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.
Jun 8, 2016
Comment from Editor Liz Bowen
I will not give any press space to the recent Record Searchlight article that slams Siskiyou Co. Sheriff Jon Lopey.
He, like others, should be considered INNOCENT, until proven guilty.
These are nothing but lies and misdirection.
If anything, the Hmong and other pot growers, here in Siskiyou County, are intimidating their neighbors, especially the ones that have complained about their BIG pot grows.
Please realize that the marijuana criminal element wants to take over our county and will do it in any way possible.
When over 1,800 new voters registered from the UNINCORPORATED areas of Siskiyou — since April 8, 2016 — it looked suspicious to our Siskiyou Co. Clerk Colleen Setzer. She then did the appropriate thing and contacted Sheriff Lopey and then D.A. Kirk Andrus, who then contacted the state Secretary of State’s office.
The State Investigators were the LEAD on the residential checks that occurred last week, June 2-3, 2016 in Siskiyou County in the Hornbrook, Shasta Vista and McCloud areas. The sheriff sent deputies, the D.A. sent his investigators, the county sent Planning Dept. staff to check on property zoning violations.
They found violations and NO homes on numerous properties — just dry empty land, some with pot plantations growing.
SO, PLEASE do NOT believe everything you read in Record Searchlight.
These are dangerous and outrageous allegations against our sheriff.
Oh, also I have women friends that are down right scared because of the INTIMIDATION by some Hmong and other illegal pot growers, because they watch their property, watch them as they drive in and out of their dirt roads.
I am making a pretty strong statement here:
A NEW criminal-marijuana-growing-element started moving into Siskiyou two years ago.
They are determined to destroy agriculture and replace it with marijuana.
They are determined to change our way of life.
They are determined to destroy any semblance of a government that stands on the CONSTITUTION.
Remember, under the U.S. Constitution we all have RIGHTS. But your right stops, when you infringe on my property and my rights !!!
Luckily, we the people passed Measures T and U, so Sheriff Lopey and D.A. Andrus can do their jobs of enforcement.
But it looks like we have brought down the wrath of hell for standing for the Constitution and what is right.
— Liz Bowen
May 24, 2016
PNP comment: We totally agree with Michael Stapleton. We also recommend a “YES” on Measures S for the new jail and R for a $5, per parcel with house on it, for equipment for search, rescue and emergency volunteers. — Editor Liz Bowen
Letter sent to the Editor of the Siskiyou Daily News:
On Tuesday June 7th, the citizens of Siskiyou County have an important decision to make in voting for Measures “T” and “U”. Voting “YES” for these measures will allow the County to maintain local control over the expanding marijuana industry in Siskiyou County and yet would generously allow 12 marijuana plants per household for legitimate “medical marijuana” use.
I spent 32 years living in Humboldt County and sadly watched that county over the years change from a nice place to raise you kids with working families in the ranching, timber, and fishing industries. Now the county is overrun with individuals, many moving in from other areas, who would rather “grow for a living” rather than “work for a living”. The marijuana industry also attracted other drugs such a methamphetamine and heroin to Humboldt County with drug dealing at times out of control. The outdoor marijuana grows there have diverted water from important fish spawning streams, drastically changed formally remote pristine open country with development, and destroyed neighborhoods. Crime increased dramatically and drug related murders are a frequent occurrence. It is common knowledge in Humboldt County that the “medical marijuana 215 permits” are widely abused to commercially grow marijuana for sale and it is beyond enforcement in Humboldt County. All it takes is roughly a $100 fee to have a “Pot Doc” write you a medical marijuana prescription over in Humboldt County to get your “license” to grow marijuana.
Siskiyou County is a very special place to live. Please do not let it be destroyed by the marijuana industry. Its wide open spaces and untrampled remote areas are treasured by many that live here. We don’t want our hillsides bulldozed to create growing areas or our wildlife slaughtered because they are detrimental to marijuana growing. We want citizens that are proud to “work for a living” not “grow for a living”. Please vote “YES” for Measures “T” and “U” and also for Lisa Nixon to insure that Siskiyou County does not turn into another Humboldt County.
Mar 19, 2016
Western Livestock Journal
March 14, 2016
I’ve been traveling to a lot of bull sales around the western U.S. during the past few weeks. For the most part the sales are off a bit but the quality of the bulls is much better. It has also given me the opportunity to visit with a lot of public land ranchers to find out how they are getting along with their local BLM range conservation officers. I don’t recall anyone telling me they have had major issues with their local office. I’m sure there are exceptions, but it sounds like there is really a spirit of cooperation with ranchers and the BLM on range issues.
