Nov 20, 2016
To Siskiyou Co. Supervisors:
Subject: Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument
When the existing Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was created, extensive and adamant promises were made to the affected regional majority in opposition. Forcibly imposed upon the affected public, the ensuing years have revealed EVERY ONE of those promises a premeditated lie:
– Ranchers with generations of vested contributions helping CREATE the biodiverse region, assured by proponents they would have continuing ability for survival, were surreptitiously regulated into extinction.
– Residents within the monument boundaries have been harassed and impeded into compelled positions of ‘willing sellers’.
– ‘Preservation and access to the public’ has instead resulted in essentially unmanaged lands made virtually inaccessible through road decommissioning and policy degraded conditions such as the dominance of invasive weed species and fire potential growth.
– ‘Untouchable’ fire policies have resulted in real world consequential added risk and threat to the lives and property of residents living in, and adjacent to, the monument borders, as evidenced during recently experienced fires.
– Promises of a vast increase in regional jobs and income that would result from ‘monument status’ in ‘exchange’ for the many livelihoods and productive regional benefits lost, has instead seen NO identifiable resulting enhancements to ANYTHING other than the pockets of otherwise unaffected proponent NGOs and regulatory administering agencies.
Logically, the drastic expansion of the existing monument once again proposed by the same prior personally benefitting entities, using the same already established lies, can only produce the same proportional ‘expansion’ of previously experienced failures. The only reasonable explanation for an effort compounding past failure is that the real intent is for FURTHER expansion of ‘rewilding’ policy ‘executive’ imposed devastation and attrition upon the region.
Federal lands should be accessible to all Americans, and should be actively managed for multiple benefits and multiple values. Expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument under the Antiquities Act would accomplish just the opposite.
We and the vast majority of Siskiyou County fought the previous intended California expansion of the Monument which originally mapped their ultimate intention for the Monument far beyond even those presently and destructively imposed. The well documented intent goes far beyond even this incrementally oppressive agenda. Once this irresponsible and unaccountable mandate is in place, the final stage to the original intent becomes a much easier additional step. Therefore, even after this travesty is implemented, the battle against area attrition and loss would not be over, instead it would only be the beginning of one even greater..
My family and I are opposed to the proposed expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. I would hope that enough resolute public attention in opposition can be made to impede a unilateral Executive Order. As with the special interest KHSA/KBRA/KBCA/KPFA debacle, Wyden and Merkley are once again proving themselves the facilitators of an agenda using any deceptive means against the survival of the very regions they claim to represent. Please consider opposing the Monument expansion.
Sep 12, 2013
PNP comment: I apologize for not posting this before the historic Sept. 3, 2013 approval of the “Declaration” to withdraw from the State of California by the Siskiyou County Supervisors. It was lost deep in 100s of emails and I just found it. Rex is very explicit and felt it explained well our grievances and practical need to form our own state. — Editor Liz Bowen
To: Siskiyou County Supervisors
It is with much reflection and soul searching that I have arrived at the point of sending this request for your consideration.
After years of observing and interacting with the various State and Federal Agencies regarding regulatory ‘processes’, it has become evident that an impenetrable closed-loop methodology including regulatory, legislative, judicial, and NGOs, has developed allowing the selectively benefitting agenda-driven subversion of the very principles for which our country has stood. That methodology circumvents both Constitutional individual rights and the effective representation of the People.
Seeing the manipulated abuses of the KBRA, KHSA, TMDL’s, ITP’s, 1602’s, 401’s, suction dredge ban, the Water Resources/CalEPA/NCRWQCB/DFG/CalFire effective ‘taking’ of private property rights and use without compensation, Monuments, ‘Food Safety’, Road ‘Management’ Plans, ‘Fire Tax’, and Second Amendment legislative assault, just to name a few, with each realizing selective participating benefit by ignoring the reason, rights, science, knowledge, and experience of others, it is currently clear that the term ‘equality’ has just become another tool for manipulation.
We have watched our regional resources, sustainable way of life, properties, and futures decimated by regionally unknowledgeable and unaccountable non-vested agenda-driven dictates imposed upon and against a regional majority in opposition. That methodology has allowed NO effective recourse and in fact insidiously forces regional ‘compliance’ through ‘conditionally allocated’ funds requiring the abandonment of its citizenry in exchange for regional infrastructure economic survival. The ONLY means that seems left to restore meaningful representation of the regional people is to form a separately defined representative body based upon boundaries encompassing the similarly experienced resources, knowledge, and values of the regional majority.
