Comment

Comment by K Graves on June 12, 2012 at 10:14am

If they didn’t want more code enforcement, higher fines, shorter “cure” times, etc…they sure voted in the wrong people.

Cooperation means nothing and gets you nothing.  The Supervisors should have demanded “Coordination”.   The old Sups don’t get this basic concept and the new Sups won’t get it to the tenth power.  People had better start showing up to the BOS meeting and Planning Dept. meetings on a regular basis, or we are going to be kissed without a handshake.

Comment by Shelly Hottell on June 12, 2012 at 8:24am

Code enforcement depredation
From Paul Wills Hyampom
Code enforcement is no more than a H*** sapien depredation permit. It was intended to protect our environment and our citizens from harm, yet we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is shameful to think what was going to be such a good solution to all this pot growing abuse would be cured by snitches, snoops, Gestapo tactics and big fines. Bigger fines are not the answer and shame on people who think so.

The aggressive approach taken by Weaverville authorities is obviously flawed and counterproductive to what it was intended to do.

There is a reason we live in Trinity County and a reason we live in Hyampom; at least my neighbor reminds me of that fact when the phones don't work for a week straight. Here we live and let live. We try to help our neighbors and friends in whatever capacity we are able to. We don't snitch on each other or tattle. Many of these traits we learned in kindergarten but, possibly forgot some of them due to old-timers disease or some other affliction.

From a distance I can see what this code enforcement business is doing. First it generates dollars and a parasite type of job, feeding off others’ troubles. I'm sure it must be doing some good somewhere as the county officials put all this in place for our own good and told us how wonderful it will be.

On the other hand it is causing stress, financial duress and hardship, suspicion and distrust of county officials and county government. Even the county employee working on road signs in this area is looked at with great suspicion; we wonder if he is a subsidized predator or does he belong to a sleeper cell.

All of this mistrust and distrust is giving great support to Fred May and his billboard policy. Many people here are voting for Fred May’s policy, even though it is so much at once, simply to send a message that they are dissatisfied with many things happening from the people with direct deposit paychecks in county government in the Weaver Village.

Bullying and citizen abuse from local government, or anyone, is something we don't need. Where are the humanitarians in our county government?

Comment by Shelly Hottell on June 12, 2012 at 8:08am

Counties request cooperating status on owl deliberations

http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/environment/article_e6ebc26e-aa1...

Comment by Diane Richards on November 25, 2011 at 7:10am

BY BILL KARR/WON STAFF WRITERPublished: Nov 22, 2011

Editorial Sportsmen and women of California are frustrated with politicians playing fast and loose with the wildlife of California , and the fish and game of the state are losing out, big time. Sportsmen and women are also losing out, because without healthy fish and game populations, there is no fishing or hunting.   And the entire population of California is losing it's fish and wildlife because they're being played by politics, advertising, and now, even the Department of Fish and Game.   Sportsmen and women have always been the biggest advocates of wildlife conservation, and spent the most money on advancing sound wildlife management principles. Nobody else pitches in: not the "green" organizations, not "environmental" organizations, very little from the state's general fund, and NOTHING from the Humane Society of the United States, other than reward money for poachers. And they're going to get caught anyway, if wardens are hired again to do their job.   Now, the DFG is beginning to say that "other" users have to have an equal say in the Department of Fish and Game. Who are these "others"? Who else pays nearly $25 to hunt for one day on a wildlife refuge? Who else spends hundreds of dollars to buy a hunting license, deer tags, duck stamps, fishing licenses, stamps and tags for the opportunity to get outdoors to fish and hunt? Who else supports the DFG in a thousand ways?   Do bird watchers pay to use our wildlife refuges? Hell no. Does the Audubon Society pay to help run our Department of Fish and Game, which is responsible for all of California 's wildife? No! It's only us, the fishermen and hunters of California who are the primary partners of the DFG.   Hunters and fishermen are the lifeblood of the California Department of Fish and Game, and if those at the head of the department don't realize that, they need to be shown the door. Management of the fish and wildlife of California is not about "feel good" politics, it's about science and wildlife management procedures that are tested and proven. Anything else, and we end up with California 's resources suffering.   At this juncture, if you, the reader haven't written to Governor Brown, your legislators and DFG Director Bonham about removing HSUS from every aspect of the DFG, sending them their money back, and getting Jennifer Fearing off of CalTip, please do so ASAP. Also, we are calling on private and public hunting and fishing clubs, and organizations like NRA, CWA, NWTF, SCI, CDA and anyone else to get letters off immediately.   We need to get this rectified once and for all, or the Department of Fish and Game will get farther and farther away from what they are supposed to be doing, and farther away from their main constituency base: Sportsmen and women. And we all lose.

