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 blog archives for March, 2014.

Report from the Siskiyou Co Sheriff’s office 3-31-14

Siskiyou Sheriff's report

SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Daily Report

      **03/31/2014**

 

          On Friday 3/28/2014 at approximately 3:00pm Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Deputies were dispatched to a report of a battery on 5th Street in Grenada. The victim reported that his girlfriend had hit him. Subsequently Mia Coles, 32, of Grenada was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence. She was transported and booked into the Siskiyou County Jail. She was then released to appear in court.

  

            On Saturday 3/29/14 at approximately 7:15pm deputies in Happy Camp were contacted regarding an intoxicated male causing a disturbance at a residence on Itroop road in Happy Camp. Upon arrival deputies located Steve Marshall, 47 of Happy Camp. He was arrested and charged with drunk in public. He was transported to the Siskiyou County Jail and released with a court date.

 

            Also arrested over the weekend by the Sheriff’s Department were the following:

 

            Justin Harrison, 53, of Happy Camp for misdemeanor failure to appear and violation of restraining order. He was cited and released from the Siskiyou County Jail.

            Keith Cullison, 36 of Fort Jones, for misdemeanor driving on a suspended license and a warrant for failure to appear. He was cited and released from the Siskiyou County Jail.

            Debra Bruenn, 57, of Macdoel for misdemeanor contempt of court and violation of probation. She was cited and released from the Siskiyou County Jail.

            Tabrina Stewart, 40, of Cecilville for a warrant for failure to appear. She was cited and released from the Siskiyou County Jail.

No Comments

Ban it! From bags to butts, California bills would nix range of products

Economy, State gov

 PNP comment: More of the “Nanny State”. Gee whiz this is ridiculous! — Editor Liz Bowen

Published: Sunday, Mar. 30, 2014 – 9:19 pm

Last Modified: Monday, Mar. 31, 2014 – 5:21 am

Extinguish your filtered cigarettes, ditch the plastic bags to carry your groceries, toss your micro-beaded facial scrub and cancel those plans to catch an orca show at SeaWorld.

Each of those things would be prohibited under a package of bills circulating in Sacramento. Seeking to address such issues as pollution, animal cruelty and tobacco use, lawmakers have advanced measures to ban or limit the availability of various consumer products and activities.

The items facing potential prohibition join a growing list of products legislators have banned in recent years, like lead ammunition, foie gras, eggs from tightly caged chickens and edible shark fins. Those bills drew protests from specific groups saying they were being unfairly penalized – hunters decrying the loss of lead bullets, Chinese Americans who eat shark fin soup mourning the loss of a cherished tradition.

Taken together, critics say, sweeping statewide bans are prime examples of unmerited government interference.

“I think the solution to a lot of our issues is to allow local governments to make those decisions, because the problem we have with California’s government is it’s a ‘one size fits all’ mentality,” said Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville.

Advocates of ban bills counter that a statewide approach is justified on issues that affect all Californians, like environmental degradation. They say a consistent standard is often preferable to an array of contradictory local rules. The state grocers association, for instance, has said legislation eliminating single-use plastic bags would free businesses from navigating scores of municipal bag ordinances.

“You have some large jurisdictions that have the bans, and then across the street it could be another city or county which does not, which provides confusion to the customers and creates a competitive disadvantage to businesses,” said Ronald Fong, president and CEO of the California Grocers Association. “Since the localities are going there anyway and the numbers are growing, let’s go ahead and do a statewide ban that is uniform for everybody.”

In championing a ban on plastic bags, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, has become the latest standard bearer for a recurring Sacramento campaign. His bag ban was revived earlier this year after a pair of senators who helped bury the measure in 2013 reversed to support the policy, enticed by grant money to help offset job losses at plastic-bag factories.

