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 Endangered Species Act category.

Human toll of Washington D.C. edicts — especially Siskiyou Co.

Agenda 21 & Sustainable, Agriculture, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs

PNP comment: The below info was recently brought to our attention by Pearl Hewett in Clallam County, Washington, who stated her county has the same problems as Siskiyou in California and Josephine Co. in Oregon. Below is the link to Pearl’s webpage connecting the dots. Also, a BIG thank you to our local KARE Assoc. for putting these facts together. They have followed and documented the destruction to the environment by the Greenies and government for more than 25 years! — Editor Liz Bowen



From KARE, Klamath Alliance for Resources and Environment in Siskiyou County, CA.

The Human Toll in Siskiyou County

Siskiyou County has been hard hit by the environmental movement during the past twenty years. Time and again, we are promised that tourism will rise and offset any damage to our resource driven economy, and yet those dollars refuse to materialize. For 20 years, timber has been excluded from our national forests (see this shocking graph) which consume nearly two thirds of our entire county. Mining has been all but eliminated, agriculture (the largest remaining industry in this county) and now KS Wild has the temerity to claim that our county will be better off with another 200,000 acres (of 600,000 total) of timberland locked up in some “climate refuge?” Next time somebody trots out that line, give them some of these demographic statistics:

Unemployment, July 2011

(State wide data by county: PDF file)

  • California: 12.4%

  • Siskiyou Co: 16.6%

  • Shasta Co: 15.0%

  • Modoc Co: 13.9%

  • Humboldt Co: 11.9%

  • LA Co: 13.3%

  • Sacramento Co: 12.9%

  • San Franscsco Co: 9.0%

Siskiyou County 2010 Snapshot

(PDF file)

  • Population: around 48,000

  • The median age of the population is 43

  • 36% of the population is employed

  • Unemployment is 18.5%

  • Median Household Income $35,692 ($59,928 for CA)

  • 28% of households have children under 18 (46% USA)

  • 18% of the population lives below the poverty line (13% CA)

  • 27% of children live below the poverty line (18.5% CA)

  • 18% of the population is eligible for food stamps

  • 22% are eligible for Medi-Cal programs (18% CA)

  • Substantiation of Child Abuse and Neglect 31.7 per 1,000 ( 9/1,000 for CA)

  • Siskiyou Co. has higher rates of all violent crime (aggravated assaults, forcible rape and robbery) except homicide than Los Angeles Co. 11% of Seniors aged 60 and above have been abused.

  • Methamphetamine accounts for 44% of substance abuse treatment admissions. Roughly 11.9 percent of adolescents under 18 reported binge drinking over the past month (CA 6.6 percent.)

  • Of youth between age 10-17 admitted for treatment, 72% were for marijuana, 17% methamphetamine, and 11% alcohol. 83% were male. This age group also accounts for 13% of drug-related arrests.

  • Individuals between 25 and 34 years account for 25 percent of admissions to alcohol and drug treatment. This age group also accounts for 22 percent of drug related arrests

  • Individuals between 35 and 44 years accounts for 27 percent of alcohol-related arrests

Twenty Year Trends

(PDF file)

  • Demographic Trends — Age distribution: The census indicates that between 1990 and 2008, Siskiyou County experienced a 25% loss in the population of children under the age of 18. The County saw a 45% increasein the population age 45-64 and an 18% increase of those age 65 and older. This sh“““““““““““““““ows that our population is aging dramatically, and younger family wage earners are migrating elsewhere.

  • Income Trends; The BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) indicates that in 1987, the average wage for jobs in Siskiyou County were 73% of the California average. There was a steady decline down to as low as 57% in the year 2000, then the percentage stabilized at 61 % with an increase to 63% in 2008. This shows that our wages are depressed, not keeping pace with inflation and the rest of the state.

  • Unemployment — The EDD statistics indicate that from 1990-2009, the highest rates of unemployment occurred in individual months in 1991-1993 (19.3-21.1%.) The average rate of unemployment for 1991 was 13.2, for 1992 — 15.8 and for 1993 -15.6. This high rate likely reflects the closure of the four timber mills in Siskiyou County between 1989-1999. The rate of unemployment then very gradually decreased each year until it plateaued around 2001 -2007 at 8-9.5% It climbed to an average of 10.2% in 2008 and was at 15.8% average in 2009.

