PNP comment: Extremely well-said! — Editor Liz Bowen

The Essence of This Year’s Election: KBRA – Klamath News & Commentary

http://klamathnews.net/2012/5/11/the-essence-of-this-years-election-kbra?site_locale=en

As I’ve listened to various candidates, heard their radio ads, received their direct mail pieces and read their opt-ed pieces there is one item that defines them all — whether they believe the KBRA is a good or bad idea.

If a candidate is in favor of the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet that candidate is also for increasing the size and scope of government to solve problems. In order to meet this objective they will need to raise more revenue and that will come at the expense of the tax payer.

If a candidate is against the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet they are for limited government. They probably are more fiscally conservative want to spend tax dollars on fewer programs but do them well.

The reason I come to this conclusion is that the KBRA is a private agreement among several groups — which is fine in and of itself. The claim is that the KBRA is people coming together to solve a problem. Again this is fine. The problem is KBRA’s solution: dam removal and purchase of a tree farm to give to the Klamath Tribes. Both are funded not with their own money, but with tax payer money. This is a classic redistribution of wealth technique and a basic Marxist principle. This is not a principle found anywhere in our founding documents or an idea our founding fathers would approve. Yet, this is exactly what elitists do. They think they know best and then make everyone else pay for their magnanimous ideas. If it wasn’t government doing this, we would call it stealing.

So in Klamath County we are at a tipping point. Do we want commissioners, a sheriff, a state representative and a senator who are in favor of taxing everyone for the benefit of a few or are in favor of government doing the few things it is chartered to do (and to do them well) and limit the scope of government.

The choice is yours.

PNP comment: Too bad that no one wants to be “a first!”  The “romance” must give way to “reality”. — Editor Liz Bowen

Supervisors decline to vote on ordinance to outlaw gray wolves in county – Yreka, CA – Siskiyou Daily News

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1310212840/Supervisors-decline-to-vote-on-ordinance-to-outlaw-gray-wolves-in-county

By John Bowman

Siskiyou Daily News

May 11, 2012

Yreka, Calif. — “These are not nice animals,” Leo Bergeron told the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors at its meeting on Tuesday when he presented an ordinance to outlaw gray wolves within the county.

For now, any gray wolves that find themselves in Siskiyou County will be safe from county sanctioned destruction as the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday declined to pass the proposed ordinance outlawing wolves’ presence and authorizing county officials to kill them.

The ordinance was drafted and submitted by Bergeron and the Siskiyou Pomona Grange Association. Bergeron said he was proposing the ordinance because it is the grange’s responsibility to protect agriculture, though he acknowledged that only 10-15 percent of grange members actively vote on such issues.

Bergeron was accompanied by his wife Kathy and fellow grange member Anthony Intiso. Their presentation to the board included statistics about the effect of wolves on elk populations in other areas of the American west, photos of dogs, deer and elk allegedly killed by wolves, and one photo of a child waiting for the school bus in a cage-like enclosure in New Mexico.

Kathy Bergeron also read a statement to the board written by property and mining rights advocate James Foley of Klamath River.

Foley’s statement called the idea of gray wolves being endangered anywhere “bogus” and “a myth propagated by animal rights organizations and empowered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both of which are under the influence of anti-American agendas.”

Foley’s statement also compared introducing wolves in Siskiyou County to the idea of introducing tigers to the area.

“You might say that tigers are not suited for this geographical area … but wolves are not suited either and the proof of this is the fact that they no longer exist here,” Foley’s statement declared.

After the presentation by the grange representatives, Scott Valley resident Anne Marsh offered her opposition to the ordinance. She told the board that packs of dogs sometime kill livestock, too.

“Are we next going to get rid of every dog in Siskiyou County?” Marsh asked.

County resident Mike Adams also offered comments on the subject. He said the landscape has changed in Siskiyou County since wolves once inhabited the area.

“They were originally eliminated out of Siskiyou County for a reason and that reason hasn’t changed,” Adams said.

District 5 Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said she is also very concerned about the dangers to people, pets and livestock that she believes wolves present.

“I don’t want to go work out in my garden and wonder if there is a pair of eyes on me. People shouldn’t have to live like that,” Armstrong said.
Later in the meeting she said she believes gray wolves are much larger and more dangerous than the wolves that once existed in the state.

However, District 2 Supervisor Ed Valenzuela pointed out that 62 percent of the land in Siskiyou County is federal forest land, including several wilderness areas.

“I just don’t think this is a practical way to deal with the situation. It’s just part of the nature of living in a rural area,” Valenzuela said, pointing out that he’s heard of packs of dogs killing livestock, too.

Siskiyou County Natural Resource Policy Specialist Ric Costales said that in his opinion, none of the wildlife agencies in any of the states with wolf populations is able to adequately manage them.

Costales also said that, “politically, the people of California are unwilling to manage the top end of the food chain.”

County Counsel Tom Guarino advised the board that “there are statutes on the books, there are regulations in these areas and I think the ESA is problematic” in regard to conflicts with the ordinance.

He said it would require enormous resources to fight against those laws.

After the discussion, the board declined to vote on the proposed ordinance but passed a motion to direct county staff to further investigate the issue and find ways to address the issue in a “proactive” way.

“I feel that you are grossly in error,” Bergeron told the board. “You have no power with any of these agencies on what you’re doing. You’re just a pawn. You’re just a ploy and they’re just gonna push us around and push us around like they have been doing for the last 15 years, that I am privy to.”

CLASSIC PAC is spending $10′s of thousands for negative attack ads against Gail and Senator Doug Whitsett and Tom Mallams, conservative Christian candidates who all oppose destruction of Klamath River hydroelectric dams.

PAC paid $22,430 to PR firm Pyramid Communications to defeat KBRA opponents and candidates Whitsetts and Mallams.  HERE FOR RESPONSE AD and contributors to Classic PAC.

Directors of PAC  are: Becky Hyde, Steve Kandra, John Snider, former field rep for Oregon U.S. Congressman Greg Walden, and Lynn Lundquest.

Pyramid Communications has worked for “environmental” causes supporting more “wilderness areas,” endangered species “habitat,” “climate change” regulations …

Some of their clients are Earthjustice (funded partially by George Soros) which is a litigant for most of the “environmental” groups signed as “stakeholders” in the KBRA, Sustainable NW, The Nature Conservancy, Save our Wild Salmon (PCFFA Glen Spain, Eugene Attorney and KBRA voting member, is board member of this group focused on removing Snake and Columbia River dams), Greenpeace, Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, etc…

From:

www.klamathbasincrisis.org