PNP comment:  This not good news. Non-elected officials rarely make decisions “by the people and for the people.”  — Editor Liz Bowen

Commission approves land use ordinance

“The amendment adds a new Oregon Administrative Rule that allows local governments to adopt changes in Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules and stateside planning goals without hearings, if the only effect is to conform local comprehensive plans and land use regulations to new state requirements.”

May 25, 2012

By Bill Rautenstrauch, Business Editor, The Observer billr@lagrandeobserver.com or 541-963-3161
The La Grande Observer aka The Observer
P.O. Box 3170
La Grande, Oregon 97850
541-963-3161 or 800-422-3110
Fax: 541-963-7804
http://www.lagrandeobserver.com and http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/Information/About-Us/Contact-Us

To submit a Letter to the Editor: editor@lagrandeobserver.com

With little discussion Wednesday, the Union County Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance amending the local land use plan so that state-mandated land use laws can be adopted without public hearings.

The amendment adds a new Oregon Administrative Rule that allows local governments to adopt changes in Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules and stateside planning goals without hearings, if the only effect is to conform local comprehensive plans and land use regulations to new state requirements.

According to the ordinance, state statutes, rules and goals approved by the state must be implemented, so local public testimony can change nothing.

“Where it’s something we’re required to put in anyway, we feel it’s a smoother process,” Scott Hartell of the planning department told the board prior to the vote on the ordinance.

The move by the county board doesn’t necessarily mean citizens are cut out of the process, according to county staff reports.

When the state amends its administrative rules, statewide planning goals and statutes, it usually holds hearings and takes testimony from the public, though locations of hearings may not be local.

Before Wednesday’s vote on the county ordinance, Commissioner Steve McClure said that some mechanism should be devised to allow the county to weigh in on changes in state law. He said those changes should be an agenda item for the planning commission.

“I think we should try and weigh in, and the best way to do that is to start at the planning commission level,” McClure said.

The planning commission recommended approval of the ordinance following a public hearing March 26.

The county board reviewed the planning commission and held a hearing April 18.

Before Wednesday’s vote, Board Chairman Bill Rosholt noted that the county will save money on the costs of advertising and holding hearings on state mandated changes.

The land use ordinance topped a mostly routine agenda for the board’s regular meeting.

In some other business, the board met with Curt Mattson of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, who gave a report on local predator control for fiscal year 2011.

The board also met with Public Works Director Doug Wright concerning an amendment to a fund exchange agreement, and the need to declare some outdated public works equipment surplus.

During the public comments portion of the meeting, Ray Randall of Union told the board he would like to see county voters have a chance to weigh in on making county commissioner races non-partisan. He urged that the issue be placed on the November election ballot.

“We all know it could be done by initiative petition, but the simple way is to put it on the ballot,” Randall said.

In other public comment, Irene Gilbert asked the board to look into whether the owners of the Elkhorn Ridge wind farm near North Powder are living up to their mitigation commitments.

Gilbert also asked the board for notification of meetings concerning the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s Travel Management Plan, and meetings related to the proposed Antelope Ridge wind farm near Union.

Copyright 2012, The La Grande Observer.

http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Commission-approves-land-use-ordinance

Additional researched, related, recommended reading / information / definitions:

Curt Mattson aka Curtis Mattson aka Curtis L. Mattson, Wildlife Specialist, Union/Baker Counties, U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, Predator Control curtis.l.mattson@aphis.usda.gov

https://www.facebook.com/#!/curt.mattson.5 (Oregon)

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/index.html

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/

Sent by:

Julie Kay Smithson, researcher since 1999. Subscribe today & receive carefully researched property rights / natural resources research delivered to your inbox! propertyrights@earthlink.net Websites: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com http://wigglesblueheeler.blogspot.com & http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com Also: http://ourcommunitynewspaper.com

Long-Term Fishery Investments Starting To Pay Off | ThinkProgress

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/26/490834/long-term-fishery-investments-starting-to-pay-off/

By Climate Guest Blogger on May 26, 2012 at 9:38 am

by Michael Conathan

Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its annual “Status of Stocks” report to Congress outlining the overall health of our nation’s fisheries. To the relatively small cadre of fish geeks (myself included), the release of this document is a major event. It lacks the panache of the Oscar nominations, but for us it is perhaps comparable to the way the 1 percent gets all giddy for Berkshire Hathaway’s annual letter to shareholders.

