Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Rex Cozzalio category.

Rex Cozallio: Reasons for no expansion of Cascade/Siskiyou National Monument

Federal gov & land grabs, Op-ed, Rex Cozzalio

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.


Rex Cozzalio

No Comments

Siskiyou farmer, Rex Cozallio writes letter to CA. U.S. Senators Feinstein and Boxer

Agriculture, CA & OR, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath Basin Crisis.org, Klamath River & Dams, Ore US Senator, Rex Cozzalio, Ron Wyden, Threats to agriculture

PNP comment: Rex Cozallio, who farms on his family’s heritage lands along the Klamath River, shares his frustrations over the Oregon U.S. Senator Wyden’s (newest) Task Force to force the destruction of 4 Klamath River hydro-electric dams – 3 are located in Siskiyou County. Info on Wyden’s end-run around the House of Representatives, where the monies are appropriated for projects can be found at the following link.


— Editor Liz Bowen

Senators Feinstein and Boxer


It is foolish for me to write at a time I am so angry, disillusioned, and sorrowed by the massive designed attrition of our community and devastation to our environment that will inescapably occur due to your implementation of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement/ Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KBRA/KHSA).  Due to the pending legislation, time is too short to wait.  Years of requests to you to share facts and perspectives from those most knowledgeable and affected have fallen on deaf ears.  From your response, or lack thereof, you seemed not only uninterested in considering the regional KBRA/KHSA impacts, oppositions, and alternatives, you obviously never even bothered to fully read the ‘Agreements’ themselves.  Finding that to be a typical reaction we have come to expect from you when dealing with a region that, though physically large, presents an ‘insignificant’ economic or numeric demographic, I perhaps wrongly assumed you simply held no interest.  Often in the past from your released media statements relative to other issues, I would take heart that there was a chance you may actually care about something that didn’t personally benefit, only to frequently see those words pass by as dust in the wind.  That is why I was so dismayed when seeing that you not only publically endorsed the KBRA/KHSA, you are proudly ‘Co-Sponsoring’ the legislation!  Your publically quoted claims of fictional ‘solutions’ and ‘consensus’ and its somehow associated ‘improved water reliability’ and ‘crisis’ benefit for the State, are either ignorant or deceptively manipulative to the extreme and COMPLETELY contradicted by the current realities and ‘Agreement’ terms themselves.  Apparently responsibility, truth, or accuracy have little place in current agenda politics.

We are 4 generations living on, in, and with the Klamath River we love at the ‘focal point’ of greatest ‘dams impact’ rhetoric.  We have endured though time and adversity for the love of the river, environment, and community.  Raised in the river, before and after Iron Gate, the Klamath water literally flows through my veins.  We and many other long term river residents have personally sacrificed far more over the generations to maintain and enhance this environment and river region than ANY agency or NGO never seen.  We and others at our location, settler and Native American alike, personally witnessed, and ‘experts’ hailed, the tremendous improvements the dams and hatchery made to the water quality, riparian stability, reduced flood damage, fisheries enhancement, regionally benefitting power generation, and sustainable late summer flows.  We have lived the well managed beneficial balance of water received from our upper basin brothers and fisheries prior to the late 90’s and the fabricated lies of the subsequent agenda created crisis.  We know and have the historical documentation, the empirical evidence, the exposed conspiratorially profiting corruption, the nearly 80% of most affected and regionally knowledgeable who officially voted in OPPOSITION to removals, and the current scientific studies that PROVE the agenda driven inconsistent insanity of the KBRA/KHSA.  We have watched the Secretary of Interior under executive directives set the pre-determined options for created ‘Agreements’, have the Secretary’s own employee instrumental in ‘Agreement’ predeterminations orchestrate their own supportive contracted ‘studies’, ‘objectively’ parse those ‘studies’, discard those that did not ‘conform’, ‘administer’ the ‘public comment review’, and ‘present’ a ‘Secretarial Recommendation’ for ‘Secretarial Determination’ identical to the preconditions the Secretary originally set.  We still weep for the now agency forgotten regional thousands of lives and knowledge already lost during 15 years of ‘modeled theory management’ implemented and miserably FAILED on the Klamath at a cost exceeding half a billion dollars, as knowingly predicted by those lost, which same ‘theories’  merely expand with immunity under the ‘Agreements’.  We are currently seeing thousands being sacrificed in the off-project upper basin as a result of those recently expanded ‘Agreements’,  and we know from history, experience, and the ‘Agreements’ themselves, of the many thousands more that will be sacrificed when the full impacts of the ‘Agreements’ materialize.  Perhaps most importantly, we have alternative ACTUAL engineered and PROVEN successful solutions to this proposed destruction that would fulfill ALL beneficial uses at a fraction of the proposed cost and WITHOUT environmental disaster and the associated massive attrition of our region and culture.  Those are some of the reasons why, to date, I am unaware of a SINGLE long-term, or actually ANY river resident, at our ‘most dams affected’ reach, who is in favor of the KBRA/KHSA.  In spite of, or perhaps BECAUSE of this, at NO time has ANYONE from our most affected and ‘dams knowledgeable’ location been allowed to even SIT at the ‘table’ which demanded acceptance of dams’ removals and an illegal tiered hierarchy granting government and their self-appointed, special interest ‘Council’ ostensible control and impact over ALL of unrepresented regional majority vested rights and property.  Those ‘Agreements’ will legislate NON-representative, Self-appointed, special interest ‘adaptively managed’ taxpayer/ratepayer funded unaccountable authority for agenda driven devastation to our entire region and environment.