The federal government is throwing a lot of money at conservation projects, especially the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The industry avoided having the grouse placed on the endangered species list this past fall. Most resource users felt that the existing conservation efforts sufficed in increasing habitat. But the federal land agencies went ahead and implemented the land management plans anyway.
It’s perplexing that on the local level ranchers and land management folks seem to get along. And then you have these heavy-handed initiatives come out of Washington, D.C. that disrupts any harmony that exists at the local level.
Last week the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), Public Lands Council, and many state cattlemen and farm groups had to file an amicus brief supporting Idaho’s suit against the sage-grouse land management plan, saying the BLM and U.S. Forest Service’s restrictive land management plans are a back-door alternative to not listing the sagegrouse under the Endangered Species Act.
This should illustrate that any land management decisions on public lands should be made at the local level. Tracy Bruner, the new President of NCBA, said in a press release that “Ongoing state management has led to a 63 percent increase in sage-grouse population in the past two years alone, further illustrating that these range management plans and land-use plan amendments are unnecessary. They added that, if these new standards are implemented, they will have a negative economic impact on ranchers and rural communities without any corresponding benefit to the grouse habitat.”
Also, last week a group of environmental organizations—including Wild Earth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project and our favorite, the Center for Biological Diversity—filed a suit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife asserting that they are not protecting a subspecies sage-grouse in the Mono Basin in California and Nevada and that the birds need to be placed on the endangered species list.
It’s no secret to anyone in the livestock business that these groups have an agenda to remove livestock grazing from public lands and the sage-grouse is one of their tools to do just that. I’ve traveled through a lot of sagebrush country over the past few weeks and the ground looks healthy to me. I have seen what restoration efforts are being made; they are positive for all.
In Utah alone, they are removing junipers and reseeding 18,000 acres to improve sage-grouse habitat.
It is a huge effort being made by the government and private landowners.
As I said, the folks on the ground in the local communities seem to be getting along fine. But when these national efforts get underway, they eventually end up in court and the game is on. These environmental groups knew what the ultimate results would be after listing the spotted owl on the endangered species list; it killed the logging industry in the Northwest.
The bad thing about these environmental litigator groups is that everyone wants them to go away. The BLM, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife want to reduce their litigation load. Yet, the groups file lawsuits with reckless abandon and we pick up the tab with the Equal Access to Justice Act.
They intend on using the same playbook on the cattle industry and it appears they will stop at nothing to get the greater sage-grouse on the endangered species list. They will use the courts with no intention of cooperating and finding common and workable ground.
It’s crazy how these nonprofit organizations work.
They may not show a profit but they pay plenty of salary and benefits to those who start and operate them. These non-governmental organizations are becoming a major nuisance to society. They use selective science and the courts to fight their cause, yet it appears to me that they should have little standing to even use the courts.
It’s vital that we obtain a new political climate in this country because common sense left the building and nobody noticed him leaving. — PETE CROW, publisher
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
Mar 18, 2016
Hard work and high hopes from several local community collaborative groups went into the Westside Fire Recovery Project.
Sep 17, 2015
By Liz Bowen
It looks like the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is falling apart, which it should!
The County of Siskiyou was never allowed to be included as a “stakeholder” and, yet, 3 of the 4 dams tagged for destruction were located in Siskiyou.
We were over-ridden and ignored, but have become an outspoken advocate for saving the Klamath dams, because the dams preserve water quality, wildlife, fish and the communities of Siskiyou County.
Lies, deceit and fraud were rampant by the Greenie groups, Tribal leaders, federal and state agencies. I am a witness to it. I have reported on this outrageous situation since the fraudulent listing of the coho salmon, in the Northern California area ONLY, by both the feds in 1996 and California Fish and Game Commission in 2002.
Destroying the dams will kill at least three years of returning salmon runs — as admitted by Dept. of Fish and Game on April 1, 2010 at a meeting in Yreka, CA. How will that save the salmon?
The Irongate Dam Fish Hatchery, destined for demolition, also grows millions of salmon and steelhead for release each year. How will that improve fish populations if the fish hatchery is gone?
With no dams for flood or drought control, how will fish and wildlife have sufficient water as the Klamath is not a year-round natural high-flow river?
The KBRA is a political hot potato created to destroy salmon runs, wildlife, water quality and the economy of Siskiyou County.
I am certainly looking forward to the continued demise of the KBRA.