To: Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

December 16, 2012

Re: State Responsibility Area (SRA) Tax

We are 4 generations living in a rural area theoretically ‘served’ by CDF (now Cal-Fire).  Throughout those generations, it is we who have been held responsible for our own safety, even to the point of CDF telling us that, other than for a fire starting on public lands and threatening our private property, and even then only on a ‘backup’ basis, they were under no obligation to defend our property from an internal fire and would likely not even show up.  In reality, our location is generally inaccessible within a reasonable time and means making their effectiveness virtually nonexistent and any onerous extorted ‘fees’ paid completely meaningless, even if they were willing to assume responsibility, which they are not.  That lack of benefit is true not only for us but for a great many within our region also threatened with financial survival.  Therefore, the most ‘benefitting’ entity becomes the very State which unilaterally imposed this effective ‘tax’ upon and without a vote of the people.

 It is with great distress that I write this appeal.  The SRA ‘tax’, no matter what other name the tax may be called, being imposed upon the rural public is unconscionable, unethical, and questionably legal.  It drastically fails the tests of credibility, fairness, equity, logic, and in fact all other effective aspects except governmental greed.  It was approved in spite of majority opposition by those knowledgeable, affected, and to whom the ‘service’ is supposedly ‘provided’.  In obvious reality to anyone reading this shell game  legislation, the SRA is simply a massive ‘tax’ under a fictitious name, stealing monies already paid by the public for said ‘services’ so that the State may break its public promise by instead confiscating already budgeted monies for yet even more unaccountable special interest state allocated purposes.  Now the State is again breaking its most recent promise to the people that the ‘fees’ of $150 per dwelling non-voluntarily levied upon 825,488 citizens would be spent ‘exclusively’ upon services provided those taxpayers, services  which, at least for the discriminatorily targeted individuals, often do not even exist.  Cal-Fire is paid for out of general budget to ‘protect’ PUBLIC LANDS, NOT private property.  If not true, then the State would be responsible for private property losses for services failed to be performed, a concept laughed at in the halls of government.  In fact, even the Bill’s publically placating promised ‘regionally earmarked grant’ monies are being confiscated until at least 2017 for ‘administrative purposes’.  This is NOT a supplementary tax willingly voted upon by the affected tax base for specifically provided beneficial services.  Instead, this is a premeditated raping of an unequally represented affected minority by a benefitting bureaucracy that believes such selective injustice will be unopposed by the unaffected majority, regardless of ethics or breach of law.

The only ways this shameful example of subterfuge could be made equitable is if;

-          The objective was structured as a special supplementary service tax, where appropriated funds would be used to provide personal coverage exclusively for the benefit and requiring a vote of the affected people or;

-          The State expands Cal Fire ‘service’ options, assuming additional responsibility and liability for protecting those VOLUNTARILY participating private interests on an individually paid basis, much as any other service business would operate or;

-          If implemented under the current Bill provisions, that those wishing not to participate may choose to opt out on a property by property basis, which is technically feasible as ‘coverage’ districts and properties are already determined on an individual basis.

Knowing none of these equitable and Constitutionally compliant options are likely to be pursued, we can’t implore strongly enough that every effort be made to completely repeal this inherently untenable Act.

Sincerely,

Rex Cozzalio

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.

Rex Cozzalio

-          While the Federal and State’s self-benefitting position is to maintain the OPINION that coho are indigenous to the Klamath, no multi-generational from our upper Klamath River region that I have heard of ever felt them so.

-          There is NO historical documentation I have ever found which claims they were, and a number that support they were not.  While current ‘authorities’ claim people just weren’t able to tell the difference then (apparently including government contracted fisheries experts like Evermann), it is interesting that within a few years after initial and repeated plantings, the sporadic returns of coho were noted.  Proponents base their claims almost invariably on recent publications by a relative handful of admittedly agenda oriented ‘experts’ such as Moyle citing selected assumptions from the even then biased 1931 Fish and Game Snyder Report, and a couple bulletins since, repeating Snyder’s assumptions.

-          A now retired Fish and Game fish hatchery manager at Iron Gate for several decades researched extensively and did not feel they were natural to the river, and only upon the third attempt of planting from the Cascadia coho strain in the 1960s under the improved water and hatchery conditions resulting from Iron Gate Dam did they finally consider they had obtained a MARGINAL return.  That return likely comprises much if not all of the in-river ‘wild runs’ cited now for reasons stated below.