Comment by Diane Richards on November 24, 2011 at 2:13pm

Article by Mimi Steel published in CA Political Newshttp://capoliticalnews.com/2011/11/22/mimi-steel-destruction-of-dams-along-the-klamath/It’s Not About the Dam(n)s
Destruction of DAMS along the Klamath
Submitted by Mimi Steel, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  11/22/11The phrase “Tear Down This Wall” from the lips of Ronald Reagan promoted hope to an enslaved people behind the old Iron Curtain that was the former Soviet Union.  Today the phrase “Tear Down This Wall” is coming from the lips of government bureaucrats intent on denying property rights to current and future generations in Siskiyou County, CA.November 21 marks the deadline for public comments on the Federal  and State Governments’ proposed destruction of 4  dams along the Klamath.  Most reasonable people would be asking the question “Why is this even an issue? “  Along the Klamath there are 4 perfectly good dams providing clean, affordable hydro-electrical power to 70,000 homes and irrigation to thousands of acres of rich farm and ranch land.  Why destroy them?The dam destruction would release tons of sediment  and make the Klamath less reliable for irrigation. The river will be a mere stream in the summer, a flood threat in the spring.  Why destroy them?Would  taking out dams improve water quality?  No.  The  Klamath is naturally warm and polluted up stream and  the area of headwaters is volcanic and rich in minerals, including basalt, magnesium and phosphorus.  The dams currently  filter out the minerals and allow the water to cool making it useful  for irrigation and watering live stock.Could the release of toxic sediment into the river ecosystem, caused by the breaching of the dams, be mitigated? No.    Years of built up, toxic sediment will be released,  polluting water, banks, riparian plant life, fish and underground aquifers.  The toxicity of river and aquifers may last 100 years or more.Can the energy currently provided by the four, hydroelectric dams be replaced with another form of “green” energy like windmills or solar panels?  No.  Solyndra is bankrupt and most green energy projects have been abysmal failures.  As the sun sets and the wind dies down there is no source consistently producing the energy required 24/7.Should dams be removed to protect the Coho salmon?  No.  The Coho salmon is a non-native species to the Klamath River.  They were  planted in the river in the late 1800′s.  They are not natural to the Klamath .  Coho typically spawn within 30 miles of the ocean;  first dam on the Klamath is 187 miles upstream.Actually none of the above makes sense until you look at the stakeholders who were chosen to participate and those that we left out of the process.  The participating stakeholders included the Karuk tribe. In years past the actions of the Tribe  along with environmentalist are responsible for the five local timber mills shutting down.  They stand to reap a multi-million dollar bonanza from the government (estimated at $90 million) if the dams are destroyed.  They will have the ability to reclaim thousands of acres  as ranchers and farmers have to abandon their property which is not productive without the dams.The people who were excluded from the Klamath River Dam removal  meetings  were  the 40,000 Siskiyou County residents and their local, elected representatives.    The four tribes that live in the Klamath Basin – the Shasta, Karuk, Yurok, and Hupa- were also excluded.  The Shasta have been left out of all agreements and their sacred burial grounds will be destroyed when the dams are breached .
So now the light dawns.  The removal of the dams is not about dams at all.  It is about the government forcing people off their land, especially in the rural areas, and in to the arms of an all controlling government.  President Obama’s recent signing of Executive Order  13575, established the White House Rural Council.  The council is a list of the most aggressive agencies and departments in the US government bent on destroying private property rights and reducing us and future generations to economic serfdom, taking productive land out of the hands of private citizens.The proponents of Sustainable Development and Smart Growth, which is the underlying policy rationale behind such actions, are using nice sounding language to destroy the very fabric of our free society which rests on private property rights.   It’s time to wake up and stop this assault on our freedoms or, as Ronald Reagan said, we will be telling our children and grand children “what life was once like in America when men were free.”  What a shame that “tear down this wall” now has a negative connotation.

