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 American Stewards of Liberty category.

American Stewards request coordination process with BLM on its newest Planning Rules

American Stewards of Liberty, Bureau of Land Management, Coordination process OR -- Fred K. Grant, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs

Coordinating Local Governments

Kane County, Utah
Garfield County, Colorado
Chaves County, New Mexico
Big Horn County, Wyoming
Custer County, Idaho
Modoc County, California
Winkelman NRCD, Arizona
Hereford NRCD, Arizona
Dona Ana SWCD, New Mexico

April 14, 2016

April 12, 2016, six Counties and three Conservation Districts representing seven Western states (the Coordinating Local Governments) issued a letter to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director, Neil Kornze.  The letter request that he coordinate the agencies proposed planning rules with the local governments as required by Section 202 (c) 9 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

The BLM issued notice it intended to change its existing planning rules on February 25th of this year (81 Fed. Reg. 9674).  The proposed rules have been in development for some time; however, no effort was made by the BLM to coordinate with local governments during this process.  The changes are sweeping and would significantly reduce the role of State and local governments in public land use inventory and planning and management activities contrary to the statutory provisions of FLPMA.

No Comments

American Stewards of Liberty file intent to sue feds over ESA listing

American Stewards of Liberty, Endangered Species Act

ASL Files Notice of Intent to Sue for the Delisting of the American Burying Beetle

January 20, 2016, American Stewards of Liberty and its partners sent Notice of Intent to Sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), for failure to respond within the statutorily prescribed 90 days to our petition to delist the American Burying Beetle (Nic rophoru s americ anu s ) in accordance with ESA § 4(b) (3)(A).

The American Burying Beetle (“Beetle”) has been on the endangered species list since 1989 and is known to occur in ten states:  Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Texas.  It is the largest of the carrion beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae) in North America, and was placed under federal protection based on anecdotal evidence that its historical range had been reduced by 90%.  The Service’s position was not based on scientifically defensible, range-wide studies of presence/absence or abundance.

Today, there is no evidence the Beetle is in danger of extinction across all or a significant portion of its contemporary range. The known contemporary range, distribution, and abundance of the Beetle is actually expanding.  Additionally, at the time of listing, the Service was unable to identify any actual threats to current populations of the Beetle and more recent analyses of threats are based largely on speculation and surmise – not actual evidence of downward pressure on the current abundance or distribution of the species.

For these and other reasons stated in the Petition to Delist, ASL has filed its intent to sue the Service for failure to act on the petition in a timely manner.

This is the third Notice of Intent to Sue filed by ASL for the delisting of species that need to be removed from federal protection.  Click here for more information on the Beetle and other species.

No Comments

News from Klamath Basin Crisis.org

American Stewards of Liberty, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath Basin Crisis.org

* First Amendment to the KBRA/Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, released 10/12/12.

This will be voted on at your irrigation district meetings, on 11/13 at TID.

Read very carefully, 21 pages.

Were you irrigators sent copies? Did you help form your new laws, or have a vote?

TID regular board meeting agenda for 11/13/12

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

No Comments

BOS questions flow study

Agriculture - California, American Stewards of Liberty, Dept. Fish & Game, Salmon and fish, Scott River & Valley, Shasta River, Threats to agriculture

PNP comment: Cal-Wild, formerly known as Dept. of Fish and Game, is grasping at straws. You see, its sister California agency, Dept. of Water Resources, has 30 years of data, flow studies, along with continued in-stream flow monitors in the Scott River and creeks.

The Shasta and Siskiyou Resource Conservation Districts has also completed years of water flow, instream flow and snow accumulation and rainfall accumulation. THIS INFORMATION is all available, but it does not come up with the CONCLUSION that the Greenies and Cal-Wild want.

What is that conclusion you ask? 

Answer: To blame any loss of water during the summer, especially when the creeks NATURALLY dry up (snow has melted in the mountains and little rainfall) on water right diversions of irrigation water (ditches).

POW thanks the Board of Supervisors for their complaints and factual comments — because the info is already available, but not sufficiently skewed for Cal-Wild to get the end result that it needs. — Editor Liz Bowen

BOS questions flow study – Yreka, CA – Siskiyou Daily News, Yreka, CA

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20121109/NEWS/121109737

By John Bowman

Siskiyou Daily News

November 9, 2012

Summer and fall flows in the Scott River (above) and Shasta River have been the subject of scrutiny by state and federal fisheries agencies. On Tuesday, the board of supervisors discussed a flow study being developed by the California Department of Fish and Game.