NOAA’s report for 2011, similar to that of Warren Buffett’s financial powerhouse, continued its recent trend of positive returns. The topline numbers showed modest yet continued growth in the overall health of America’s fish populations. At the end of 2011, just 14 percent of fish stocks were subject to overfishing, and 21 percent were in an overfished state—down from 16 percent and 22 percent in 2010, respectively. (Recall this description of the difference between a stock that is “subject to overfishing” and one that is “overfished.”)

Yet the most impressive news to emerge from this year’s report was that six stocks have been declared fully rebuilt—more than in any other year—bringing the overall total of stocks rebuilt since 2000 to 27.

Despite these positive trends and all the feel-good stories the report has spawned (in more than 100 newspapers nationwide), correspondence in my personal inbox this week was dominated by references to a Washington Post Wonk Room blog post proclaiming boldly that it had found “The end of fish, in one chart.”

The chart in question comes from a wide-ranging World Wildlife Fund study on global biodiversity, and it displays the dramatic increase in global fishing pressure from 1950 to 2006. The blog piece goes on to reference an overpublicized doomsday scenario article published by lead author Dr. Boris Worm in 2006 in the journal Science. Worm’s study predicts the demise of global commercial fisheries by 2048. Ah, how the mass media truly loves a ticking clock.

The rest of that story, as I explained in an earlier column, is that Worm later collaborated with several other colleagues, including Dr. Ray Hilborn, on a follow-up article that Science ran in 2009 showing a far rosier outlook on the future of the world’s fisheries—specifically that “conservation objectives can be achieved by merging diverse management actions, including catch restrictions, gear modification, and closed areas.” Sound management practices mean fishery rebuilding is possible.

And that’s precisely what we’re now seeing in domestic fisheries with the slow but steady recovery of fish populations. Our regulations are working—at least for the fish. Yet as always, we must continue to seek the balance between regulations that work for the fish and for the fishermen.

Hilborn hit this point perfectly with an op-ed he co-authored for The New York Times earlier this week with his colleague and wife, Ulrike Hilborn. Their point, similar to one I made in this series four weeks ago, is that when we as consumers eschew overfished fisheries that are in the process of rebuilding under strictly enforced science-based catch limits, we unnecessarily penalize fishermen who are acting in the best interests of the ecosystem, coastal communities, and our national economy.

Americans should not feel guilty about eating domestically produced seafood, as long as we keep strict regulations in place that reflect the best available science and that continue working toward the rebuilding goal achieved in 2011 by six different fish stocks.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act—the law that regulates our nation’s fisheries—will be up for reauthorization again in 2013, and some commercial and recreational fishing groups have already begun their call to arms, insisting legislators roll back the stringent requirement that all catch limits be based on the best available science. While there is no question that our understanding of fish populations must improve, lawmakers should think long and hard about weakening safeguards against overfishing just as they are starting to pay positive dividends.

After all, slow, steady progress is a pretty good long-term growth strategy. Just ask Warren Buffett.

Michael Conathan is Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for American Progress.

Rebuilt fish stocks in 2011

Below are the six fish stocks that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “Status of Stocks” report declared fully rebuilt.

Bering Sea snow crab

One of the darlings of the Discovery Channel’s hit reality show, “The Deadliest Catch,” the Bering Sea snow crab (also known as opilio crab or “opies”) is perhaps the highest-profile stock to haul itself across the rebuilding finish line in 2011. In 2005 the fishery underwent a massive management overhaul—from a system that forced fishermen to fish as fast and hard as possible until the entire annual quota was met, to an individual fishing quota system that assigns each permit a total amount of crab that the permit-holder can catch at any time during a defined season.