  • Median Household Income The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, the median household income of Siskiyou County residents was $22,077. This was 66% of the California median, (down $11,000 from the CA median.) In 2008, the Siskiyou County median was $36,823. It had decreasedto 60% of the California median, (down $24,000 from the CA median household income.) Siskiyou County ranks 51 out of 58 California Counties in median income.

  • Poverty Rates — The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, 14.4% of Siskiyou County residents lived below the poverty line. This was 1.7% higher than the poverty rate for California in general. In 1989, 23.5% of children under 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This was 2.2% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 16.4% of all residents in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 3.1% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 25.4% of children under the age of 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. That is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 6.9% greater than the California rate.

Summary Comment: Siskiyou County is an aging county. A large percentage of children in the county live in poverty and this is getting worse. Average wages are poor compared to the rest of California and getting worse. The household median income in the County has historically lagged far behind that of California and is getting worse. Unemployment has always been substantially higher than California in general. After stabilizing from high employment in the aftermath of mill closures and Forest Service layoffs, unemployment has substantially increased in the past two years and is climbing. It is currently 15.6% (May 2010.) The well-being of a substantial number of Siskiyou County residents is depressed and trending downward.

No Comments

Lawsuit: US grouse protections driven by politics, not science

CORRUPTION, Endangered Species Act

RENO — Rural Nevadans suing to block the Obama administration’s greater sage grouse protection plan say a trail of internal government documents shows politics drove a predetermined policy that conflicts with scientific findings.

The federal court motion seeks to void the protections that have restricted the development of millions of acres of federal land across the West. In some cases, the protections have made sections of federal land off limits.

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt and lawyers for nine Nevada counties, ranchers and miners say three top Interior Department officials who dubbed themselves the “Grouseketeers” illegally sought opinions from conservationists outside the planning process.

The motion for summary judgment filed in Reno last week also says the U.S. Bureau of Land Management ignored its staff’s advice to do more scientific study and “reverse-engineered studies with pre-determined conclusions designed to defend the land management restrictions.”

“There was a political agenda rather than a scientific basis for requiring withdrawals and absolute prohibitions on development and use,” Reno attorney Laura Granier wrote on behalf of the plaintiffs, who first sued in September to block sage grouse protections.

They argue the public has been “unlawfully deprived of the disclosure and impact analysis required” under federal law. They’ve asked Judge Miranda Du — twice before, unsuccessfully — to suspend the protections until the government conducts another study to analyze changes made to the protection plans after they were submitted to the public.

Administration officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. They have said agency officials do not comment on pending litigation. Judge Du gave the government until April 25 to respond.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell decided in September that Endangered Species Act protections were not needed for the chicken-sized bird that inhabits sage brush ecosystems across 11 Western states. North America’s greater sage grouse population, once estimated at 16 million, is down to 200,000 to 500,000 birds because of lost habitat.

Officials want to withdraw 10 million acres of land from future mining claims, prohibit oil and gas drilling near the bird’s breeding grounds and impose new reviews on livestock grazing permits to avoid the need for more severe restrictions endangered species protection would bring.

Environmentalists argue Jewell had no basis to reverse her department’s earlier finding in 2010 that listing the bird was warranted but precluded. They recently filed their own lawsuits saying the land-use rules don’t offer enough protection.

The ranchers, miners and Nevada counties say the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management rushed through the process because they considered meeting a deadline for a listing decision more important than complying with the law.

“The administrative record reveals astonishing overreach and disregard for public involvement and statutory requirements to impose a top-down policy engineered by three officials in the Department of Interior,” Granier wrote.

She identified the three “Grouseketeers” — a phrase apparently based on the “Mousketeers” of “The Mickey Mouse Club” — as Deputy Assistant Interior Secretaries Jim Lyons and Michael Bean, and Sarah Greenberger, legal counsel to Jewell. She said the trio met after the public comment period with environmental leaders to “get insight as to what would be required for (them) to ‘buy-in”’on the plans.

Laxalt said the protections halt development on nearly 3 million acres “that Nevadans depend on for their economic livelihood.”