Others float novel approaches to old issues. An anti-litter bill by Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, would ban cigarette filters in an effort to stub out the cigarette butts littering beaches and clogging waterways, while an ocean cleanup bill by Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, would nix the “microbeads” embedded in cosmetic products like facial scrubs. Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, hopes to curb underage smoking by banning online tobacco purchases.

Another bill by Bloom responds specifically to a more recent development: the incendiary documentary “Blackfish,” which strongly suggests that inhumane orca management practices at SeaWorld fueled the deaths of trainers. Bloom says his legislation, which would end orca shows and captive orca breeding in California, is justified given the high intelligence and social sophistication of the species that produced the iconic Shamu.

“We have to recognize today that science has advanced, that our understanding of mammals has advanced,” Bloom said.

A more comprehensive prohibition list would include efforts in the Legislature to bar disputed legal strategies, like the so-called “affluenza” and “gay panic” defenses; to place a moratorium on the gas-extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking; and to banish fundraising tools, such as events at the homes of lobbyists, seen as insidious sources of influence by special interests.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/30/6280818/ban-it-from-bags-to-butts-california.html#storylink=cpy

No Comments

Yreka Tea Party Patriots meet 4-1-2014

TEA Party

Meeting for Tuesday, April 1st  6:30 PM

Decision Life Church

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

 

                                    Program

“The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” youtube with Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt,  whistle blower in the Regan Administration Department of Education.

 

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt is American freelance writer who served as the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education.  She worked during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan.  She blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms and was fired.

She is known for writing the book “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.” The book reveals that changes gradually brought into the American public education system work to eliminate the influences of a child’s parents (religion, morals, national patriotism), and mold the child into a member of the proletariat in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future.[3]

 

 Free to the Public.  Everyone Welcome.     Contact Louise for more information at 530-842-5443530-842-5443

 

 

No Comments

If I were the Devil …

CORRUPTION, Radio shows, youtube videos

Time to put up Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil …” radio show from decades ago.

How so very prophetic and sad. — Editor Liz Bowen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFaLUZ2rf4

No Comments

If I wanted America to fail …

Agenda 21 & Sustainable, youtube videos

Time to post this “right on” video again.  It is from 2 years ago, discussed by Michelle Malkin.  — Editor Liz Bowen

   Only 4 minutes long — more than worth it —

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 23, 2012 08:34 PM

This weekend, a video produced by Free Market America went live on YouTube — and it is racking up nationwide hits. Deservedly so. The Earth Day-timed message is compelling and extremely relevant this campaign season. As the group writes: “The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism — it’s become an economic suicide pact. And we’re here to challenge it.” Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

No Comments

Water Rights Protected

Agriculture, Property rights, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

Monday, March 24, 2014

Water rights protected

by Theodora Dowling, WLJ Correspondent

Whiskey’s for drinking, and water’s for…handing over to the federal government so that they’ll issue you the permits you need to keep your ranching operation going. At least, this appears to be the U.S. Forest Service’s catchy new variation on the old adage. But much as the agency might like to change it, the truth can’t be denied: water’s still for fighting. In this instance, the instigative first punch came several years ago when the Forest Service began aggressively pursuing a policy where water rights had to be forked over to the agency before it would grant special use permits. This policy kicked off a series of heated debates between the agency and the livestock industry; congressional hearings; private-sector litigation of the Forest Service; and state and federal legislation aimed at bolstering private water rights on federal land.

On March 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 3189) that would stymie the federal land management agencies’ attempts to wrest water rights from the private sector in exchange for federal land use permits. The bill, titled the Water Rights Protection Act, has a Senate companion bill (S. 1630), introduced last fall by Wyoming Sen.

John Barrasso (R). Water rights advocates hope to see the bill pass that chamber, as well.

Indeed, recent policies and actions of the federal land management agencies (primarily the Forest Service) have given water rights holders and the states good reason to ask Congress for backup. In a letter dated August 15, 2008, the Forest Service’s Intermountain Regional Forester stated that it was “the policy of the Intermountain Region that livestock water rights used on national forest grazing allotments should be held in the name of the United States.” The Intermountain Region covers Nevada, Utah, and good portions of Idaho and Wyoming— where livestock grazing is a prevalent use of Forest Service lands. The letter went on to state that “the United States must have a water right” before any federal funds would go toward “construction or reconstruction of any livestock water development or facility.”