YREKA — Stream flows in the Scott and Shasta rivers were the subject of discussion again at the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday. The board hosted representatives of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) who briefed them on the agency’s progress in developing an in-stream flow study for the two rivers.

Curtis Milliron, fisheries program manager for CDFG’s northern region, and Mark Wheetley, CDFG flow study project spokesman, appeared before the board to give an update of the department’s progress in developing the flow study that will be used to make recommendations to the state water board regarding the flow needs of salmonid species in the two rivers.

Milliron told the board that a series of 10 public workshops will be held to seek landowner and stakeholder input that will be used to help define the scope of the study. A meeting will be held at the Fort Jones Community Center Nov. 13 from 6-8 p.m., followed by a second meeting on Nov. 14 from 6-8 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express in Yreka.

Milliron repeatedly expressed his belief that landowner input will be essential in utilizing local knowledge and local concerns when designing the study plan.

But District 1 Supervisor Jim Cook told Milliron and Wheetley, “These meetings are not going to get you what you claim you want.”

Cook added, “This is not 25 years ago.” He said that 25 years ago landowners in the Shasta River watershed offered to help with a water study. “We’ve been burned so badly by your agency since then,” he said.

Cook explained that he doesn’t expect frustrated landowners to make the effort to attend a meeting. He told the CDFG scientists that public meetings may have worked before “your agency went rogue on us and went nuts and you lost all the support you had 20 years ago.”

Cook insisted that the agency representatives would have to go to the landowners now, rather than expecting the landowners to come to them.

District 5 Supervisor Marcia Armstrong told Milliron and Wheetley that she doesn’t see how CDFG has any authority on the matter of stream flows. She said the Scott and Shasta rivers’ water rights adjudications were established under the authority of the Superior Court of the State of California. Therefore, she believes the state waterboard’s influence is limited to their ability to make recommendations to the court.

Armstrong also expressed her concern that the flow study appears to focus on the in-stream flow needs of fisheries only and does not address other beneficial uses such as agriculture and recreation.

Milliron told Armstrong, “I think you have made some excellent comments and I think you represent the views of many stakeholders that we would like to incorporate into this process.” He added, “I’m hopeful, and I am asking that you would join us next week and bring those comments forward in this process.” He said that, as biologists, he and Wheetley were not equiped to answer many of the regulatory questions but added that they deserved answers. “It will benefit us all to get past those sticking points,” he said, adding that there is a “legal constitutional analysis phase” in the process that will consider the legal and regulatory issues connected to the flow study.

Supervisors Armstrong, Cook and Kobseff all took issue with Milliron’s suggestion that supervisors bring their comments and questions to the public meetings.
Cook said the suggestion “implies that you aren’t going to listen to people except at these meetings.”

District 3 Supervisor Michael Kobseff told Milliron, “I take great offense for you to say to any one of these board members, ‘come to the meeting and give those comments.’ When we’re giving you comments and asking questions here, it’s as good as gold as being at the meeting and if it’s not, don’t show up here again. Because I’m giving you information that you should be hearing and writing down. This is the elected body of the county. You should be paying attention.”

Regarding the authority under which CDFG intends to carry out a flow study and make flow recommendations, the agency states, “Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 10000-10005, CDFG is required to develop stream flow recommendations for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the Scott River and Shasta River.”

According to section 10000 of the code, “… fish and wildlife resources are important for the entire state and are inextricably linked to the continued economic viability of industries, such as the fishing industry, which are desirable and important components of the state’s economy.”

Section 10001 states, “The Director of Fish and Game shall identify and list those streams and watercourses throughout the state for which minimum flow levels need to be established in order to assure the continued viability of stream-related fish and wildlife resources.”

Section 10002 states, “The Director of Fish and Game shall prepare proposed stream flow requirements, which shall be specified in terms of cubic feet of water per second, for each stream or watercourse identified pursuant to Section 10001,” and “The State Water Resources Control Board shall consider these requirements within a stream as set forth in Section 1257.5 of the Water Code.”

The code, adopted by the state legislature, does clearly require the flow studies and subsequent recommendations, but does not specify the authority under which the recommendations would be enforceable.

However, according to Section 4 of the PRC, “No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code, but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the provisions of this code so far as possible.”

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html
please visit today.