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

No Comments

Common conservation

Agriculture, cattle, Clean Water ACT - EPA, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Greenies & grant $, Op-ed, Over-regulations, Property rights, Ranch life

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

No Comments

DOI accused of trying to sidestep Congress

Agriculture - California, CORRUPTION, Doug LaMalfa Congressman CA, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: We posted this article earlier this week, but the “glitch” on March 16, 2016 took it away, so it is being posted again. — Editor Liz Bowen

Western Livestock Journal

March 14, 2016

—Accusation comes following efforts to close Klamath dams

The federal Department of the Interior seems motivated to get on with the largest dam removal in U.S. history. For years, likely due to local opposition in southern Oregon and northern California, Congress has refused to support the removal of four hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River. But on March 1, at a hearing of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA1) accused the Department of the Interior of attempting to sidestep Congress and the will of the people by signing an agreement to create a “non-federal entity” that would help facilitate the removal of the dams.

“What I have here,” said La- Malfa, addressing Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Mike Connor, at the hearing, “is a copy of an ‘agreement in principle’—you just signed this last month—in which the Department of Interior agrees to work with California, Oregon, and PacifiCorp to create this socalled ‘nonfederal entity.’” Deputy Secretary Connor at first told LaMalfa the department had no role in creating the entity. He later admitted that federal funds were being used toward the project.

Since Congress holds the purse strings, and that body has never approved federal spending to remove the dams, the structures have remained safe to date. But the creation of this “nonfederal entity” (or “shell corporation,” according to La- Malfa) would effectively take the federal government out of the equation—constituting an “end-run” around Congress and flying in the face of federal transparency laws, LaMalfa said.

According to Klamath County Commissioner Tom Mallams, who spoke with WLJ, congressional approval is still a must. He said dam removal and any “bistate compact” both require federal legislation.

“So they can’t do this,” Mallams said. “But they keep saying they’re going to try to manipulate the law to make it work.”

Secret meetings?

“We’re seeing an administration that claims to be the most transparent in history engaged in closed meetings, neck-deep in a shell corporation, and requiring stakeholders to sign nondisclosure agreements just to learn how they’ll be affected,” said LaMalfa at the March 1 hearing.

He was referring to closed-door meetings held by Department of the Interior, California, Oregon, and PacifiCorp, which is the owner of the dams. Only certain stakeholders had reportedly been invited to discuss the plans for the dam removals, and they had been required to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to participate.

“It is entirely inappropriate for public employees to participate in secret meetings and force those whose lives could be impacted to sign nondisclosure agreements,” LaMalfa added at the hearing. “For the record, I want you to know that I’ll be submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to your office for documents related to these meetings.”

LaMalfa asked Deputy Secretary Connor to answer whether the “non-federal entity” that the agency was attempting to form would be required to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and other open-government laws. Connor did not give a clear answer, saying it all depended on the future entity’s structure.

“This seems like a front company in a process designed to avoid public scrutiny and avoid open government laws,” said LaMalfa.

“The administration is moving forward with its goal of dam removal while ignoring the water supply issues that impact thousands of residents.”

In email correspondence with WLJ, LaMalfa said the agencies have, after pressure by him and his staff, agreed to hold open public meetings. One will be held March 16 in Sacramento.

“We will insist they hold a meeting up in Yreka [Siskiyou County], where people are actually going to be impacted—not six hours away in ‘Fort EPA’ with $20 parking,” LaMalfa told WLJ.

Past attempts

Dam removal and water rights have been at the hub of controversy on the Klamath River for decades. Over the past few years, several local Native American tribes and environmental groups have teamed up to push for dam removal. The tribes’ position was strengthened in 2013 when an Oregon judge determined they had senior water rights “from time immemorial.”

Though the water rights fight is not over, appeals of other water rights holders could take years to be processed. In the meantime, the tribes are legally able to exercise their alleged senior water rights.

According to Mallams, the 2013 ruling gave the tribes leverage to force farmers, ranchers, and other local water users to sign onto a dam-removal agreement. Now that the tribes could issue a “call” on their water rights any time, farmers and ranchers in particular were desperate to find a way to protect their water use, something crucial to their businesses. Many area farmers and ranchers signed onto the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and two other agreements in exchange for the promise of continued use of the water.

The agreements called for the four Klamath dams to be removed downstream from the Klamath Basin; for hundreds of miles of riparian areas to be fenced throughout the entire watershed; for farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin to give up 30,000 acrefeet of water rights (being used to irrigate 18,000 acres); and for farmers and ranchers to drop their legal challenge of the tribes’ water rights.

“Some people were so desperate to keep their water, they signed onto agreements they would have never otherwise supported,” Mallams told WLJ. “I could hardly blame them. The problem is, the ‘promises’ contained in the agreements were weak. Nowhere in the agreements was there a real guarantee that those producers could keep using the water.”