Comment by Diane Richards on November 13, 2011 at 8:59am

TSA Turns to Nation's Highways

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was formed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It has grown into a bloated, ineffective federal agency that will command a budget of $8.1 billion for 2012.

On second thought, forget "grown into." It has been ineffective since Day 1.

We have the TSA to thank for knee-jerk, reactionary policies that resulted in airport security measures such as shoe removals, confiscation of liquids/gels/aerosols in containers larger than 3.4 ounces, and full body scans.

Security expert Bruce Schneier goes so far as to say, "Exactly two things have made airplane travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and convincing passengers they need to fight back. Everything else has been a waste of money. Add screening of checked bags and airport workers and we’re done."

Now the TSA is bringing its wasteful and intrusive ways to our nation’s highways.

The TSA joined with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security last month to conduct an operation that randomly searched truck cargoes and subjected bus passengers to detailed individual security checks under the premise that terrorism is more likely to be found on interstates than on airplanes.

The joint operation was given the indecipherable name "Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response", presumably because it results in the awesome-sounding acronym, VIPR.

The VIPR security operations were staged simultaneously at five Tennessee roadside weigh stations and at two bus depots in Knoxville and Nashville.

Tennessee officials have been quick to point out that VIPR is not in response to any particular terrorist threat. The drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs deployed at the weigh stations, they say, are terrorism countermeasures and not violations of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

NMA Tennessee State Activist Tona Monroe begged to differ. She sent messages to state politicians and to the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security demanding an immediate stoppage of VIPR activities.

In response, a representative from the Department of Safety noted that "the purpose of the VIPR operation was to detect and deter criminal activity on Tennessee’s roadways and educate professional truck drivers to look for and report suspicious activity . . . While Tennessee is the first state to conduct a VIPR operation on this large of a scale (simultaneously at seven locations), Tennessee is not the first state to ever conduct a joint federal-state VIPR operation."

Nor will it be the last. The United States has 55.6 million miles of paved roads and the TSA has bank vaults full of taxpayer cash to spend.

One can only imagine the schemes that will be dreamed up to cast a wide and warrantless net over our nation’s drivers and travelers. ♦

Comment by Diane Richards on November 13, 2011 at 8:54am

WHY DOES VENTURA CALIF HAVE A NEED FOR AN ARMORED VEHILCE WITH GUN TURRETS? THIS MOSTLY FARMING COMMUNITY IS JUST NORTH OF MALIBU http://uswgo.com/ventura-ca-police-using-armored-vehicles-in-the-st...

Comment by Diane Richards on November 8, 2011 at 10:04pm

"But the new rule would allow officials to not only conceal the information, but also to blatantly lie about it. In other words, when the federal government wants to keep certain dirty little secrets under wraps, even "secrets" not protected by the exemption, it will simply be able to tell those requesting such information that it does not exist."

Click here: FOIA | Department of Justice | Transparency | The Daily...

Log In | Register

• HOME
• POLITICS
• US
• ENTERTAINMENT
• WORLD
• SPORTS
• BUSINESS
• TECH
• VIDEO
• OPINION
• BLOGS
• JOBS
• SEND TIPS

November 7, 2011

Justice Dept. proposes lying, hiding existence of records under new...

Published: 11:50 PM 10/24/2011 | Updated: 1:19 PM 10/25/2011

By C.J. Ciaramella

Archive | Email C.J. Ciaramella

A classified folder rests President Barack Obama's desk during a morning meeting in the Oval Office, June 8, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way or used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.Ê

A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.

The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.

The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who’ve called it “Orwellian” and say it will “twist” public access to government.

The draft FOIA revisions were first published in March, but the Justice Department re-opened comment submissions in September after several open-government groups raised objections. A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is committed to public input and transparency, which is why it re-opened public comments on the rule — an unusual step in the process.

In a public comment regarding the rule change, the ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and OpenTheGovernment.org, said the move “will dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people.”