No Comments

Hundreds watch Shasta salmon

Agriculture - California, American Stewards of Liberty, Greenies & grant $, Salmon and fish

PNP comment: And there has been all this talk that the Shasta River isn’t healthy enough for salmon! Guess that is a bunch of hooey! — Editor Liz  Bowen

Hundreds watch Shasta salmon – Yreka, CA – Siskiyou Daily News, Yreka, CA

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20121030/NEWS/121039954

By John Bowman

Siskiyou Daily News

October 30, 2012

BIG SPRINGS — Hundreds of visitors, including over 400 local students, attended the Nature Conservancy’s Shasta Big Springs Ranch salmon viewing open house on Friday and Saturday. Visitors came to catch a look at this year’s unusually large run of Shasta River Chinook salmon. The carcass of a salmon, which had already spawned and died, drew a wide range of commentary and eager pointing from the kids, as did the female Chinook noisily splashing and flapping her tail against the stream bed to build her redd (nest) just under the Louie Road bridge where the students stood watching.

This year’s run of fall Chinook salmon on the Klamath River is likely to be the biggest since 1978, with scientists predicting a total near 380,000 fish for the Klamath River system.  The Shasta River has already seen the return of over 22,000 Chinook this fall and this year’s large run has been providing increased opportunities for viewing the annual migration.

Jason Singleton, outdoor education specialist for the Siskiyou County Office of Education said the field trip provided a valuable learning tool for students and the general public. “You don’t often get the chance to watch this kind of thing in the wild. It’s one thing to talk about it in the classroom, but you can’t beat this kind of direct observation,” Singleton explained. He said the students were able to inspect a salmon carcass up-close and learn about the different features of their anatomy, in addition to a lesson on the salmon life cycle and habitat requirements.

The Nature Conservancy operates the Shasta Big Springs Ranch as a working cattle ranch while undertaking stream restoration projects on the property to help protect and improve salmonid spawning and rearing habitat.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html
please visit today.

No Comments

American Stewards win with the coordination process

Agriculture, American Stewards of Liberty, Coordination process OR -- Fred K. Grant, Federal gov & land grabs

Southern Edwards Plateau HCP

  • Stopping a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

    By Dan Byfield

    120909 sephcp

    Whether you’ve witnessed our federal government creating a “federal” plan in your community or not, this story typifies what is going on nationwide.  We were called upon to help one community in South-Central Texas fight a federal plan and won. Take this as an example of what you can do in your own community and start taking your home and land back from the radical environmentalists and federal government who are destroying your private property rights and local economies all in the name of “saving the environment.

    Over a year ago, we were contacted by individual landowners and the Exotic Wildlife Association in South Central Texas to help them stop a regional habitat conservation plan called the Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (SEP-HCP).

    The SEP-HCP was being developed by Bexar (pronounced “bear”) County and the City of San Antonio located within Bexar County because they were told by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) they had endangered species that required protection from housing and business development going on in their county.  This “protection” was a regional habitat conservation plan, a plan devised by our government for our government.

    In reality, this whole issue stems from the early 1990’s when the Service made their initial move in Texas by listing two song birds – the golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo – as endangered.  The Service initially attempted to declare 33 Central Texas counties had critical habitat for the two birds that needed protecting.

    When we discovered their plan, we began exposing it causing an immediate uproar from thousands of private landowners.  Within four weeks, we organized landowners from the Hill Country and led over 5,000 of them down Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas and stopped the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife dead in their tracks.  But, they never gave up.

    When they couldn’t control 33 counties, they went to Plan B – single-county conservation plans and the first was with Travis County and the City of Austin where they were able to create the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan.  They then set their sights on Williamson County north of Austin and through threats of fines of up to $100,000 and one year in jail, they got their second conservation plan.

    But, that still wasn’t enough and eventually, they went after more Central Texas counties down around San Antonio and attempted to create the SEP-HCP, a seven-county regional plan that included Bexar, Bandera, Blanco, Comal, Kendall, Kerr, and Medina counties.

    This plan was much more subtle and sophisticated because they not only enlisted the help of the local governments of Bexar County and the City of San Antonio, but the U.S. Army and Camp Bullis – an Army base whose mission is to “provide training lands, ranges and infrastructure in support of military operational and institutional requirements, to enable mission success on the battlefield.”

    Camp Bullis, like hundreds of other military bases across America, has become a pawn in the environmentalist’s strategy using our fine military as their excuse to demand more land be protected.  At Camp Bullis they have an official “Environmental Department” that has issued rules and regulations for “Environmental Compliance.”

    They have areas within the camp where our soldiers must “obey signs that present a sensitive area such as: endangered species, caves and closed landfills” and “ignoring these signs could endanger you or others and may result in police action.”  One can only assume the “police action” would be from our federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcing the Endangered Species Act upon our fine military men and women.

  • Read more clink on link:

No Comments