In the meantime, Mallams said, anyone who signed on to the KBRA and other agreements had a “gag order” not to speak ill—or at all—about them. The agreements needed congressional approval, Mallams explained, and that meant Congress needed to believe there was local support. Signors were threatened with losing their water usage if they spoke out against the agreements, he said.

The opposition prevails

On Jan. 1, 2016, the KBRA and accompanying agreements expired. This marked the end of several years’ efforts to get congressional approval of the agreements.

“The people of Klamath and Siskiyou counties have said, ‘No, no, no,’” said Commissioner Mallams. “And Congress has listened to them.”

While proponents of the dam removals claim that it’s necessary to “restore ecological balance” to the Klamath River and to boost salmon runs, opponents have made opposite predictions. For example, Siskiyou County Supervisor Michael Kobseff listed a host of problems with dam removal when he testified before Congress in 2013.

Agriculture and ranchers will “suffer significant losses” in his county, Kobseff said. He added that the dams provide hydropower to some 70,000 residents, and that no replacement source of power has been identified if the dams are removed. The dams also serve to control catastrophic floods, have “transformed former marginal habitat into world class fisheries,” provide water for fish in times of drought, improve water quality generally by providing a settlement basin for naturally occurring toxins, and cool the warm water coming in from the upper high desert basin in Oregon.

The Iron Gate dam makes possible a fish hatchery that produces over six million salmon smolts annually, Kobseff said. Dam removal, he noted, would likely release nearly 20 million cubic yards of sediment loaded with toxic minerals. “This release may result in massive destruction of the ecosystem,” he testified.

As the creators of the original Klamath Basin agreements appear to be searching for another way to make the dam removals happen, LaMalfa says he will remain on point.

“I’ll continue working to get answers,” said LaMalfa in a House floor statement on March 2. “…But in the meantime, the administration needs to end its focus on dam removal and work towards a solution that doesn’t ignore the water supply issues that affect so much of the West…” He posed the rhetorical question: “Why is the priority something that’s going to hurt the people of the region, hurt their goals?” At a time of extreme drought, he said, “we should be pursuing water storage in California and putting this issue aside.”

— Theodora Dowling, WLJ Correspondent 

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


No Comments

PLF sues California regulators for not monitoring protected species

Endangered Species Act, Lawsuits, Pacific Legal Foundation

PNP comment: This is great news. In the initial aspect of the ESA, it was intended for populations of ESA-listed species to improve. The goal was to remove species from the ESA. Ha! Now, the government agencies act is such a way that proves they do not want species de-listed or removed from the ESA, so they can continue to bring tyrannical regulations on the heads of property owners and destroy businesses, communities and economies. — Editor Liz Bowen

Pacific Legal Foundation Press Release

SACRAMENTO, CA;  February 24, 2016:

Attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation have just sued the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), to force it to perform overdue status reviews for 233 species that are listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Damien M. Schiff
Principal Attorney

Tony Francois
Senior Staff Attorney

Wencong Fa
Staff Attorney

Donor-supported PLF is the leading legal watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations.

In this lawsuit, launched today in San Diego County Superior Court, PLF attorneys represent the California Cattlemen’s Association.

CESA requires that the status of every listed species be reviewed every five years.  (Cal. Fish and Game Code, Section 2077).  The DFW has listed 235 species for more than five years, but it has conducted the required five-year status reviews on only two of them — the Swainson’s hawk and the California least tern.  The rest have not been monitored under the five-year review process mandated by law.  PLF’s lawsuit — a petition for writ of mandamus — asks the courts to declare that the DFW is in violation of law for failing to monitor these 233 species in a timely manner, and to order the agency to move forward with status reviews on all of them, as required by California Fish and Game Code Section 2077.

“This lawsuit seeks to ensure that species protection in California is pursued with integrity, effectiveness, and accountability to science and the rule of law,” said PLF attorney Wencong Fa.  “The state’s failure to monitor protected species is an abdication of both legal and environmental responsibilities, and a violation of public trust.  It is unfortunate that the Department of Fish and Wildlife has to be sued to do its duty and conduct five-year reviews, because keeping current on the condition of protected species is fundamental for credible regulations.”