Under this policy, Forest Service has in many cases been withholding the permits ranchers need to build and maintain new water structures, existing waterlines, stock tanks, and other water improvements. This is making it difficult for some ranchers to make beneficial use of their water rights (i.e., water their livestock). Under most western states’ water law, beneficial use of the water is necessary in order to maintain the water right.

According to Joe Guild, a Nevada rancher and a regional vice-president for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the Forest Service’s demand for stockwater rights poses a particularly bad problem in Nevada. That’s because, he said, it is in direct conflict with Nevada state water law. In Nevada, only parties that own livestock can hold and make beneficial use of a stockwater right. This excludes the federal government. Thus, Guild said, the Forest Service’s policy of denying water improvement permits until they get ownership of the water rights is akin to telling ranchers that no improvements to water sources will ever be made again—at least until Nevada changes its law.

“This means curtains for most operators out here in Nevada,” Guild said in an interview. “Attacking Nevada citizens in this manner is an irresponsible way of trying to strong-arm the state into handing over its primacy over the water.”

Guild told WLJ that the government has, in fact, been pursuing this goal of water rights attainment for probably 100 years. According to congressional testimony of the Forest Service, the agency has indeed secured thousands of livestock water rights on National Forest System land, in states where that acquisition is legal.

“What is new about this 2008 Forest Service policy position is that it runs directly counter to Nevada’s water law, causing a standoff where ranchers are getting caught in the crossfire,” Guild explained.

Guild said that, upon learning of the new regional directive in 2008, the livestock industry, led by Public Lands Council and NCBA, immediately brought their concerns to the agency. In meetings with Forest Service officials, they explained that western water law requires water-right holders to make beneficial use of their water in order to retain ownership. The new Forest Service policy, industry argued, was a Fifth Amendment taking of property, since it gave Forest Service the power to deny ranchers’ ability to make full beneficial use of the water. Industry also pointed out that the states have primacy over water law, and that this policy appeared to be an attempt at superseding the states’ jurisdiction.

As the livestock organizations’ talks with the agency went on and the policy went unchanged, industry’s concerns found their way to Congress. By mid-2011, congressional hearings were being scheduled and witnesses were preparing testimony.

Ranchers wouldn’t be the only ones to testify to Congress. The ski industry was in a parallel battle with the agency. The Forest Service had issued a directive requiring all ski areas on Forest Service land—over 120 of them—to turn over part of their water rights to the agency in exchange for the permits they needed to keep operating. In a November 2011 hearing before a U.S. House subcommittee, a National Ski Areas Association (NCAA) representative stated: “Congress has not delegated to the Forest Service the authority to require the ski areas to transfer ownership of water rights to the U.S. as a permit condition. Likewise, the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give the agency the authority to use permitting conditions as a basis to obtain federal ownership of privately owned water rights without the payment of fair compensation.”

Ranchers and ski areas have thus found themselves in the same boat. Multiple state and national congressional hearings have ensued, and several western states are entertaining legislation to bolster stockwater and other privately-held water rights.

In September of 2013, Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) introduced at the national level the Water Rights Protection Act. It would prevent both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from demanding water rights in exchange for special use permits. The bill would also prohibit the agencies from imposing other conditions that require the transfer of water rights without just compensation. In principle, the bill “upholds longstanding federal deference to state water law,” according to Rep. Tipton’s office. Also according to Rep. Tipton’s office, BLM was included in the legislation because the agency has, similarly to Forest Service, pursued an agenda of water rights ownership in several states. On at least one occasion, they said, a BLM official has stated the agency would like to adopt a policy similar to that of the Forest Service’s ski area policy.

