Where  did we go wrong? 

By Mark Baird

That is a difficult question and does not have a
simple answer.  First we must look inside ourselves.  WE are THE PEOPLE
mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.  When
the government fails to serve us, We the People need to remind our
government of their responsibility to SERVE the PEOPLE.
We did not lose our civil liberty and rights in one fell swoop.  They
went with a whisper because we are so busy growing crops and raising
children  that we forgot to pay attention to the larger world around us.
The Department of Fish and Game is attempting to usurp your property
rights by engaging in the practice of writing legislation instead of up
holding existing law as is their mandate.  Their budget has been cut to
try to reduce the red ink in which California currently swims.  Remember
folks that the Fish and Game budget is one that does not come from the
state general fund.   They make their money from Fees.  It makes sense
that perhaps, some one in CDFG, got the bright idea that if they could do
a little creative re-interpretation of some pretty old water law, the
money and power would be flowing again as if there were no tomorrow.
    The CDFG has chosen to use scare tactics and threats as its weapon of
choice.  Some people are afraid.    Afraid of the CDFG.   Afraid of
what will happen if we say no to the government.  Afraid if we try to
change the system.  We cannot be angry at this,  fear is a natural
emotion and one that any logical human being shares.  What we can do
is to teach ourselves to move ahead, in a worthy cause, in spite of
our fear.
  There is some good news here.  The CDFG is afraid of YOU.  The water
workshop scheduled for the 27th in Etna, was canceled, by The CDFG, at
the last minute because Mr. Stouffer found out that a large number of
people were prepared to ask him and his cronies some tough questions.
When exposed to the light of day, Mr. Stouffer and his Department
withered.
I have never been so proud of my neighbors as I was last night.  About 100
people showed up for the CDFG workshop. The unexpectedly canceled workshop
was turned to a positive.  We 100 were able to gather in protest to
discuss our options as citizens of a free country and how best to remind
the CDFG that government exists to serve the people.
Our history is filled with examples of courage against tremendous odds.
Our Founding Fathers literally, risked , life, property,  and family for
belief in themselves and their precious cause.  Our Founding fathers
changed the world with this grand experiment called Liberty.  The powers
of Europe waited, fully expecting the folly known as Democracy to fail,
hoping it would fail..
We the People have come a long way since those bloody days of Revolution.
But if I read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution
correctly, the Revolution should never be over, because,  “The Price of
Liberty is Eternal Vigilance”
SAY NO TO CDFG!

In the coming fight, and make no mistake friends, this is a fight for our
very existence in this beautiful place, please, please, remember this
above all.

ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS THAT GOOD MEN  DO NOTHING

Where do you stand?

What Makes a Good Politician?

Guest Opinion by Craig Chenoweth 

Usually people consider politicians good, when they are honest, not corrupt, make improvements for citizen’s quality of life, and help generate money for the community.

Definition “Politicians”: 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

Principles and Politics :“Government … thought [it] could transform the country through massive national programs, but often the programs did not work. Too often they only made things worse. In our rush to accomplish great deeds quickly, we trampled on sound principles of restraint and endangered the rights of individuals.”…“The Declaration [of Independence] was not a protest against government, but against the excess of government. It prescribed the proper role of government, to secure the rights of individuals.”                 – Gerald R. Ford     

 At what point did our elected officials forget the principles that where so important when they first ran for office?  What happened to these principles; the sincere service?  In many ways it is they who are  problem. The bureaucracy they are creating, like the California Department of Fish and Game, feels more like socialism then liberty; more like the tyranny than a constitutional republic!

Governments: “injustice, cruelty, restraint of conscience, oppression, falsity, dishonor, deceit, violation of law and equity?—But look how they have cleaned up the cities and what wonderful roads they have built!” – Johan Huizinga      ……..But look how they have cleaned up the water and saved the fish?

 Perhaps it’s too late, and we all must give in to the bureaucracy?  I think not!   As the government tries to diminish our Rights into privileges, which they can then Revoke, we must reform these government agencies. Expose the waste and wrong doings before we can participate with them. 