-           It has been PROVEN locally that straying to other tributaries from hatchery runs is as high as 40-60%.  Tagged tracking of salmon returned to the river from the hatchery were found voluntarily retracing downriver and successfully spawning in many locations including the Shasta and Scott Rivers.  Given that propensity, only a few short generations (3 years per generation or shorter for ‘precocious’ spawners) would be required to ‘expand’ their territory to diffuse tributaries.

That potential is supported by at least three facts. 

One is that both hatchery and ‘wild’ salmon are found to be DNA identical and I understand from the Cascadia strain.

Second is that adipose fin clipping has been the ONLY way to differentiate hatchery spawned coho.  Until now a maximum of 10% (if any) of coho were clipped, resulting in returning strays being INDISTINGUISHABLE from ‘wild’ stocks and therefore resultant breeding quickly creating a homogenous strain, even if ANY other stocks DID exist.

Third, with the lack of any recent river changes except as mentioned below, it is coincidental (?)that during the 90’s subsequent to the drought cycle coho ‘downturn’, Fish and Game issued policy that ALL coho returning to the Hatchery/Bogus Creek not harvested for spawn were to be killed, instead of being returned to the river for spawning, and therefore failing to bolster coho populations as likely occurred throughout the past.

-          A factor that supports the above coho effect statements is that ALL human Klamath ‘impacts’ are a mere fraction of what they were long before the ‘recent’ downturn.  The ONLY significant non-ocean based Klamath factors recently changed are the increased protected predation, increased KBRA mandated ‘unnatural’ water flows, recently ‘reenacted’ effectively unenforced Tribal gill netting, Shasta and Scott River diversion removals’ sediment releases, increased degraded water from massive unmanaged forest fires, and greater un-thinned timber groundwater transpiration, ALL a result of relatively recent regulatory Agencies’ enforcements.

-          Coho, even IF they WERE indigenous, are defined exclusively as a coastal fish, with 80+ % spawning within 20 miles of the coast under the cooler, clear water coastal influence, making inland climate conditions marginal and inconsistent at best.  With the most ideal Klamath conditions ALL located downriver within the coastal mountain range influence, it becomes an extremely important and relevant point that only 25% of that habitat is current being utilized by salmon.  That not only reinforces the vastly preponderant ocean based and harvest return effects, but also solidly supports introducing eggs into those unutilized tributaries comprising a far greater likely success than ALL of the anticipated historically contradicted upper basin ‘habitat expansion’ costing billions of dollars to attempt.

-          Considering the above, several things seem clear.

-           Coho should NOT be on the endangered list.  Questions are too great and well evidenced to support current and developing oppression from Agencies’ experimentation and/or incompetence.

-           Cooperation without repercussion is fine, and if large numbers of coho are to be supported as superior to the needs of other resident species, then planting of coho eggs in suitable habitats unquestionably becomes an extremely viable option, AS LONG AS it does NOT increase restrictions, oppression, or liability to resident landowners for utilizing their vested property rights.

-          Unfortunately, to date every detrimental regulatory action and decision has instead been used to justify INCREASED Agency power, authority, and resource ‘taking’.

-          Any ‘cooperation’ of plantings, successful or not, should ONLY occur with guarantees of vested immunity.  The possibility of that immunity is slim, however, considering the self-serving politics involved.

-          Agencies and NGOs will want either to ‘deny’ plantings to continue a created endangered listing furthering expansion and the ‘re-wilding without compensation’ attrition of the region.  Others may feel it advantageous to pursue since introducing the eggs to uninhabited areas would give them the ability to expand designation of ‘critical habitat’ even further.

-           Nature Conservancy would likely quietly endorse it since planting on their Big Springs Ranch, if successful, would result in significant returns to their location allowing them to publically proclaim the ‘success’ of their ‘restoration’ theories and the ‘need’ for their expanding existence.  Without those guarantees of landowner immunity going in, a potentially great plan to benefit all can become a weapon against the people.

-          Regarding the ‘genetics’ as an excuse to rationalize either objective of the Agencies/NGOs, there is a great hypocrisy taking place.  While one moment the cry of concern justifying expansion and asset taking uses ‘DNA integrity’ as their mantra, once that mantle of unaccountable power is bestowed, Agencies are allowed to use their ‘best judgment’ as to introducing other salmon to try and force a perceived success.

-          Even while claiming removal of dams to ‘save indigenous salmon’, Fish and Wildlife is nonetheless currently testing ‘genetically superior salmon from this and other watersheds having a greater chance of survival’ to be ‘introduced’ even before the dams are out.  Considering the above discussion, arguments over the planted ‘coho genetic diversity’ become baseless.  Support of the Supervisors’ option for egg planting seems great, as long as the Supervisors first protect their people.