was opened to homesteaders who received access to an irrigation system paid for by the taxpayers. As populations grew, the government diverted more of the river, drained more wetlands, and promised more water than the river could deliver.

Naturally, the ecosystem in the Klamath Basin could not handle these intrusions. As irrigation increased, the basin's lakes shrank and grew warm, and the rivers dried up. The native fish species that once thrived in them began to disappear. Much of the basin's wetlands, once the staging ground for one of the mightiest concentrations of migratory birds on the planet, was converted to farms and, as a result, bird numbers plummeted.

The government irrigation program may have been a great boon for the farmers living in the basin, but many other people have suffered immeasurably from this largesse. The Klamath River was once the third-greatest producer of salmon and steelhead in the United States, and supported a fishery that provided thousands of family-wage jobs. As irrigation drained much of the water out of the Klamath River in recent years, the fishing economy collapsed. An estimated 3,700 fishing-dependent jobs have been lost in nearby coastal communities alone. Today, a visitor to once-thriving towns along the coast will see few fish but plenty of ?for sale? signs on fishing boats.

The government's irrigation program was even more devastating for the region's numerous Indian tribes. The Klamath Indians, for example, forced from their ancestral homelands, received solemn guarantees in a treaty with the government that their fishing rights would be protected for all time. The fish that once thrived in the region formed the backbone of the tribe's economy, culture and religion.

The government ignored this promise when it replumbed the basin for irrigation, sending the river and lakes into an ecological tailspin and completely destroying the fisheries. Today, lake fish on which the tribe relies are hanging on the very precipice of extinction. So, too, are the once-abundant salmon in the Klamath River on which many different tribes rely.

While the government's experiment with desert agriculture in the Klamath Basin has exacted immense costs, the benefits have been marginal at best. Farming represents only 6 percent of total employment in Klamath County and income from farming and agricultural services provides just 1 percent of the county's total personal income.

Moreover, agriculture receives taxpayer subsidies at every stage of the process, from federal price supports for crops to heavily subsidized irrigation water. Even so, agriculture in the basin has struggled: Last year, part of the Klamath Basin potato crop was plowed back into the ground because there was no market for it.

The Endangered Species Act didn't create the problem in the Klamath Basin. Rather, it is a warning, a ?miner's canary,? indicating that we have created an unsustainable ecological Frankenstein: The basin is on the edge of collapse.

Politicians and others who have long disliked the ESA see this tragedy as an opportunity to attack the act. They are cynically using the farmers' plight as a tool for their own purposes. But ?fixing? the basin's irrigation crisis by amending the ESA is like trying to put out a five-alarm fire by pulling the batteries out of the fire alarm.

We must say no to this ?quick fix? and work together to find a balanced, long-term solution to the water fight in the Klamath Basin, one that protects all of the people involved, farmers, fishermen and Indian tribes alike.

Elizabeth Furse is a former congresswoman from Oregon's 1st District (1993-1999). She is currently on the staff of the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland.

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), August 02, 2001.

Joe for a minute I though you were having a nervous break down when you said you were over whelmed and you said you had another life.This is your life, feeding people information backed by fact..But I knew you'd pull an ace from your sleeve.Even if the U.N. is planning to turn privately owned land into biosphere reserves as some have expressed their fears,it wouldn't be the first time European- Americans have been booted off their land.It's how we got some of our national parks.With human population out of control it's gonna happen sooner or latter .The Earth is becomming less and less of a place each year that can sustain life,human or animal .Some action needs to be taken by someone.Although I don't want my property taken from me, in reality it ain't mine.It was here before I was born and it'll be here when I die.Thinking the land is something you own is an illussion created by greed or selfishness.Using land the way you please might have worked in the past when the human population was much smaller but is becoming a luxury future generations will referr to as the good old days.We're going to have to face the new reality that owning land is not practical in these new times ahead.I don't like the idea and hope I don't live in the time when we can't have our own private piece of earth.But like cutting off a gangreen foot to save the body,it'll be nessesary to keep the earth a sustainable place for life forms including human to exist.If the human population stayed in check , this would not be something to fear,but it seems we might be to late ,as any action taken might be too late.The we and them attitude referring to farmers and enviormentals like they are from different worlds needs to end.We're all in this together and need to find a solution to this together.The most enviormentaly- minded people I know are a few cattle farmers in my area.They work with the land every day and have a good idea how nature works.They care about the enviorment but couldn't run a farm and participate in a solution at the same time as they are always working from sun up to sun down.Most of them are also emotionaly tied to the land and taking it from them will probably kill some of them.Emotions get in their way of them accepting what needs to be done no matter how practical .Bottom line is the over population of humans will restict personal use of earths land.Maybe a world wide public service campaign to inform people that they need to obstain from propergating for the next five years or so would help.As it's going now this hasn't happen cause the more people in the world,the more products the corporations can sell.Corporations influence press through advertiseing dollars.In the future private farms and land owning will be a thing of the past.The sad truth is, the party is over.