While establishing such independence may initially see the need for greater economic responsibility and sacrifice, the more effective subsequent regionally knowledgeable and locally defined decisions would likely see greater regional prosperity and environmental quality of life return once again. Without such a change of direction, the ONLY foreseeable future for our region under the current unrelenting agenda is continuing environmental devastation and the forced destruction of her people and way of life in favor of a wealthy and/or corporate select few able to accommodate agenda funded self-appointed dictate.
I would ask you to consider supporting the pursuit of redefining a regionally relevant governmental structure. It will not be simple, but within our region lay the drive, understanding, knowledge, and means to make a return to Constitutionally defined rights and responsibilities.
May 4, 2012
Requested Public Comment for Draft Recovery Plan for Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho Salmon, released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on January 5, 2012
May 3, 2012
We are 4 generations living in, on, and with the Klamath River directly below where Iron Gate now exists, before and after, at the focal point of dams’ impact rhetoric. We have direct connection and documentation for our area extending prior to ‘Upper Basin Project’ and significant ‘european impact’. Unlike many Agencies/ Special Interests that share profiting potential conflict of interest in calling for increased regulatory authority and altered/selective interpretation of regional experience and history, we benefit in no respect as a consequence of the comments we make. We, along with many other multi-generational residents and unlike many of those special interests now involved, have sacrificed greatly throughout the century past and present to understand, preserve, protect, and enhance the unique environment we love and upon which continued quality of life depend.
Without question, the SONCC Draft exemplifies a selective and biased propensity towards a predefined outcome of regional oppression. From the Draft described ‘historical background’, assumed causes of recent ‘decline’, Coho extent of habitat, unsupported estimates of previous numbers, estimates of prior ‘natural background conditions’, presumptive boilerplate ‘mitigations’, and current expected ‘conducive environments’, there is extremely little semblance of accuracy to the region and history we know.
A great many of those local experiences, documentation, and current studies supporting that experience, have been repeatedly submitted to this and other cooperating Agencies, particularly Agencies such as NMFS which are also seated members of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement exacerbating conflict of interest, to no acknowledgement whatsoever. That historically disparate NMFS perceptive discrepancy calls into serious question the accuracy and intent relative to the entire Draft Plan.
With past conditions and current described ‘habitats’ so far removed from local reality, as with the vast majority of Klamath upper midstem ‘coho habitat’ streams listed which have NO significant human impacts, sustainable upper refugia, or even yearly flows, there are only two inescapable conclusions possible. Either the Agency has demonstrated complete incompetency and/or inability to effectively ‘administer’ the unique region involved, or it proves the existence of an undisclosed ulterior motive and biased agenda being pursued. Both cases argue against the motive, right, and ability of NMFS to effectively administer, ‘regulate’, and enforce ‘policies’ known to be locally detrimental to both the environment and communities NMFS is claiming to protect.
If NMFS were actually certain of declared outcome and convinced of the benefit of their agenda, rather than simple pursuit of regulatory Agency expansion and benefit, they would NOT pursue ‘adaptive management’ policy without tangible accountability. Rather they would accept full accountability and responsibility for mitigating ALL detrimental impacts to both the environment and citizenry for the policies they impose.
If NMFS administrators and selected ‘peer reviewers’ were subject to the same personal impacts to life and vested interests as those upon whom the drafted ‘Policies’ are so enthusiastically enforced, it is my firm belief that acknowledged draft and agenda extreme ‘uncertainties’, ‘estimates’, and unaccountable ‘adaptive management’ would suddenly be found far less ‘scientifically acceptable’.
The discouraging countless hours to the sacrifice of individuals, families, community, and environment during nearly 20 years of locally applicable ‘Public Comment’ to Agencies including NMFS, have resulted in zero inclusion and subsequent regional detriment to all except for the cooperating creating Agencies and special interests themselves. Defining naturally unattainable and contradicted expectations without accountability or consistency invariably anticipates ‘success’ by the forced attrition of the vested unrepresented majority.
The proposed presumptions and actions intentionally set the stage for required future regulatory expansion and funding of the very benefitting Agencies and Special Interests which authored the policies, a clear conflict of interest within the current procedures that must be addressed.