Conducting timely status reviews isn’t just common sense – it’s the law

“The law requires five-year status reviews for an obvious, commonsense reason — so regulators can base decisions on up-to-date scientific information,” Fa continued.  “Timely reviews allow officials to determine whether there is a need for a change in a species’ listing and in the level of regulatory protection.  Indeed, keeping current on the status of listed species is the only way to monitor the effectiveness of regulatory protections.

“Periodic status reviews also safeguard property owners from unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed for species that no longer need protection,” Fa continued.  “And five-year reviews protect taxpayers — and the cause of efficient environmental policy — by making sure resources are focused on species that need them, and not diverted to species that are out of danger.”

Feds update the status of species — while the state stalls

The list of plants listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the CESA is available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline.

The list of animals listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the CESA is available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline.

“Tellingly, seven of the species listed under California’s ESA law have already been reclassified or recommended for reclassification by federal officials under the Federal ESA,” Fa noted.  “Because California officials have not conducted status reviews on any of those species within the last five years, they have no idea whether reclassification is also appropriate under state law.”

Those seven species are the Beach Layia (found in Humbolt County, Marin County, Monterey County, and Santa Barbara County); Santa Cruz Cypress (San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County); Modoc Sucker (Lassen County); Least Bell’s vireo (found in 20 counties in both Northern and Southern California); and the San Clemente Island Indian Paintbrush; San Clemente Island larkspur; and San Clemente Island bush-mallow.

(Note:  This federal updating of species listings came about as a result of earlier PLF legal action that prodded federal officials to conduct their own overdue five-year status reviews of federally protected species, as required by the U.S. Endangered Species Act.)

Plaintiff:  The California Cattlemen’s Association

In the lawsuit against DFW, PLF attorneys represent the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit trade organization founded in 1917 to represent beef cattle producers in legislative and regulatory affairs.  The association currently has over 3,000 individual members and 38 affiliated county or multi-county cattlemen’s associations located throughout California.  CCA has members in every county in California, and its members raise cattle in every county except for San Francisco.  The beef cattle industry contributes over 26,000 jobs and more than $1.5 billion annually to California’s agricultural economy.

Beef cattle producers own or manage approximately 38 million acres within California.  A substantial number of CCA members own or manage properties inhabited by species listed as either “threatened” or “endangered” under the CESA.  Because species listings can impose economically harmful regulatory restrictions on grazing and other responsible property use, CCA members have a vital interest — along with all taxpayers and everyone who values sound, informed environmental policy — in ensuring that the status of listed species is reviewed as required by CESA, so that listings and regulations reflect accurate, up-to-date science.

The case is California Cattlemen’s Association v. Department of Fish and Wildlife.  More information, including the petition of writ of mandamus is available at www.pacificlegal.org.

About Pacific Legal Foundation
Donor-supported Pacific Legal Foundation is the leading legal watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, free enterprise, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations.  PLF represents all clients without charge.



No Comments

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Endangered Species Act

PNP comment: This is what is behind the tyranny of the BLM and federal agencies over Western lands and the need to get rid of ranchers that own land like the Hammonds and Bundys. — Editor Liz Bowen

No Comments

Klamath National Forest Issues Decision for Westside Fire Recovery Project

Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, FIRES, Forestry & USFS

PNP comment:  It was actually the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that held up this decision by 16 months. It had a deadline to do its environmental studies and they arrogantly surpassed it by well over a year!  Delay is the tactic federal agencies are using to thwart and stop resource use. — Editor Liz Bowen

March 1, 2016


On Monday, February 29, Forest Supervisor Patricia Grantham signed a decision for the Westside Fire Recovery Project on the Klamath National Forest. The Westside Fire Recovery Project proposed a variety of landscape treatments in response to the impacts to over 187,000 acres of National Forest land that burned during the large wildfires of 2014. The Westside project includes the areas that burned within the Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex, and the Whites Fire. Communities directly affected by these fires included Happy Camp, Seiad Valley, Horse Creek, Hamburg, Klamath River, Scott Bar, Sawyers Bar, Quartz Valley, Etna, and Fort Jones, as well as numerous outlying residential enclaves.

The February 29 decision includes 5,570 acres of salvage harvest, 12,700 acres of tree planting, 320 miles of roadside hazard treatment, and 24,450 acres of hazardous fuels reduction, including 11,180 acres of prescribed burn. Planned salvage harvest, roadside hazard treatment and hazardous fuels reduction have been strategically located on the landscape and are designed to work in tandem in order to provide increased community protection and to reduce the damaging effects of future high intensity wildfire.

