A Fishing forum. FishingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishingBanter forum » rec.outdoors.fishing newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

California Stream Access in trouble!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th, 2007, 09:12 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,alt.politics.democrat,rec.outdoors.fishing
Red[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default California Stream Access in trouble!

In article ,
George Cleveland wrote:

http://troutunderground.com/2007/11/...top-siskiyou-c
ountys-natural-resource-policy-it-looks-like-were-losing/

I've been following this story on Trout Underground for the last
couple of months. I'd feel weird sending an email concerning a set of
rivers I'll probably never fish but if you are one who has plans
someday (today or next year or beyond) to fish the McCloud or Upper
Sacramento, you might want to send the folks up in Siskiyou County an
email.


g.c.


The article also says it applies to the Klammath, one of the top
steelhead streams of the upper california/oregon. It was written by a
fan of ranchers of extractive resource policies, one place in the report
actually says the Klammath, Sacramento, McCloud, Scott are non
navigatible, others sections say the only real use for water is to grow
grass for livestock, that unchecked suction dredge mining is
environmentally benign, and that publicly owned forest and rangelands
must be managed for maximum cattle and timber yields (all other uses are
secondary) Below is the article:



The vote on this train wreck of a Natural Resource Plan is next Tuesday
(11/13), and based on an alarming e-mail from someone who should know,
we're apparently on the verge of losing this thing (a week ago, I heard
otherwise).

So the hell with "toning it down" for the benefit of any squeamish
organizations.

Time to get back in the saddle.

I'm going to lay out all the ugly stuff below, but in case you're not in
the mood to peg your blood pressure by reading about a bunch of
political bull**** of gigantic proportions, I'll start with the call to
action.

That way, you can skip the political crap, and just do what's needed to
protect your right to fish the Scott and Shasta Rivers (not to mention
the Upper Sac and McCloud).

Deal?

Here's What's Gotta Happen

I need as little as 90 seconds of your time. My only admonition? Be
polite! You'll see why below.

You're simply going to email three of the supervisors and also "cc" the
county clerk (and copy me).

Why the clerk? To make sure these emails become part of the official
record, which may not have happened to your earlier emails. (How's that
make you feel?)
Michael Kobseff )
Bill Overman )
LaVada Erickson )
Colleen Setzer, County Clerk )
Trout Underground )

Here's What We Need to Say

We're going to stick to the basics. No need to clutter your e-mail with
anything beyond your name and the issues that matter. If you've only got
45 seconds, then simply cut and paste my bullet points, add your name
and a closing line, and mail away.

If you've got a couple minutes, rewrite my stuff so the supervisors
can't devalue your effort by calling it a "form letter campaign."

Still, what counts here is volume. If we can send the fisher-friendly
supervisor into that meeting room with 200 emails -- if we can jam the
Supervisor's packets with a triple-digit outpouring of "the public is
watching you" -- we might be able to turn this thing.

Maybe.

Here are the bullet points:
The Proposed Natural Resources Plan and Committee damages Siskiyou
County's sustainable, renewable tourist economy. Fishermen won't come
here, even if just the Scott and Shasta Rivers are declared
non-navigable (though the plan clearly includes "all" rivers in the
county). When half the County's tourist-related businesses start
suffering, what will the Board of Supervisors do?
The Proposed Natural Resources Plan and Committee Ordinance avoids
public comment. Modoc County invested eight months writing their plan,
and held a half-dozen public meetings. Siskiyou County's draft policy
document shuns public input, and was apparently written by one person --
who somehow retains the "right" to accept or decline public comment. How
is that good public process?
The Proposed Natural Resources Plan practically guarantees
expensive, wasteful legal challenges. Despite one supervisor's
protestations to the contrary, a half hour of research makes it clear
the Scott, Shasta, Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers qualify as
"navigable" under Federal and State definitions. It's also clear that
all rivers not designated non-navigable are to be considered navigable
(not vice versa). Why are we essentially asking for lawsuits -- which the
county will lose?
Any suggestions the navigability of rivers "was frozen at
statehood" ignores the Fall River decision (and others), where attempts
to impede public access to navigable rivers were thrown back by lawsuits.