Do you like the Politicians that are on the ballot? Have they done a good job? Have they been Honest? Are they serving your best interest? Do you trust these Politicians?

If you like what they have done vote for them.

If Don’t like them, Don’t vote for them!!

 Let the politicians know how you feel by how few votes they get. Simply don’t check the box. Or write in Thomas Jefferson.

No Trust without Reform!

 Principles before Politics, if not, then we will Protest!

We say “NO” to those regulations that are attempting to destroy our Constitutional Rights.

We will not submit, nor sign our rights away; but rather, we will stand on those

Constitutional Rights with all the resources at our command.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” – Thomas Paine

Some farmers, ranchers and landowners believe they will lose their legal Water Right, or the amount of volume of that Water Right will be reduced, through two separate permitting programs designed, updated and written by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or an umbrella permit written by the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District.

The State Fish and Game has used fear of prosecution, steep fines and possible jail-time to coerce these farmers, ranchers and landowners in Siskiyou County to sign these permits.   Many are deciding to say “no” as this is changing an adjudicated legal Water Right.

A Water Right is part of property and, as such, is a property right.

On May 27, 2010, the California Department of Fish and Game planned to hold a Scott River Watershed-wide Permitting Program Workshop at 7 p.m. at the Etna City Council Chambers located at 442 Main Street.  Fish and Game officials and directors and staff of the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District have actively pushed folks to sign up through several workshops that have been held.

But when government Fish and Game officials heard that a protest by farmers and ranchers was brewing, the meeting was canceled at approximately 2 p.m. on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

No matter, as about 100 concerned citizens showed up anyway and held a meeting. New information was shared.

It was also learned that the Dept. of Fish and Game has extended the deadline for these farmers, ranchers and landowners to sign-on to these permits from May 31, 2010 to June 4, 2010.

The following information was announced by the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District (RCD) regarding the reason for the workshops:

“The purpose of this workshop is to provide information to agricultural irrigation water rights holders about participation in the Watershed-wide Program (Program) available through the Siskiyou RCD, as well as, the requirements for individually obtaining 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreements and Incidental Take Permits (ITP).

“As the end of the enrollment period, as determined by the by the Department, for participating in the Program through the Siskiyou RCD is fast approaching on May 31, 2010 a short-form Notice of Interest Form can be filled out and submitted at this meeting with the $100 application fee.”



Some landowners said they will not participate.

Some have already signed.

Some are still contemplating.

All have a life-changing decision to make — by June 4, 2010.

Benjamin Franklin, upon signing the Declaration of Independence, said: “Gentlemen, we must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

 Where do you stand?

FARM BUREAU SUES FISHERY AGENCY OVER WATER RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

Lawsuit charges Department of Fish and Game with overstepping its authority

In a case aimed at determining the scope of a long-standing state environmental law, the California Farm Bureau Federation filed a lawsuit today that charges the state Department of Fish and Game with exceeding its authority by threatening to restrict farmers’ rights to irrigate their crops.

On three occasions this spring, the Department of Fish and Game sent letters to farmers and ranchers along the Scott and Shasta rivers in Northern California, warning them of possible civil and criminal penalties if they do not notify the department of their water use and potentially obtain a permit from the agency. That permit, known as a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, has never before been required for farmers who use water from the rivers to irrigate crops without actually altering the riverbed itself.

In its lawsuit, Farm Bureau alleges that the Department of Fish and Game recently reinterpreted a law enacted in 1961, in an attempt to create a “fundamental change” that would give it broad new authority to oversee water rights—a function already performed by a separate state agency, the State Water Resources Control Board. The Department of Fish and Game began following the new interpretation, Farm Bureau says, as it pursued a recovery strategy for coho salmon in the two rivers, which are protected under the state Endangered Species Act.