One measure of this system’s success is that after landing 54.5 million pounds in 2010–2011, managers hiked the catch limit for 2011–2012 to 89.9 million pounds.

Summer flounder

Summer flounder is a fish with many suitors. It’s a staple of both the commercial and recreational fishery from North Carolina to Maine in state and federal waters. Perhaps because it’s so well known and sought after, it’s also one of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s highest-profile success stories.

After rampant overfishing decimated the species in the mid- to late-1980s, it took more than two decades of legal and regulatory wrangling to implement catch limits in line with scientific recommendations. Now, thanks to strict harvest caps and a few robust-year classes of young fish, the stock—which has brought commercial fishermen between $20 million and $30 million annually since 2001 and has become one of the most popular sport fish in the mid-Atlantic region—is now fully rebuilt.

Gulf of Maine haddock

For all the negative news that has come out of the New England groundfishery in the past few years, including terrible new stock assessments for cod and yellowtail flounder, the groundfish species that has quietly dominated the northwest Atlantic ecosystem has been Gulf of Maine haddock.

Unfortunately for fishermen, they have been largely unable to take advantage of the increasingly large catch limits that come with a healthy haddock population. Because cod haddock and many flounders all school together, trawls, gillnets, and other fishing gear cannot selectively target haddock while avoiding the less healthy species. In 2010 fishermen caught just 20 percent of their total allowable catch of haddock, and that figure stood at just 11 percent of the total through the first 11 months of 2011.

Chinook salmon—Northern California coast: Klamath (fall), and coho salmon—Washington coast: Queets

Many consumers think of salmon as a single species. But this is like thinking all wine is a single varietal. Not only are salmon divided into Atlantic and Pacific (virtually all wild salmon is Pacific and most farmed is Atlantic), but there are also five different species of Pacific salmon alone. Each species is further divided into subpopulations since salmon, which spend their adolescence and adult lives in the open ocean, have the uncanny ability to return to the same tributary of the same river in which they were spawned.

Confused yet? Now try managing each river’s population of each distinct species and rebuilding them all to optimum biomass levels.

This year, two rivers in the Pacific Northwest can claim rebuilt populations for a species of salmon: Washington’s Queets River’s coho salmon and California and Oregon’s Klamath River’s chinook salmon.

The Klamath River story is particularly remarkable.

As recently as 2008, this fishery was completely shut down—that year, just 68,000 fish returned to the Klamath, a paltry fraction of the historic highs. In 2011 that figure had limped its way up to 233,000—still far short of what fishery managers considered sustainable. This year? More than 1.6 million fish came back to the Klamath.

It’s too early to tell why the numbers have rebounded so dramatically or whether they will stay high in the years to come, but for now northern California and Oregon’s salmon fishermen are truly in the pink.

Widow rockfish

The sixth species declared rebuilt is the widow rockfish. This is neither a terribly abundant nor commercially critical species even in the best of times, but in the late-1980s and mid-1990s West Coast fishermen were landing between 16 million and 22 million pounds per year and bringing in $4 million to $6 million. That total dropped off a cliff around the turn of the century and from 2000–2011 landings totals have been in the neighborhood of 300,000 pounds per year. The species is currently managed under the Pacific groundfish multispecies complex, and it represents just a tiny fraction of what fishermen bring in overall.

Michael Conathan is Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for American Progress. This piece was originally published at the CAP website.

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

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

Land Rights Network

American Land Rights Association

PO Box 400 – Battle Ground, WA 98604

Phone: 360-687-3087 – Fax: 360-687-2973

E-mail: alra@pacifier.com

Web Address: http://www.landrights.org

Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE – Washington, DC 20003

Henry Lamb, Rest In Peace

Dear, Members, Friends and Allies:

Our friend Henry Lamb died on May 23, 2012 after a lengthy illness.