As efforts in the legislative branch have been ongoing, the ski industry has taken the Forest Service to court on its new ski area water clause—and won, in part. Judge William Martinez of the U.S. District Court for Colorado ruled that the agency had violated procedural laws by not allowing public input in the development of this sweeping new policy. While he vacated the rule, calling for the agency to rework it— this time with public input—he did not rule on the ski industry’s substantive claims. In other words, he did not make an official ruling as to whether the agency’s demand for water rights in exchange for ski area permits constituted a Fifth Amendment taking of property. However, in his ruling, Judge Martinez did indicate that he thought the agency had far overstepped its bounds under current law and the U.S. Constitution. In his decision, he wrote that the policy did “impose new rights and obligations. [The Forest Service] could point to no prior water clause that compels permit holders to waive constitutional rights as to compensation. Nor could [the agency] point to any prior clause compelling permit holders to grant the United States a power of attorney for the purposes of transferring water rights to itself. These are just two clauses in the 2012 Directive, among others, that cut against [Forest Service’s] position.”

Michael Berry, President of the NSAA (the plaintiff), said the ski area industry was “pleased that the court has stopped this unreasonable and unlawful policy in its tracks.”

NCBA’s Guild echoed Berry’s enthusiasm for the ruling. While he acknowledged there had been no ruling on whether the ski area water clause constituted a taking of property, he said the court “definitely slapped the hands of the Forest Service for exceeding their authority.” He said the ski area policy would have had dire implications for all water right holders on public land.

A Washington, D.C. Forest Service official told WLJ that the agency is revising the ski area water rights clause and it is expected to be out for public review and comment in the next few months. Meanwhile, efforts to remedy the Intermountain Region’s stockwater policy have begun to pay off. In an interview with WLJ, Terry Padilla, Range Program Manager for the Intermountain Region, indicated the Forest Service is “seriously considering reversing the stockwater policy” in the region.

“We need to quit holding our permittees and our agency people hostage with an unworkable policy,” said Padilla, referencing the Nevada situation specifically.

“We want to allow for maintenance and reconstruction of existing improvements,” he said, “although we would probably continue to stand down on new water developments pending resolution of ongoing stockwater rights discussions with Nevada.”

He said that Forest Service’s goal is to keep the water with the land, as water is crucial to the continuation of multiple uses such livestock grazing, wildlife use, recreation and others. He said the Forest Service fears that the water could instead be sold by the water right owners and diverted to, for example, urban centers like Las Vegas.

But NCBA’s Guild told WLJ this reasoning was illogical. “You’ve seen stockwater springs—it’s a trickle.

We’re talking between 5 and 20 gallons per minute—you can’t even take a bath in 20 gallons per minute. It’s a ridiculous and almost comical statement [by the Forest Service]—but that’s their justification. It’s really a red herring argument, I think.”

But Guild did say that industry talks with Forest Service have honed in on a possible solution: a “nonseverability” clause that would ensure that ranchers’ water stayed with their grazing allotments. He said the livestock organizations had talked with the agency about making the clause a part of ranchers’ grazing permits—if ranchers voluntarily agree to it.

“We question the Forest Service’s logic that we’re going to sell off the water, but if this helps us come to an end to the impasse, we’re for making this non-severance clause a voluntary part of a grazing permit,” Guild said.

While Forest Service’s Padilla told WLJ he was “really in favor” of a non-severability clause and that it was “on the table,” he said that the agency was still considering retaining the policy of demanding partial water rights ownership. He acknowledged this would keep Forest Service policy in direct conflict with Nevada State water law. “We are putting all options on the table,” he said. “We have a draft policy in front of the new regional forester right now, and should have final approval this spring. When we come to a decision, we’ll be meeting with the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, the state of Nevada, and other stakeholders to discuss it.”

“This policy—where water’s not available and we can’t manage and maintain it—goes against our imperative objectives: care for the land, serve the people. We’re not doing either one right now,” said Padilla.