-- SM (goatman@00.com), August 03, 2001.

SM,. thanks for the kind words. I am not, as far as I can tell, having a nervous breakdown. I was, and still am, overwhelmed by the idea of reading all the very long posts, and the included links, submitted by a couple of folks, especially Lew.

Is it necessary to read all of this, and make cogent responses to each and every claim? I think not. Especially it seems a waste of time considering Lew's willingness to quote what appear to be either grossly uninformed or disingenuous sources, e.g. whoever told him that Klamath Lake is man made. And yes, one of his links actually DOES make this claim!

As far as having an ace up my sleeve, NOT. The last post I made came to me in my email from a friend, and it seemed like a pretty good opinion piece, so I decided to share it with folks here.

There is no doubt that this is a terribly unfortunate situation. I feel for the KFalls farmers. I read the one link from Lew, which is an article written by one Jeff Head, who drove clear down to KFalls from Idaho to "keep an eye on things". His article impressed me with the courage the KFalls farmers showed in their stand off against the feds, and the local cops.

I admire these farmers. If my livelihood were threatened this way, I 'd be up in arms too. However, I think the farmers are being very egocentric, and choosing to ignore all other perspectives, such as the "Tribes' older claims to the water. Don't the tribes count? Why doesn't Head freak out about how they've been screwed over by the federal government? Certainly the triibes, and especially the tribes' ancestors, have suffered WAY more than the Klamath farmers. When the tribes were kicked off their land, forcefully, they had no opportunity to buy insurance to protect themselves; they were not offered any relief except to put them on reservations, and even the reservations were taken from them eventually , i think. So all they were left with was a treaty, signed in 1864, giving them the right to live off the fish. Now Head, and Lew and others, seem to think that they aren't worthy of consideration. It's wrong. Although I admire the farmers of KFAlls, I don't necessarily admire Jeff Head, who seemed determined to segue the farmers' efforts into a completely issue--an anti government agenda which seemed way blown out of proportion to me.

I can't say who's RIGHT in this whole mess. I think that there IS no "right". There are only a bunch of bad options, and Oregon water rights are based on "first in use, first in right". That is a direct quote from Oregon water law, by the way. The Tribes were first in use, obviously; therefore, they are, by law, first in rights.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), August 03, 2001.

Well, you two have succeeded in totally overwhelming me. I certainly don't have time to attempt to even READ all that stuff, much less analyze it! Sorry, but I have another life. Wow; did you guys write all that, or copy and paste?

JOJ

------------------------------------------------------ JOJ and Goatman....

I type about 85 wpm, but I'd be fibbing if I told you I wrote it! LOL No, most of it was copied and pasted.

JOJ...I asked YOU specifically whether YOUR willing to give your land and water rights to the Indian's. I don't remember getting a response.

Third....you've been asked to look at the UN sites, Wildland Project site, and also read information. You chose not to, but tell me that I'm you to read information. You chose not to and say you don't have the time. Well, neither have many of the people in Klamath, Nevada, Ohio and other states that have had their land taken.

My information comes from The Wildlands Project was published in a 1992 Special Issue of Wild Earth magazine. I believe back copies are still available. You can also read Reed Noss and Alan Copperrider's book Saving Natures Legacy, and Michael Soule and John Torborg's Continental Conservation to get a good idea of the science. Also, try Deep Ecology for the 21st Century by George Sessions.

Goatman....

actually the world's population will be declining at or before 2070. There's a slight chance that I may even see it start since I'm only 39. That's not that far off, and in no uncertain terms will the earth be overpopulated beforehand. Nor will the earth's energy, trees or anything else.

The fact of the matter is that the ONLY portion's of the US that are densly populated are the East and West Coast's. And...those by and large, are only densely populated within 20-30 miles of the coasts.

That's not to say that there are no large cities in between, but they're certainly not the rule. How many are there. Look at a map and you'll see where the population centers are.

YOu could check the 2000 election map to find the population centers. Look at the red and blues....

The problem is that balance was NEVER intended with ESA, and it appears that people are not willing to actually do much reading on what exactly is happening.

If you read these books, the magazine article and also the writings of Maurice Strong, you may take a different view. Also....see how, where and how Maurice Strong made his money. I believe you'd call him a hypocrite.

Don't bury your heads just because one piece of information may or may not be right. Maybe your land is next!

By the way, I belong to a group that gets a lot of it's information on Klamath FROM the guy that "impressed you", Jeff Head....

Lew

-- lew (lewr93@aol.com), August 03, 2001.