Henry was one of our country’s most important and effective advocates for private property rights and national sovereignty. He was a prolific writer and speaker, educating Americans on the value of our constitution and threats posed to our freedom by power-seeking national and international interests.

After a long career in business, Henry brought together a group of limited government advocates, founded the Environmental Conservation Organization in 1988 and began publishing its excellent magazine, named eco-logic. He followed this success by starting other organizations as well over the past twenty years, including Sovereignty International and Freedom21.

Henry was at his best when speaking to groups, disassembling the assumptions and arguments of powerful interest groups piece by piece.

In his calm drawl and clearly enunciated phrases, he would cite the documents and publications of his opponents and demonstrate, in their own words, the dangers they presented to our freedoms.

Our very best wishes in this difficult time go out to Henry’s wife Irene and their family.

Sincerely,

Chuck Cushman

ccushman@pacifier.com

Mike Hardiman

landrightsnet@yahoo.com

American Land Rights Association

To Unsubscribe, please send an email with “unsubscribe” in the subject line to: ALRA@pacifier.com.

Please forward this message widely.

http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20021202/suscom.shtml

By Henry Lamb 12/11/06

Land and resource use is strictly controlled by government. At least half of the land area, perhaps more, is wilderness. Only individuals who are given a permit by the government may enter the wilderness, and then, only on foot.

Wilderness areas, called “Biosphere Reserves,” are connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife can move freely, without interference by humans.

Surrounding the Biosphere Reserves, and the wilderness corridors, are “buffer zones,” where public/private partnerships are allowed to farm, and engage in essential, sustainable manufacturing. The buffer zones are connected by “zones of cooperation,” in which sustainable communities are located. (1) All the communities are quite similar.

As if an invisible wall surrounded the community, all development stops at the urban boundary. A “green belt” surrounds every community. Beyond the green belt lies the buffer zone where a few people are allowed to live, if they are employed by a public/private partnership performing an essential service. There are no single-family homes in the community, except for those owned by the government for use by community officials. Large blocks of low-rise, high-density apartments are arranged in neighborhood units. Each neighborhood unit contains several apartment buildings that look the same.

Each building is set back from the street to provide an off-street driveway around the entire block. This is for back-door deliveries to the shops that occupy the ground floor of every building. The buildings face inwards, toward a courtyard area with playground equipment and walkways. An area of the courtyard is reserved for a community garden for those residents who wish to plant vegetables. Each of these neighborhood units is a project of a public/private partnership, funded by government and constructed and managed by an NGO partner. All structures comply with federal standards in design, using materials that carry the “Green-label” of approval. Rooftops are used for solar panels which provide supplemental energy to each building.

The resident-mix in each building within the neighborhood unit, must reflect both an ethnic and income balance, according to a formula established by government. Apartments are not available for purchase; rent is determined by the tenant’s ability to pay, based on income; priority is given to the individuals who are employed in the shops within the neighborhood unit.

Each neighborhood unit provides a school, and day care facilities, as well as clinic-level medical services. The schools are designed to accept children at age two, and prepare students to take their appropriate place in the neighborhood, and in the larger society. The School-to-work program sorts children on the basis of aptitude and directs their education toward meeting projected community needs. There is an auditorium/gymnasium facility that doubles as a recreational area and a place for neighborhood meetings and performances. There are no garages, parking spaces, or cars. There is no need for them. Shopping, and other services are all available within the neighborhood unit – within walking distance.

Shops are permitted on the basis of providing the goods and services needed by the residents, as determined by the neighborhood council.

Thoroughfares separate the neighborhood units. Traffic is limited to bicycles, pedestrians, emergency, and other official vehicles.

Electric-powered light-rail trams occupy the center of the thoroughfares.

People who work in the community’s center, or in the buffer zones surrounding the community, commute on public transportation. Open space and parks are scattered among the neighborhood units. Bike and hike paths crisscross the community.

The NGO partner is responsible to the government for maintenance of the neighborhood unit, and compliance with regional, bioregional, and federal policies. Each neighborhood unit is governed by a neighborhood council, consisting of the board of directors of the NGO responsible for the neighborhood unit, and a minority of representatives elected by the residents. This council settles neighborhood disputes, rules on business permits for the shops, permits for use of the recreational/performance facilities, and approves all new renters and evictions.

Each neighborhood council elects one representative to the Community Council which is the governing board for the entire community. The Council hires the administrator, and approves the administrator’s choice for department heads.

The police department serves the Community Council and maintains a precinct station in each neighborhood unit. Police have “on-demand” authority for “compliance inspections.” The Council sets the local tax rate, and chooses one of its members to serve on the Regional Council.

The Regional Council issues permits for activities within the zone of cooperation which connects the buffer zones. Light industry and farming that is deemed essential to the communities within the region may be permitted in this area. This Council is responsible for regional transportation and other issues of a transboundary nature. The Regional Council elects one of its members to serve on the Bioregional Council. The Bioregional Council is responsible for the entire bioregion. Its primary function is to decide, and permit the activities that occur within the bioregion’s buffer zones. Public/private partnership are awarded permits for food and energy production within the buffer zones. The Bioregional Council decides which crops are to be produced, how the crops will be processed and distributed to the communities within the Bioregion, and which crops, if any, will be produced for export to other Bioregions.

Movement within the urban boundaries is open for the residents of the community. Travel to the zones of cooperation, or to the buffer zones, requires a permit issued by the community council, and approved by the council of the zone to be visited. Movement from one Bioregion to another requires a special purpose permit. Vacations, for example, to a federal park in another Bioregion, would be permitted, if scheduled in advance.

Travel for other purposes may, or may not, be approved.

Transportation, generally, accommodates the movement of goods as required to support communities. The need for personal travel is rare. Personal requirements can be met within the community, or the bioregion. The Inter-region Transport system was constructed from the turn-of-the-century Interstate highway system. Key routes between urban centers contain light-rail train systems as well as highways for vehicle transport. The transport system utilizes bridges over wilderness corridors, often, several miles long, a hundred feet or more above ground.

Air travel is limited to cross-continent, or inter-continental transport of goods, and council members traveling on official business. There is little need for personal air travel; business is conducted by telephone and Internet. Airports are located strategically as hubs, fed by a network of small, vertical- lift airplanes operating from bioregional centers. (2) Governance Neighborhood councils, consisting of the board of directors of the public/private partner, and a minority number of representatives elected by the residents of the neighborhood, constitute the basic element of governance, closest to the people. Its function is to apply government policy equitably within the neighborhood unit.

The council elects a representative to the community council, whose function is to implement government policy equitably throughout the entire community.

The regional council consists of representatives elected by the various community councils within the region to see that government policy is implemented equitably throughout the region.

The bioregional council consists of representatives elected by each regional council within the bioregion. Each council is responsible for hiring the administrative personnel required to implement the policies for which it is responsible.

Each bioregional council elects an equal number of representatives to the national council, which is also the national delegation to the Global Forum.

In many nations, the national council hires the national administrator, but in America, remnants of the U.S. Constitution still provide for the popular election of the chief executive officer – the President.

As the emergence of community, and regional councils replaced the city-council and county-commissioner form of government, the need for county boundaries diminished. As Bioregions became defined, the need for state boundaries diminished. City agencies easily adapted to community council control. County agencies, with more difficulty, were blended into regional agencies that answer to the regional council. Bioregional councils reorganized state agencies, eliminating many positions that had been duplicated in each state, in favor of an administrative team for the Bioregion to provide only those services required to support the Bioregion.

The Global Forum serves as the Global Council to the United Nations General Assembly, which consists of delegates appointed by the chief executive of each nation. Global governance is said to be the “final phase” of the evolution of self-governance, providing the perfect balance of bottom-up democracy with efficient, professional, transparent administration.

Global policies are enacted when adopted by both the Global Forum, and the General Assembly. Once adopted, agencies of the U.N. are responsible for equitable implementation around the world. The World Food Organization is responsible for tracking world food needs and world food production, and arranging the distribution equitably.

Grain produced in the Great Prairie Bioregion feeds much of the world. Most other foods, however, must be produced within the Bioregion.

War is impossible. National borders have been dissolved, and Bioregional disputes are resolved by the national council or by the Global Forum. The only weapons available are manufactured by a factory operated directly by the United Nations for United Nations police agencies. National police agencies are responsible for the weapons issued to them, and individuals face severe penalties for loss, misuse, or abuse of their assigned weapon.

Any weapon of any kind may be turned over to the police voluntarily for a reward – with no questions asked. Any individual found with an unauthorized weapon is subject to immediate incarceration – no questions asked.

The International Criminal Court, founded in 2002, has little activity except for the occasional revolutionaries who attempt to inflame rebellion.

Non-compliance issues are handled at the community, regional, bioregional, or national levels with denial of activity requests, fines, relocation, or jail. (3) It is said to be the perfect society, indeed, the final phase of societal evolution. The needs of people are equitably met while assuring that the earth’s resources are not exploited beyond what is required to sustain human life. People have neither reason, nor resources to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of life. Without the need for investment in technology and tools for war, resources are available to expand prosperity around the world.

By permitting and regulating all business activity, extravagance is virtually eliminated, as is the wasteful duplication of multiple versions of the same product. People are freed from the daily rigor of providing food and shelter, and have more leisure time to enjoy recreation and family activities.

The future of the world looks extremely bright. Children begin almost at birth, to learn that happiness is defined by compliance, and unhappiness is the certain result of non-compliance. Group harmony is the ultimate goal.

Education is continual reinforcement of the value of group harmony and preparation for fulfilling each individual’s niche within the group. Only students with demonstrated aptitude are permitted to study sciences and art, in sufficient numbers to provide the community’s needs.

Students learn that any individual may rise to the height of influence and prestige by maintaining a spotless compliance record and participating in council activity within the neighborhood, and advancing through the council structure by always performing his responsibilities as required.

This is a reasonable description of a sustainable world as suggested in the literature now available. This sustainable future is the logical destination of the policies now in place, or currently under development. There is no identifiable, significant opposition to this future. There is, however, a better alternative. (See the January 1, 2003 issue).

1. Based on Chapter 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment; the Seville Strategy, and the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves; “The Wildlands Project,” and the EPA’s and Department of Interior internal working documents on Ecosystem Management Policy.

2. Sustainable communities are described from the 1976 Report of Habitat I; Agenda 21; Reports to and from the United Nations Development Program, particularly, COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY; AGENDAS FOR CHOICE-MAKING & ACTION  http://eco.freedom.org/el/19990701/sdagenda.html, submitted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, 1996.

3. Global governance is described from Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the Commission on Global Governance; the “Millennium Declaration,” and reports of the United Nations Development Program.

* * * * * * * “Go on, then, in your generous enterprise with gratitude to Heaven for past success, and confidence of it in the future. For my own part, I ask no greater blessing than to share with you the common danger and common glory … that these American States may never cease to be free and independent.” –Samuel Adams
–

Yreka Tea Party Patriots

Meeting for Tuesday,

May 29, 2012  

6:30 PM

Decision Life Church

Corner of Main and Oberlin..1301 South Main St. Yreka

Speakers:

Rick Bosetti, Candidate for California Assembly

and Erin Ryan, Legislative Aid for Senator Doug La Malfa

Election Straw poll

Public Welcome. Call Louise for more information 842-5443