“Farmers and ranchers understand that Fish and Game has a legitimate role to play in protecting fish, and the department already has many other ways to do that,” said Chris Scheuring, managing counsel of the California Farm Bureau Natural Resources and Environmental Division. “Farmers along the Scott and Shasta rivers have taken a number of steps to benefit the salmon. But we do not believe Fish and Game has blanket authority to regulate every farmer’s water rights, and that’s what it’s trying to do.”

Scheuring said the streambed-alteration rules, originally drafted in response to gravel mining, were never intended to apply to farmers who merely lift a headgate near a stream to obtain water for crops. Reinterpreting the original rules nearly 50 years after they were enacted, he said, leads to a duplication of government functions never intended by the Legislature.

Through its lawsuit, Farm Bureau seeks to clarify the law and to relieve farmers of the additional time, expense and threat of punishment imposed by the extra layer of regulation. Scheuring called the lawsuit a test case that “will have widespread repercussions” for water rights and environmental enforcement statewide.

The California Farm Bureau Federation works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of 81,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of more than 6.2 million Farm Bureau members.

U.S. must protect West’s farmlands http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_15168281 By Patrick O’Toole Posted: 05/27/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT The Obama administration recently launched a campaign focusing on a rural renaissance. This initiative is important to Westerners, both rural and urban. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack pledged that the government will try new approaches to rejuvenate rural American communities. However, many federal policies concerning natural resources are undermining the economic foundations of rural communities in the arid West by making farming and ranching increasingly difficult. My family operates a cattle and sheep ranch along the Wyoming- Colorado border. We pay particular attention to Vilsack’s pledge to explore new approaches to keep young people in rural communities. Rural incomes are falling farther and farther behind those of urban and suburban Americans. Expanding residential developments are eroding our agricultural base and the open spaces so valued by everyone. According to the American Farmland Trust, America loses 2 acres of farmland every minute. From 1992 to 1997, more than 6 million acres of agricultural land — an area the size of Maryland — were converted to development. Another growing concern for farmers and ranchers is the increased difficulty in accessing agricultural credit. There simply are not enough available resources to finance our business activities — a problem we share with other small and family-owned businesses. The demographic trends should serve as a wake-up call to the nation. A recent United Nations study cited by Vilsack finds that global food production must increase by 70 percent in the next four decades to meet escalating demand. American family farmers and ranchers for generations have grown food and fiber for the world. We will have to muster even more innovation to meet this critical challenge. That innovation must be encouraged rather than stifled by new regulations and the uncertainty they bring. Unfortunately, many federal water resources policies and regulatory practices are undermining the economic foundations of rural Western communities by making farming and ranching increasingly difficult. Some new policies under consideration by the administration would only make the situation worse. Many Western farmers and ranchers are convinced the federal government no longer values them or their livelihoods. In the rural West, water is critically important to farmers and ranchers and their communities. In recent decades, we have seen once-reliable water supplies for farmers steadily being diverted to meet new needs. Rural communities are threatened by increased demand caused by population growth, diminishing snowpack, increasing water consumption for domestic energy, and emerging environmental demands. We hope the Obama administration adopts an overriding national goal of self-sufficiency in food production. Food security is homeland security. Policy decisions should