Don't use abusive or accusatory language (two of the names on the list
above are our friends). One supervisor's been whining about the small
number of nasty emails (the same guy who cryptically accuses Trout
Underground e-mail writers of being "misinformed" -- and repeatedly
characterized your public input as "bizarre and irrational").

The only whining they get to do comes after they've lost their attempt
to run you off "their" rivers.

Otherwise, Supervisor Marcia Armstrong -- who's already trying to pack
the Natural Resources Committee with her hand-picked cronies; who is
already deciding which public comments are acceptable; and who wrote
this ridiculous, illegal natural resource policy -- will win.

And we lose.

Also, if you know any business owners up here who depend on fishermen to
make a living, then drop them an email. Let them know that their own
Board of Supervisors are willing to sacrifice south county businesses so
extractive industries can prosper. [also if you know any environmental
writters for magazines like Fly fish america, Fly fisherman, so we can
get some national publicity on this, as well as maybe some organizations
with lawyers to put a PROMPT LEGAL stop to this in court]

That's the action plan. From here on down is just more fuel for the fire.

Why the Hell Are We Doing This Again?

I don't even know where to start. If you're new to this issue, you can
see all my posts on the subject by clicking here.

The single best post on the subject can be found here.

Essentially, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors want to implement
a set of Natural Resource Policies that designates all the rivers in the
county as "non-navigable."

That would deny you the right to fish those rivers where they adjoin
private property. What's worse, they're all clearly navigable under
state and federal definitions.

The plan is essentially one gift to extractive industry after another,
and contains so many outrageous policies, it's hard to know where to
start.

Supervisor Armstrong will tell you she's simply codifying policies the
county's already committed to, but It's hard to call this anything but a
ridiculous power grab on behalf of her extractive resource buddies.

In addition to the legally brain dead non-navigability stipulation,
others sections say the only real use for water is to grow grass for
livestock, that unchecked suction dredge mining is environmentally
benign, and that publicly owned forest and rangelands must be managed
for maximum cattle and timber yields (all other uses are secondary).

Sounds great, eh? There's plenty more where those came from.

A Cloud of Misleading Statements and Obfuscation

Most galling has been the cloud of misleading statements around this
from the start, and despite the fact that Ms. Armstrong has been caught
with her hand in the extractive resource cookie jar, she's attempting to
brazen it out.

In my own email to the supervisors -- which provided clear evidence of
the illegality of designating the county rivers as non-navigable --
Armstrong's response was the political equivalent of sticking her
fingers in her ears and humming a song.

Apparently, the concept at work here is that repeating false information
often enough makes it come true.

No, the rivers in this county weren't frozen in a non-navigable status
at statehood. No, the Shasta and Scott Rivers haven't "long been held as
non-navigable."

None of that matters.

Of course, we were assured from the beginning that this plan was based
on one instituted by Modoc County, and that also turned out to be a real
whopper.

Modoc County actually bothered to get public input and formed a
committee to develop their plan. In this case, Marcia Armstrong has
already written the plan -- long before the natural resource advisory
committee has even been formed.

Hell -- the County's existing Natural Resource Director wasn't even
consulted on this plan.

And all the above ignores the reality that the county can't even
legislate most of the items in the plan.

And I could go into what appear to be attempts to pack the
not-yet-formed committee with extractive-friendly cohorts, but that's
another post.

For now, I know this plan is moving closer to getting approved, and I'm
sitting here typing this garbage instead of heading out on the river and
throwing tailing loops at trout.
  #2  
Old November 11th, 2007, 02:30 AM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly,alt.politics.democrat,rec.outdoors.fishing
Bob La Londe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,009
Default California Stream Access in trouble!


"Red" wrote in message

Took me longer than the 90 seconds you said. Harumph! Just remember that
when I need some support for a bassing issue.

Good luck.







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Stream Access George Cleveland Fly Fishing 2 November 11th, 2007 02:30 AM
Yet more trouble for fish Wolfgang Fly Fishing 0 January 5th, 2007 02:48 PM
I think I'm in trouble Frank Reid Fly Fishing 1 May 24th, 2006 10:24 PM
Water access on Upper Blue Lake, California f.blair Bass Fishing 1 July 4th, 2004 08:32 AM
Trouble pumping in gas DWM 5150 Bass Fishing 12 March 11th, 2004 02:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FishingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.