Anne Weismann, the chief counsel of CREW, said the Justice Department has a legitimate purpose behind the rules: to protect sensitive information about ongoing investigations. However, she said lying about the records “is an overbroad and improper response.”

“The problem is, if you’re a FOIA requester and the agency says they don’t have the records, you have no reason to doubt that,” Weismann said. “But if they cite an exemption, you have the option to sue.”

Those groups have suggested an alternate federal response that would not require any revisions to the rules. “We interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.”

Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch has also lambasted the proposed rules change.(RELATED: Obama admin. pulls references to Islam from terror traini...

The news is “not surprising, coming from the Obama administration,” said Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch.

“The Obama administration is already doing it right now by actively misleading the public concerning White House visitor logs,” Farrell said. “Every day, the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House — all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It’s truly Orwellian. The proposed rule change should be rejected.”

However, the Justice Department says it has long had this standing authority. A 1987 memo from then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III advises the Justice Department that it has the legal authority to deny existence of records, using the same language as the new rule.

“Where an exclusion is employed, the agency is legally empowered to ‘treat’ the excluded records as not subject to the FOIA at all,” Meese wrote. “Accordingly, a requester can properly be advised in such a situation that “there exist no records responsive to your FOIA request.” Such phrasing — as opposed to any more detailed statement that, for example, any records specified in a particular request ‘could not be located’ — most rationally and fairly implements an exclusion’s effect.”

If the new rule were to go into effect, there is a good chance it might be challenged in court. Courts have traditionally given the Justice Department fairly broad powers regarding records disclosure, but recent precedent may give the DOJ trouble.

In a case involving the FBI and records disclosure, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the “Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court.”

Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue a denial saying it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records. Such a denial is known as a “Glomar response” — named after the legal battle between the Los Angeles Times and the CIA in the 1970s over records concerning the CIA’s attempts to salvage a sunken Soviet submarine.

Upon taking office, President Obama released a memorandum declaring his administration was “committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness. Specifically, he pledged to bolster the strength of the FOIA act, calling it “the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.”

 

Comment by Diane Richards on November 3, 2011 at 7:11pm

PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT BUYS A HUNTING OR FISHING LICENSE!!!!!! WHATS NEXT, LAW ENFORCEMENT TAKING FUNDING FROM THE DRUG CARTEL??? MIGHT AS WELL. HMMMM...MAKES YOU WONDER WHERE ALL THAT MONEY TO FILM 'WILD JUSTICE' COMES FROM...??????? Stop it! Humane Society infiltrates CA DFG 10/29/11 -- [Editor's note: The following article published on 10/21/11 by Western Outdoor News is reprinted with permission of the author, Western Outdoor News and www.wonews.com. We urge all our readers to join with WON to let the DFG's Director Charlton H. Bonham director@dfg.ca.gov and the Chief Law Enforcement Officer Nancy Foley know how you feel about this alliance between the DFG and the anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States. You can also let these officers know how you feel by calling or sending emails to any of the following DFG Public Information Officers: Kirsten McIntyre (916) 322-8988 kmacintyre@dfg.ca.gov; Patrick Foy, DFG Law Enforcement, (916) 651-2084 pfoy@dfg.ca.gov or to Andrew Hughan, DFG Communications, (916) 322-8944 ahughan@dfg.ca.gov. We tip our hat to Bill Karr for exposing this outrageously absurd alliance!] By Bill Karr, Western Outdoor News In a plot as insidious as anything you've ever seen, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has gone into partnership with the largest anti-hunting group in the nation, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The DFG has been infiltrated by HSUS, which is dedicated to outlawing hunting of all types, and is even now focusing on outlawing the raising and hunting of game birds, using dogs for hunting, and even having farm animals and household pets. They are now helping to fund the DFG, are being trained at the DFG warden training school, and are even teaching classes to DFG wardens. Placerville -- It began simply enough with a $5,000 donation to the DFG Game Wardens to help with feeding their canine program about two years ago. That in itself was enough to raise the ire of California sportsmen and women and outdoor groups. But that was also enough for HSUS to buy their way into the DFG's graces, and head law enforcement officer of the DFG, Nancy Foley, has now gone far beyond that in her association with HSUS. HSUS "Law Enforcement Officers" are now being trained in the California DFG Training Center in Paradise, Calif., and working under the auspices and authority of the California DFG. They are now, believe it or not, actually instructors training line officer DFG wardens! If that's not enough, Jennifer Fearing, the California senior state director of HSUS, was elected to the CalTIP Foundation Board of Directors at their last meeting on Oct. 6, 2011. The HSUS already has a Secret Witness Program for poaching with a standard reward of $2,500. Is the DFG pleased? Apparently so: "This is the kind of support that we have needed for 30 years. Please be happy for the Wildlife Resource and the CalTIP Foundation…I am," said Charlie Moss, chair of the CalTIP Foundation. Imagine the "Got Meat" commercials hiring a vegan for their spokesman; or the fur industry asking for the endorsement of PETA. That's exactly the same thing as DFG accepting the nation's largest anti-hunting organization, HSUS, as a partner. What is HSUS, exactly? First and foremost, they are not an animal "welfare" group, which is concerned about the health and well-being of animals. They are an extreme animal "rights" group, which believes that animals have equal rights to human beings. HSUS spends millions of dollars annually to economically cripple meat and dairy producers, eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs, phase out pet breeding, and eliminate zoos and circus animal acts. They are against anyone having pets, even fish in aquariums. They demonize hunters as crazed lunatics, and are against any hunting in any form, despite its acceptance by the vast majority of people in the United States, as long as it's done legally and with a sound scientific and biological base. According to HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts, and we're phasing out animals used in research. If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." Pacelle carefully uses the word "sport" in all his diatribes, intending to convince people that hunters are only out for "sport," and that it has nothing to do with enjoyment, to help curb animal populations, and for the ultimate goal of putting meat on the table. According to ACTIVISTCASH.com, the budget for HSUS in 2008 was $97 million. Of that, $27.5 million was spent on fundraising, $28.0 million on campaigns, litigation and investigation, and $38 million on salaries. The remainder of their budget that year, about $5 million, was spent on travel. Zero dollars were spent on anything pertaining to the health and welfare of animals. In fact, their budget would be enough to fund every single animal shelter in the United States, and yet they don't own or operate a single one! This is the organization that the DFG has teamed up with, and Foley thinks it's just fine. In her own words, Foley said, "We are again very grateful to the Humane Society of the United States for their support of the wardens' efforts to combat the increase in poaching. We look forward to continued collaboration on this issue." And now, HSUS has actual law enforcement officers here in California, trained at the DFG Training Center at Butte College in Paradise, and some of those officers are actual instructors, teaching DFG wardens! How can someone who is hired by an animal-rights group, and believes animals have the same rights as humans, be teaching a Fish and Game enforcement officer? According to one attendee in one of the classes, the instructor showed a photo of hounds chasing a wild boar and said it was "animal cruelty"—until some in the class reminded the instructor that it was legal. What the HSUS has done here is buy the DFG and its support for a few thousand dollars. The DFG recently issued a news release that was headed, "Department of Fish and Game and the Humane Society offer Reward for Mountain Lion Poachers." That in itself is very troubling, that the DFG is lending its name and credibility to an animal-rights, anti-hunting group. What's worse is that HSUS is given a form of credibility by that, when they are not at all a credible organization, at least not in the eyes of sportsmen and women. Sportsmen should be afraid that there are actually HSUS law enforcement officers now in California, acting as "special investigators" under penal code section 830, and apparently under the auspices of the DFG. The DFG is a state agency responsible for the fish and wildlife of California and is funded in great part by the sale of fishing and hunting licenses to sportsmen and women in California. They, and all Californians who believe that fish and wildlife should be managed by sound scientific and biological principles, should be infuriated that such an element as HSUS, which does not believe in such principles, should be associated with a state agency such as the DFG. The partnership should end, and it should end now

 

 

Comment by K Graves on October 31, 2011 at 12:55pm

Hey,

Did you know that you can receive the Agendas from the Supervisors office, by e-mail? If you want to sign up, contact Wendy Tyler at wtyler@trinitycounty.org .

She does post your name in the To: box. So heads up, if you have a problem with that.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page