Comment

Comment by Louise on December 7, 2010 at 12:06am

I received this info from Wally Herger's office:

Putting the Endangered Species Act Back on the Right Track

Last week I joined several members of Congress in introducing H.R. 6486, legislation to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list. The federal government has thus far failed to do so administratively despite startling growth in the wolf population. While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is famously known for listing species deemed threatened or endangered, the law also very clearly requires species to be delisted once their recovery goals have been met. After being listed, wolves were reintroduced in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in 1995. The recovery targets for wolf populations were easily met in those three states by 2002, allowing for them to be removed from the endangered species list and ending the very costly property use restrictions that accompany any species listing. However, eight years of litigation from national environmental organizations have prevented the delisting and kept the gray wolf under federal control even as their population continued to rise. As a result, wolf populations have reached nearly seven times the recovery target and are causing major damage to domestic livestock and wildlife.
In addition to their vigorous opposition to returning wolf management to state wildlife agencies, national environmental groups are even going so far as to advocate for the introduction of wolves into Northern California, including in our Congressional District, and throughout the western and northeastern United States. The Center for Biological Diversity, one of the most litigious groups, included the below map depicting their “national recovery plan” for the gray wolf described in its recent newsletter. For these reasons, I strongly support my colleagues’ effort to hold the federal government accountable for its responsibility to delist the gray wolf and other recovered species under the ESA.

While the ESA was well-intentioned, it has been used for nearly 40 years to infringe upon private property rights and multiple-use of our federal lands, derail the construction and operation of critical and much-needed infrastructure, and even threaten public health and safety. This all-out effort to oppose the delisting of the gray wolf represents a perfect example of how the ESA is used not to recover species so much as it is used as a tool for groups to drive an agenda of locking-up federal lands and restricting the use and development of private property. Northern Californians are unfortunately all too familiar with the impacts of an inflexible ESA; for example, the decimation of our once vibrant timber industry caused by the infamous listing of the spotted owl, and the tragic loss of three lives resulting from a breach in the Arboga Levee in Yuba County after years-long delays in necessary improvements due to the presence of habitat for the protected Valley Longhorn Elderberry Beetle.

Comment by Danny A. Brown on November 18, 2010 at 11:58am

Government out of control. Your unelected Rulers.

Comment by Elizabeth on November 18, 2010 at 10:27am

Below is the website from Fred Kelly Grant that include his articles on Senate Bill 510.

http://waronruralamerica.com/

Comment by Louise on June 20, 2010 at 9:00am

I thought everyone in the Northern California Tea Party should be aware of what is happening to our Ranchers and Farmers in Scott Valley. Here is a letter written by one of Ranchers to the Governor:

Dear Office of the Governor,
My name is Nick Jenner. I am a 5th generation cattle rancher in Siskiyou County. I recently called your office voicing my concern over the problems that our local water right holders and diverters are having in regards to the Fish & Game and how it is enforcing the 1600 codes. Let me further add that this enforcement is being applied to our county alone; no where else in the state is the Fish & Game going after the water diverter.
Let me give you some brief history. My family, along with other water diverters, has been very pro-active in working cooperatively with Fish & Game over the last twenty years. We have put in fish screens on all diversions, have put in bank rock to help with erosion control and stabilization, and have always applied for 1600 agreements when streambed alteration was necessary. We have always tried to abide by the law.
However, now that CEQA and CESA are part of the equation, due to the listing of the Coho salmon, the cost of obtaining 1600 agreements has gone from $220 per diversion, up to an estimated $12,234 to $27,275 per diversion.
This dollar figure is taken directly out of the Fish and Game letter that I have attached and highlighted for you. On our ranch we have 11 diversions total. This overall expense could reach around $200,000 dollars. The explanation behind the increase is because now there is a required EIR on every diversion.
But wait, this cost does not even include the Fish & Game’s deposit that they are requiring of $1,500 to $2,500. Along with that cost is also a $2,792 EIR filing fee.
And on top of that is still the $224 to $4,482 1600 notification fee. This is outrageous! We are farmers, we do not get paid to take care of the fish! That is the Fish and Game’s job, and that is why they get paid my tax money to do so.
It must be understood, however, that these ditches have been in place for over 100 years; no new diversions or extractions and activity have been introduced. Therefore, the concern over NEW impacts is irrational and unreasonable. All activity has been consistent and has met all compliance regulations.
We are not asking for any new or altered activity on these diversions, so why should we be subjected to such unreasonable EIR expense and burden? From our perspective, we are being asked to pay for someone to file and refile and refile paperwork. The added expense does not make any sense and is extreme.
My family’s ranch simply cannot afford these expenses and many will be faced with the possibility of losing their ranches because of unreasonable costs and regulations. We are left with some grim choices:
1) Don’t apply for a permit and wait to get cited or get a ticket.
2) Choose not to use our adjudicated water right, which would lead to major decreases in production, land value, and family jobs.
3) Sell off our family ranch that has been here for more than 150 years. This would even open up precious farm and ranchland to other developments. As a side note, we protect a wide variety of wildlife and waterfowl on this ranch, just as we have done for 140 years.
At a local meeting earlier this year, a Mr. Mark Stouffer, who works for F&G, made the comment that “Nobody is above me but the Governor”.
So I felt that I must go directly to Sacramento to try and receive some help and explanation regarding the circumstances that we are going through. I am pleading my case along with that of many other farmers and ranchers: the expense to abide by the law is too much, unreasonable and unsustainable, and there must be an alternative given so that we continue to farm and ranch and raise the food that this country needs.
I hope that this letter is seen by the Governor, and that it is taken seriously and with compassion. I have two boys of my own that I hope may have the same opportunities that I have had, but I fear that they might not get that chance.
Thank you for hearing me, and I hope that you can reply with some helpful and encouraging news. The Fish and Game has threatened to use legal enforcement after the 1st of June, so time is of the essence.
Thank you,
Nick Jenner
Jenner Cattle Co., Inc.

Comment by Danny A. Brown on April 8, 2010 at 4:27pm

The Shasta Trinity National Forest Supervisor, Sharon Heywood has called the forest hers. We need to remind her that it belongs to all of us. Their Record of Decision is in violation of NEPA law. Under NEPA, they must coordinate any management plans with local and state agencies as well as include the general public in their planning. They have not. She needs to be replaced.