be consistent with that goal. We must find ways to keep farmers and ranchers doing what they do best, and to encourage young farmers to follow in their footsteps. At a minimum, administration policies on various water-related issues (the Clean Water Act, aging water infrastructure, climate change, regulatory reform, meeting water demands of a growing population, land-use, etc.), should look to the goals of preserving our domestic agricultural production capacity and the vitality of rural Western communities. Europeans aggressively protect their farms and food-production capability because they still remember the hungry years of World War II, when they relied on other nations — especially America — for food. It is past time for the U.S. to adopt an overriding national goal of self-sufficiency in food production. It’s hard to imagine a more important step to safeguard the American public. Patrick O’Toole is president of the Family Farm Alliance, representing irrigators in the Western States. He and his family raise cattle and sheep near Savery, Wyo.   http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_15158743 Contra Costa Times editorial: Decision paves way for fairer water permits in California MediaNews editorial Posted: 05/26/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT  TWO YEARS AGO, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger invalidated permits on California dams and pumps, ruling that they were too lenient and posed a threat to endangered salmon and the Delta environment. We believe that he was correct in his assessment of those permits, which allowed too much water to be drained from a sensitive estuary. However, the conditions that Wanger imposed on pumping went too far in the other direction. That’s a conclusion Wanger himself reached last week. Again, we agree. He said that the federal government did not adequately analyze the “draconian” impact that the new restrictions would have on the state’s water supply and those who depended on it. Wanger added that regulators did not provide scientific justification for such stringent limits on Delta pumping. Specifically, Wanger ruled that “the exact restrictions imposed, which are inflicting material harm to the human environment, are not supported by the record.” That was also the conclusion of urban and agricultural beneficiaries of the state and federal water projects in the San Joaquin Valley who sued to overturn the more stringent permits. The federal government and environmental groups continued to argue in favor of the tighter pumping restrictions. However, the state of California sided with the water users, a position Wanger called “highly significant.” Last week’s ruling involves only the permit designed to protect salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. However, the issues in a second case concerning Delta smelt are similar. Just what the revised regulations will be on pumping water from the Delta to users has not been determined, though the judge was considering interim changes to the salmon permit late Tuesday. He is likely to insist on a more balanced assessment of the impacts on humans as well as the environment. The door is now open for greater flexibility in meeting agricultural, urban and environmental needs without inflicting undue harm to any of those areas. Until the 2009-10 rainy season, California had been suffering a water shortage that would have placed a burden on water users even without the strict pumping permits. The combination of three dry years and a massive cutback in water deliveries has cost Central Valley farmers considerable economic hardship and the loss of thousands of jobs at a time of high unemployment in the region. We trust that when new permits are written, they will be based on better science and a greater sensitivity toward their impact on water users and will not be an overreaction to a degraded Delta environment. A more balanced permit that is satisfactory to all parties should be easier to achieve now that rainfall and the Sierra snowpack are above average. But we should not let this small reprieve divert us from serious action. Instead, we should use it to properly plan and begin implementing solutions that can satisfy our state’s essential water needs. Of course, increased water storage in reservoirs and aquifers could alleviate water shortages in all but severe droughts and provide sufficient water for the environment and users.