“My decision on the Westside Project is the culmination of an incredible amount of work and thought brought forward by the public, interest groups, tribes, other agencies, elected officials, collaborative groups, and Westside project team professionals,” commented Grantham. “With this decision, we have the ability to reduce fire-created threats to the public, Forest workers, neighboring landowners and important infrastructure. We have the ability to keep important access open and build fire breaks and reduce dead fuels in strategic areas to reduce threats from future wildfire. We have the ability to replant severely burned areas to recover the Forest as quickly as possible. I am proud of the work that went into this decision and look forward to implementing it as soon as possible.”

The Westside decision follows the July 2015 release of the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project. During preparation of the FEIS, more than 13,000 comments were received on the project. Recent regulatory approvals allowed for the current decision to move forward.

The Record of Decision, and other project documents, can be viewed on the internet at http://fs.usda.gov/goto/klamath/westside. It is also available at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Yreka, the Yreka public library, and at the Forest Service Ranger District offices in Happy Camp and Fort Jones.

No Comments

Feds allocate water for endangered fish, leave Calif. farmers high and dry

CA. Congressman Tom McClintock, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Politicians & agencies, Water, Resources & Quality

– The Washington Times
Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Despite wetter-than-average weather in California, some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water allocation even as the billions of gallons of water continue to be dumped into the ocean in order to save a three-inch fish.

The worst part for many lawmakers at Wednesday’s House subcommittee hearing is that the Delta smelt remains as vulnerable as ever after the loss of 1.4 trillion gallons of water since 2008 under the federal Endangered Species Act.



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

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

CA Senator Ted Gaines’ statement about the Canadian gray wolf on 1-21-16

Dept. Fish & Game, Endangered Species Act, State gov, Wolves

Statement of Senator Ted Gaines Regarding the Draft Gray Wolf Conservation Plan

January 21, 2016

Yreka, California — meeting held by staff from the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.

Read by district staff person Dave Meurer to Senator Gaines

It was a surreal moment on June 4, 2014, when the California Fish and Game Commission said the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was staffed by clueless people who did not know what they were talking about. The Commission used more diplomatic language, but that was the import of the message. My office was represented at the meeting, and thus had a front row seat. For those who were not in Fortuna on the day of that fateful meeting, here is how it went down.
Not merely the staff, but the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) meticulously outlined why the gray wolf is NOT at risk of extinction due to ANY of the six factors that were under consideration by the Commission. Let me reiterate – the very biologists and specialists the taxpayers employ to advise the Fish and Game Commission said that the gray wolf did not meet a SINGLE factor that could trigger an “endangered” listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). None. Zero. Zip.
Indeed, on February 12, 2013 the United States Fish & Wildlife Service issued a press release with this headline: “Successful Recovery Efforts Prompt Service Proposal to Delist Gray Wolf and Focus ESA Protection on Mexican Wolf.” It is beyond bizarre that even as the federal government was proposing to remove the gray wolf from the federal roster of threatened and endangered species, California concluded that the wolf was in mortal peril.
The fact is that the gray wolf population, as a whole, is thriving. The federal government recognizes the fact that even though the wolf is not widely dispersed in California, this does not mean it is in peril as a species. California should not be fashioning public policy around a few wolves that wander between Oregon and the north state. But the Commission chose to ignore the totality of the US wolf population, which is doing astonishingly well. Using that same logic, the Commission could declare the giraffe endangered, as we never see them frolicking near Etna.
Tragically, the listing decision pretty much blew up the efforts of the ranching and farming communities who had been working constructively with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to craft a management plan. The outrageous decision by the Fish and Game Commission effectively took away almost every tool in the tool box. Under the current decision, ranchers are not even supposed to hop on an ATV and chase the wolf off lest they be guilty of “harassing” the timid carnivore. Local ranchers will be effectively unable to defend their livestock against a predator which is unknown in other parts of the state, leaving them at a significant disadvantage.
In the absence of a CESA listing, the California Wolf Plan would have allowed the Department to protect the wolf while also protecting ranchers from these disproportionate losses. I am thankful that friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation are looking into this flawed decision. I just wish the Fish and Game Commission had not foisted this travesty upon us. And I wish to thank the Department of Fish and Wildlife for at least trying to do the right thing. My hope is that your expert analysis can be the basis for overturning what a dissenting Fish and Game Commissioner deemed “the stupidest decision” the Commission has ever rendered.

Thank you.

No Comments
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »