Jul 19, 2012
By SAMANTHA TIPLER
H&N Staff Reporter
July 19, 2012
H&N photo by Alex Powers Cows stand on a pasture off of East Langell Valley Road near its intersection with Bunn Way. Much of the irrigation on the east side of the valley is for hay or pastureland
Consumers paying more at the market for beef could mean profits for cattle ranchers and reverberations throughout the Klamath County economy.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said beef prices increased 10 percent in 2011. In 2012, prices are expected to increase another 4 or 5 percent —higher than the overall increase in grocery prices.
Beef and dairy sales account for about half the agriculture receipts in Klamath County, said Jason Chapman, former president of the Klamath County Cattlemen’s Association and a Poe Valley rancher.
“If we give cattle producers a little extra money in their pocket, they go out and upgrade facilities and equipment,” Chapman said. “Any time the agriculture community does good, Klamath Falls and Klamath County does good. We go and buy a new pickup and buy a new tractor.”
But Chapman said ranchers will be watching their books to decide when and if to go buy that new pickup.
While beef prices might be high, so are input costs.
“When we see higher-than-average cattle prices, we also see higher prices for commodities we’re putting into the cattle,” he said. “Cattle is at an all-time high; everything else is at an all-time high to produce that animal as well.”
When things balance out is when the dollars might start to circulate to the local economy.
“We always wait and see,” Chapman said.
A big part of his job as a rancher is knowing the business aspects, not just the hard work of raising cattle.
“You’ve got to know the markets, know the input costs,” he said. “A 1 percent change in input costs could make a pretty big difference on your profit margin.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
Jul 19, 2012
PNP comment: Restore is an over-used word for something that can’t be done. Remember by the time salmon swim 200 miles inland, the ones that make it are ready to spawn and die. That is truly what “restore” is about and the salmon do that with the dams IN the Klamath River. It is interesting that the Tea Party Patriots finally get noticed. I thought the Lame Street Media had opinion-ed their demise? — Editor Liz Bowen
(Photo didn’t copy)
Jim Wilson/The New York Times The John C. Boyle Dam in Oregon, one of several Klamath River dams. A plan for the river involves removing four dams.
July 18, 2012
KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. — Almost since the Bureau of Reclamation first began plumbing the Klamath River in 1906, creating a vast and fertile farming region out of arid southeastern Oregon and northeastern California, people have fought over what the river provides: water for farming, water to preserve one of the West Coast’s largest salmon runs and a source of hydroelectric power.
Then, suddenly, a truce was announced. In February 2010, after five years of confidential negotiation, an unlikely alliance of American Indian tribes, environmentalists, farmers, fishermen, governors and the federal government signed the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
The agreement was hailed as evidence of a new era in the West in which bitter divisions over natural resources could be bridged. Within a decade, it dictated, four dams would come down, enabling much of the river to flow freely and its once-mighty run of salmon to return. At the same time, farmers would be assured of water for their crops and affordable power. And Indian tribes would regain land lost decades ago.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he had expected Congress to act that year to approve the agreement, known as the K.B.R.A., and to begin appropriating the more than $1 billion to carry out what he called “the largest river restoration project in the world.”
Yet more than two years later, that has not happened, and it is unclear when, if ever, the agreement will be enacted.
A month after it was announced, seven people gathered at Jack Charlton’s machine shop south of downtown Klamath Falls and formed the Klamath County Tea Party Patriots. Four of them were farmers wary of losing their water. One was Mr. Charlton, who fixed their equipment. Mr. Charlton recalled the anger and worry in the room that night. Many felt the government was more worried about endangered fish than endangered farmers.
“It was like, ‘Where have I been?’ ” he said. “ ‘Have I been asleep all these years?’ The last thing that they want to take away is our water.”
The Tea Party Patriots became a local political force, eventually paralyzing the high-powered deal by defeating many of the local officials who supported it, including all three Klamath County commissioners, and sending a signal to Congress that it lacks enough grass-roots support.
The restoration deal “is not going to go anywhere at all,” said Tom Mallams, a farmer and newly elected county commissioner who, with Tea Party backing, unseated a 15-year incumbent. “It’s slowly dying on the vine.”
The fight over the Klamath reached a heated peak in 2001 when a severe drought prompted federal water managers to shut off irrigation to ensure enough water for endangered fish. The next year, Vice President Dick Cheney came to the aid of angry farmers, making sure irrigation was not cut off again.
That summer, 70,000 salmon died. Several years later, commercial salmon fishing on the West Coast was shut down in part because of the decline of salmon populations in the Klamath. Scientific research indicated that removing the dams was the best way to save the salmon run.
But without the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement or another brokered alternative, the Klamath will remain at the mercy of the courts and the powerful legal forces that various groups invoked there, including the Endangered Species Act, tribal rights and Western water law. Environmentalists, tribes and fishermen who support the agreement cite the Endangered Species Act to argue for removing the dams. Farmers and others generally opposed to the agreement cite generations-old water claims made with the Bureau of Reclamation.
The deal’s supporters, particularly environmentalists most adamant about removing the dams, say more court fights are inevitable if the deal is not confirmed by Congress — regardless of local political developments.
Tribes in both states have claimed the management of the river violates their 19th-century treaty rights to fish, gather and hunt. Fear and self-preservation prompted the talks that led to the agreement, in light of more droughts being predicted, tribal water rights gaining momentum in court and the power company that owns the dams worrying about its prospects for relicensing. Nearly all of the more than two dozen parties involved compromised their interests to reach a consensus.