Guild said he was glad the Forest Service acknowledged the current policy “for what it is: an anti-resource policy. If we can’t manage our water, we can’t manage our livestock.” He continued, “We hope that the new policy they come up with discards the conflict-ridden ‘partial ownership’ policy— which I really don’t think is going to fly in Nevada,” Guild said. “Let’s hope the new regional forester takes up something that’s actually feasible.”

Meanwhile, Guild said the legislation passed by the House this month would clear up the conflict at hand. “Because it tells the agencies they cannot withhold a permit in exchange for a transfer of the water right to the U.S.,” he said. “Let’s hope Senator Barrasso’s bill moves through the Senate. I urge people to call their senators and encourage them to support S. 1630, the Water Rights Protection Act. If Forest Service refuses to change its policy, we’d far rather see a resolution come through legislation than through costly litigation, as we saw our friends go through in the ski industry. And that court battle was just one step in the fight to change the policy—it’s far from over.” — 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

Fruit Growers Supply Company to build and operate a small log mill in Yreka, California

Forestry & USFS

FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY COMPANY

Fruit Growers Supply Company (FGS), a California agricultural supply cooperative, with timberland holdings in California, Oregon and Washington, announced that it plans to build and operate a small log mill in Yreka, California, on the site of the former Hi-Ridge Lumber Company mill.

The current plan is for the mill to process small diameter logs (down to 4”) into lumber for use in the manufacture of pallets, as well as for use in other agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The mill will employ between 30 and 40 people.

“We are excited to expand the Company’s business in a way that benefits not only our company, but also the local forest industry and the community,” said FGS’ Senior Vice President, Northern Operations, Charles Brown. “By processing small logs from company-owned and neighboring lands that currently has very limited economic use, we will be creating a market for a currently underutilized material while expanding employment opportunities in the Yreka area.”

About Fruit Growers Supply Company

Organized in 1907 by the members of the California Fruit Growers Exchange, Fruit Growers Supply Company has grown along with the West’s agriculture industry. The nonprofit cooperative association has provided growers with the materials and services to grow, harvest, package and ship their crops efficiently and conveniently for over 100 years.

FGS is one of the largest private timberland owners in California, with additional holdings in Oregon and Washington. FGS also has six Operations Centers throughout the growing regions of California and Arizona, a carton manufacturing plant in Ontario, California, and, through its wholly-owned subsidiary United Wholesale Lumber Company, a full-service pallet manufacturing operation in Visalia, California.

 

No Comments

J.D. King’s movie “Blue” is on Glenn Beck today at 2 p.m. PST

Agenda 21 & Sustainable, Mark Baird, Siskiyou County

Exposing Agenda 21, featuring Siskiyou County folks–

Mark Baird

Ray Haupt

Louise Gliatto

Debbie Bacigalupi

 

Is on Glenn Beck today at 2 p.m.; 5 p.m. and 9 p.m.

Worth watching!

 

No Comments

Critics cry foul as feds place lesser prairie chicken on threatened species list

Agriculture, CORRUPTION, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs

The Obama administration on Thursday announced plans to place the lesser prairie chicken on a list of threatened species, a move that drew the ire of some lawmakers and energy producers who derided the decision as an “overreach.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision, set to take effect around May 1, is a step below “endangered” status and allows for more flexibility in how protections for the bird will be carried out under the Endangered Species Act.

The move could affect agriculture, oil and gas drilling, wind farms and other activities in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and New Mexico and Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback said he’s concerned the decision will hurt the state’s economy.

“This is an overreach on the part of the federal government,” Brownback said in a statement. “We are looking at possible responses on this issue.”

Asked whether that includes a lawsuit, Brownback spokeswoman Sara Belfry said: “That certainly is a possible response.” Attorney General Derek Schmidt also said in a statement that his office is “assessing our legal options.”

Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said he knows the decision will be unpopular with governors in the five affected states, but said the agency was following the best science available.

The prairie chicken, a type of grouse known for its colorful neck plume and stout build, has lost more than 80 percent of its traditional habitat, mostly because of human activity such as oil and gas drilling, ranching and construction of power lines and wind turbines, Ashe said. The bird, which weighs from 1-1/2 to 2 pounds, has also been severely impacted by the region’s ongoing drought.

Biologists say a major problem is that prairie chickens fear tall structures, where predators such as hawks can perch and spot them. Wind turbines, electricity transmission towers and drilling rigs are generally the tallest objects on the plains.

Last year, the prairie chicken’s population across the five states declined to fewer than 18,000 birds — nearly 50 percent lower than 2012 population estimates.

Oil companies have said potential new regulations would impede their operations and would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and gas development in one of the country’s most prolific basins, the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.

The listing decision, includes a special rule that Ashe said will allow officials and private landowners in the five affected states to manage conservation efforts. The rule specifies that activities such as oil and gas drilling and utility line maintenance that are covered under a five-state conservation plan adopted last year will be allowed to continue.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, like Brownback a Republican, said she was disappointed, but added that she believes state and federal officials “have a unique opportunity to show how a plan based in state management of this species can allow for a quick recovery” and eventual de-listing of the bird.

Oklahoma’s attorney general filed a lawsuit this month over the Obama administration’s decision to settle a lawsuit with an environmental group over the listing status of the lesser prairie chicken and other species.

Attorney General Scott Pruitt claims in the lawsuit that federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups and using “sue and settle” tactics that encourage lawsuits that can be settled on terms favorable to the groups that filed them.

Ashe denied collusion with any group and said the agency hopes to avoid litigation over the listing decision.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said the Obama administration is threatening energy production and the property rights of farmers and ranchers. But he acknowledged that the federal government could have gone farther and listed the bird as endangered — with less flexibility in conservation measures.

“Nevertheless, an effective conservation effort must be strictly voluntary if private property is to be respected and our rural way of life to be protected,” Huelskamp said in a statement.

Sen. Jerry Moran, another Kansas Republican, said the federal agency’s decision will have “real consequences” for the economy but pledged to work with federal officials.

“I am confident there are ways to address conserving the species while not hampering economic growth and farming and ranching activities,” Moran said in a statement.

In New Mexico, leaders of the state agriculture and energy departments and the interim director of the Game and Fish Department voiced their opposition in a statement, saying the listing will “without question decimate economic development and job creation in southeastern New Mexico.”

The officials said they are considering all options for how to respond to what they call a “misguided decision.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/28/critics-cry-foul-as-feds-place-lesser-prairie-chicken-on-threatened-species/?intcmp=latestnews

No Comments

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall is here!

Siskiyou County, Veterans & soldiers

We are able to pay tribute to our Vietnam veterans this week as the American Veterans Traveling Tribute Vietnam Memorial Wall is now in Yreka at the Siskiyou Golden Fairgrounds March 27-30th.

It is free and open to the public 24 hours each day.

Schedule of events includes an opening ceremony on Thursday at 1 p.m.; formal ceremony on Saturday at 2 p.m.; and closing ceremony at 1 p.m. on Sunday. Friday from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. will be activities for participating schools.

Lunch and dinner will be available on Friday and Saturday.

Taps will be played at sunset each evening by local volunteers.

Pauline Cramer and I will be manning the gate from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday, so I hope to see you as you come in to attend the formal ceremony and reading of the names at 2 p.m. This is a special time to thank our Vietnam veterans. Please help us have a big showing of respect.

Locally, the event is sponsored by the Siskiyou County Veterans Leadership Council and many supporters, volunteers and donors.

For more info call Siskiyou Co. Veterans Service Officer Tim Grenvik at 530-842-8010530-842-8010 or Robert Ballesteros at 530-643-2851530-643-2851.

No Comments
« Older Posts