For you to steadfastly refuse to even LOOK at those concerns and alternatives, and then to make false statements FORCING this agenda down our throats without accountability or compensation for imposed devastation speaks volumes and can only lead to limited explanations, even allowing for the most altruistic motives.  It is possible you may be ignorant of the affected facts and either due to personal belief or political credit feel it the ‘appropriate’ thing to do, regardless of impacts.  Or, alternatively, you may be fully aware of the agenda driven intended attrition of life vested regional resources, believe that government must confiscate all right and title to those resources for its own use and interest, and believe that the unrepresented taking and impacting of rights and property without compensation or accountability is acceptable towards the re-creation of a socially engineered ‘new world order’ top-down feudal system of which, of course, you would be one of the enlightened ‘masters’.  If, in my ignorance, there is another option for your possible perspective which I missed, I apologize and look forward to hearing it.  With either of the prior two explanations, the damage done is the same.

As I understand it, there are two obligations pursuant to the execution of your senatorial duties.  One is for you to promote an opinion, whether you believe it representative of those whom elected you, or whether you believe those who elected you also elected your personal opinion.  The other obligation is your sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and the liberty and rights it entails.  Recognizing the tendency of a democratic majority to eventually oppress the minority, Constitutional authors enumerated the protective unalienable rights of individual citizens.  While your Klamath opinion may be to ‘represent’ the largely non-vested and unaffected majority of your constituents by ‘co-authoring’ the KBRA/KHSA legislation in opposition to a majority vote of those most directly affected, you have also made the sacred oath to uphold the Constitution and prevent the circumvention of individual liberty, rights, property, and the condemnation process it requires.  

With little hope for different outcome I would once again ask that, before throwing the full weight of your position behind ‘Agreements’ bringing such unnecessary loss and hardship to our region and environment, that you allow a meeting and the time for presentation by myself or others of KBRA/KHSA related facts you may not be aware.


Rex Cozzalio

No Comments

Another grievance against the State of CA: Water Quality Control Plan

Op-ed, Rex Cozzalio, State gov, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment is from good friend, Rex Cozzolio:

Greetings All,

It seems I now live in a perpetual state of dismay.  At least to me, regardless of any ‘explanation’ I may be ‘missing’, the attached portends the major hammer for the quietly orchestrated Klamath overthrow somehow ‘boilerplated’ under the (likely less contentious) ‘Mattole, Eel, and Navarro River Temperature Plan’.

Perform a search for ‘Klamath’ in ‘Att4’ above.  Isn’t that amazing?….

We have crossed so many boundaries of reason that even a cursory glance reveals a quagmire of contempt.  They sanctimoniously admit the ‘potentially significant and unavoidable’ loss of property to owner lands, resources, economic survivability, use, and choice regarding their proposed subjective implementations against the citizens, with NO accountability, guarantee of environmental benefit, or mitigation of individual (or group) economic losses.

Their ‘expert’ implementations apply their dictated opinions of site specific requirements to ‘mitigate’ BOTH ‘significant’ and ‘insignificant but potentially cumulatively significant’ human activities. It is so unscientifically based and unsupported by site specific study, that even their self-determined ‘monitoring and reporting’ obligations appear to cleverly assure ‘monitoring and reporting’ only of achieved ‘programmatic implementation’, NOT of the studied and justified cost-effective environmental benefits realized.  In fact, even that extent of ‘reporting’ appears to place the primary burden upon the landowners themselves.

With the deluge of oppression seen in all areas of life raining down upon us, the demise of those in rural California (and America) seems more and more imminent.

All the Best,

Rex Cozzalio

Klamath River

This is a message from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (1).

Regional Water Board staff are circulating the attached addendum related to the Public Hearing on Resolution No. R1-2013-0058, amending the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region to include the Policy for the Implementation of the Water Quality Objectives for Temperature, and Action Plans to Address Temperature Impairments in the Mattole, Navarro, and Eel River Watersheds.

As a reminder, the hearing on this item is scheduled for the next meeting of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in Santa Rosa at 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A, Santa Rosa for Wednesday, November 20, 2013.  The agenda for the meeting also can be found on the North Coast Board’s website.  The meeting begins at 1:30 pm.  Please contact Bryan McFadin with any questions on this item at bryan.mcfadin@waterboards.ca.gov.

No Comments

Siskiyou county citizen Rex Cozzolio’s letter of support to Siskiyou County Supervisors

JEFFERSON DECLARATION, Rex Cozzalio, State of Jefferson

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

Re: ‘Jefferson’


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.


Rex Cozzalio

1 Comment

Cal-Fire Protection Fee (tax) refuted by Siskiyou farmer Rex Cozzalio

Agriculture - California, Fire Fees, Rex Cozzalio, Siskiyou County, State gov

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.


Rex Cozzalio


1 Comment

Rex Cozzalio responds to NOAA Coho Recovery Plan -draft

Federal gov & land grabs, Rex Cozzalio, Salmon and fish

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

No Comments

Rex Cozzalio responds to newest program to impregnate Shasta River with fertilized coho eggs — preposterous, it is.

Klamath River & Dams, Rex Cozzalio, Salmon and fish, Shasta River

–          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.

No Comments