For irrigators like Tracey Liskey, a third-generation farmer who supported the agreement — and just lost a race for state representative — the K.B.R.A. promised a version of stability: a reliable though not ideal amount of water they could count on to get their alfalfa, hay and other crops through the dry summer. At the other end of the river, where it meets the Pacific in California, some tribes and commercial fishermen supported the agreement because it offered more security that river flows would not fall below what it takes to maintain a healthy salmon habitat.
The power company, PacifiCorp, agreed to the deal when it became clear that relicensing the dams would be more expensive and more trying than removing them. And while some tribes rejected the agreement, most believed it offered them a way to remove the dams and restore the river. A group of three called the Klamath Tribes agreed to give up some control of the water to regain tens of thousands of acres for timber production that they had relinquished decades earlier.
The Klamath Tribes have recently received favorable rulings in state administrative courts on lawsuits they first filed in the 1970s to gain control of the water upstream. If the tribes eventually win — a decision is due late this year — opponents of the agreement could find themselves wishing they had been more supportive. “It’s about economies, and the Klamath Tribes’ economy is just as important as anyone else’s economy,” said Jeff Mitchell, a member of the Klamath tribal council who has been central to negotiations for the agreement.
Mr. Mallams and some of the agreement’s other most vocal opponents do not draw water directly from the irrigation system, but they benefit from it in other ways, including from the affordable power supply the dams have provided. They frequently accuse supporters of the agreement of wanting to remove the Klamath dams as part of an environmental campaign to remove much larger dams on the Columbia River that provide the backbone of the power supply in the Northwest.
Mr. Salazar said in an interview that he remained optimistic that Congress would eventually approve the deal. Some supporters say opponents are stirring division with no clear agenda.
“I always refer to us as the radical middle because there’s nothing radical in the Klamath about fighting over water,” said Craig Tucker, the Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe of Northern California and a supporter of the 2010 agreement. “What’s radical is learning how to share.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
Jul 19, 2012
We in Merced County almost had an existing state highway, Rte 152, converted to a toll road. Through the efforts of many people in the County including many Tea Partiers we were able to stop the project.
During the effort we found out that the California Dept of Transportation ,CTC, wants the ability to convert existing state highways to Toll Roads. They want the toll collection to be via Fast Trak style transponders. This will allow them to track every vehicle as well as implement per mile and time of day charges for anyone on the road – and track your speed – imagine getting a speeding ticket along with your monthly toll charges – Smart Meters on Steroids!!
The California Transportation Commission is pushing for toll roads throughout the state in order to raise revenue, $295.7 Billion over 10 years!!
The Legislature needs to approve this change in funding – so we need to work with the Legislature to stop this in its tracks.
Note that CTC has been very quiet in pursuing this idea so your legislator may not even know about the plan.
Educate them and enlighten them.
We need to work together to get the legislature to stop the tolling of existing highways.
Thanks to Los Banos Mayor Mike Villalta for bringing the Toll Road project to our attention.
–
Les Palocsay, Local Coordinator
Los Banos Tea Party
209-752-7502
Jul 19, 2012
Dear Mr. Bowman:
I writing to you about the recent piece done with quotes from the Huffington Post blog on Sheriff Lopey. What you wrote sounds like a typical unfair hit piece. I am a retired Parole & Probation Officer currently living in Josephine County, Oregon. Prior to living in Josephine County, I was a Parole & Probation Officer in Portland. During my 26 year career in Corrections, I worked with police officers on an almost daily basis. This included dealing with police officers in surrounding counties. Consequently, I have worked with thousands of police officers from dozen of agencies.
Presently, our County Sheriff is Gil Gilbertson and I have observed his job performance. I decided that he was the finest lawman that I had seen in my 61 years. Last Saturday, I drove to Crescent City, California to attend Support Rural America Sheriffs’ Event. The sheriffs there represented Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Humbolt, Tehama, and Mendocino counties. Each man gave a report about their counties. I was astounded as each sheriff appears to be of the same quality as Gil Gilberton. They all support the Rule of Law. Their concern is that some of the people in the Federal Government are not following the law and it causes serious problems for the people who inhabit their counties.
I have to say that I was most impressed by the Sheriff Lopey’s speech. The citizens of Siskiyou County are extremely smart for electing this man to office. They can be thankful for his fidelity to the Constitution. I would suggest you do a rewrite.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Glynn
Retired Parole & Probation Officer(State Oregon and Multnomah County)
MS Administration of Criminal Justice, University of Portland 1981
3930 Lower Wolf Creek Road
Wolf Creek, Oregon 97497
Jul 19, 2012
I have known Jon Lopey for ten plus years now. I trust him with my life. We are indeed very fortunate to have he and his wife, Maxine, as citizens of our Siskiyou County. We are lucky to have this man as our sheriff. I couldn’t feel any safer in my home if the National Guard was in my backyard.
At a time when the whole world seems to be coming unraveled, and our own government has lost sight of the United States Constitution, and our elected President Obama finds ways to evoke “presidential privilege”, I feel blessed to have Sheriff Jon Lopey covering my back.
Margo Perryman
Contact
Subscribe
No Comments 
On June 14, 2012, American Stewards of Liberty had a remarkable victory. After a year of working with the oil and gas industry, eight counties in Texas and New Mexico and one soil and water conservation district, we prevented the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) from listing a three-inch lizard known as the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard (DSL) as endangered.