U.S. must protect West’s farmlands http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_15168281 By Patrick O’Toole Posted: 05/27/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT The Obama administration recently launched a campaign focusing on a rural renaissance. This initiative is important to Westerners, both rural and urban. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack pledged that the government will try new approaches to rejuvenate rural American communities. However, many federal policies concerning natural resources are undermining the economic foundations of rural communities in the arid West by making farming and ranching increasingly difficult. My family operates a cattle and sheep ranch along the Wyoming- Colorado border. We pay particular attention to Vilsack’s pledge to explore new approaches to keep young people in rural communities. Rural incomes are falling farther and farther behind those of urban and suburban Americans. Expanding residential developments are eroding our agricultural base and the open spaces so valued by everyone. According to the American Farmland Trust, America loses 2 acres of farmland every minute. From 1992 to 1997, more than 6 million acres of agricultural land — an area the size of Maryland — were converted to development. Another growing concern for farmers and ranchers is the increased difficulty in accessing agricultural credit. There simply are not enough available resources to finance our business activities — a problem we share with other small and family-owned businesses. The demographic trends should serve as a wake-up call to the nation. A recent United Nations study cited by Vilsack finds that global food production must increase by 70 percent in the next four decades to meet escalating demand. American family farmers and ranchers for generations have grown food and fiber for the world. We will have to muster even more innovation to meet this critical challenge. That innovation must be encouraged rather than stifled by new regulations and the uncertainty they bring. Unfortunately, many federal water resources policies and regulatory practices are undermining the economic foundations of rural Western communities by making farming and ranching increasingly difficult. Some new policies under consideration by the administration would only make the situation worse. Many Western farmers and ranchers are convinced the federal government no longer values them or their livelihoods. In the rural West, water is critically important to farmers and ranchers and their communities. In recent decades, we have seen once-reliable water supplies for farmers steadily being diverted to meet new needs. Rural communities are threatened by increased demand caused by population growth, diminishing snowpack, increasing water consumption for domestic energy, and emerging environmental demands. We hope the Obama administration adopts an overriding national goal of self-sufficiency in food production. Food security is homeland security. Policy decisions should be consistent with that goal. We must find ways to keep farmers and ranchers doing what they do best, and to encourage young farmers to follow in their footsteps. At a minimum, administration policies on various water-related issues (the Clean Water Act, aging water infrastructure, climate change, regulatory reform, meeting water demands of a growing population, land-use, etc.), should look to the goals of preserving our domestic agricultural production capacity and the vitality of rural Western communities. Europeans aggressively protect their farms and food-production capability because they still remember the hungry years of World War II, when they relied on other nations — especially America — for food. It is past time for the U.S. to adopt an overriding national goal of self-sufficiency in food production. It’s hard to imagine a more important step to safeguard the American public. Patrick O’Toole is president of the Family Farm Alliance, representing irrigators in the Western States. He and his family raise cattle and sheep near Savery, Wyo.   http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_15158743 Contra Costa Times editorial: Decision paves way for fairer water permits in California MediaNews editorial Posted: 05/26/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT  TWO YEARS AGO, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger invalidated permits on California dams and pumps, ruling that they were too lenient and posed a threat to endangered salmon and the Delta environment. We believe that he was correct in his assessment of those permits, which allowed too much water to be drained from a sensitive estuary. However, the conditions that Wanger imposed on pumping went too far in the other direction. That’s a conclusion Wanger himself reached last week. Again, we agree. He said that the federal government did not adequately analyze the “draconian” impact that the new restrictions would have on the state’s water supply and those who depended on it. Wanger added that regulators did not provide scientific justification for such stringent limits on Delta pumping. Specifically, Wanger ruled that “the exact restrictions imposed, which are inflicting material harm to the human environment, are not supported by the record.” That was also the conclusion of urban and agricultural beneficiaries of the state and federal water projects in the San Joaquin Valley who sued to overturn the more stringent permits. The federal government and environmental groups continued to argue in favor of the tighter pumping restrictions. However, the state of California sided with the water users, a position Wanger called “highly significant.” Last week’s ruling involves only the permit designed to protect salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. However, the issues in a second case concerning Delta smelt are similar. Just what the revised regulations will be on pumping water from the Delta to users has not been determined, though the judge was considering interim changes to the salmon permit late Tuesday. He is likely to insist on a more balanced assessment of the impacts on humans as well as the environment. The door is now open for greater flexibility in meeting agricultural, urban and environmental needs without inflicting undue harm to any of those areas. Until the 2009-10 rainy season, California had been suffering a water shortage that would have placed a burden on water users even without the strict pumping permits. The combination of three dry years and a massive cutback in water deliveries has cost Central Valley farmers considerable economic hardship and the loss of thousands of jobs at a time of high unemployment in the region. We trust that when new permits are written, they will be based on better science and a greater sensitivity toward their impact on water users and will not be an overreaction to a degraded Delta environment. A more balanced permit that is satisfactory to all parties should be easier to achieve now that rainfall and the Sierra snowpack are above average. But we should not let this small reprieve divert us from serious action. Instead, we should use it to properly plan and begin implementing solutions that can satisfy our state’s essential water needs. Of course, increased water storage in reservoirs and aquifers could alleviate water shortages in all but severe droughts and provide sufficient water for the environment and users.

We need fighters today, people that are not afraid to stand & tell the Government NO!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0&feature=aso

The Tea Party movement helped a significant political candidate earn electoral victory

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2010/05/20/how_would_you_like_your_tea_-_sweetened_or_unsweetened