And
now they want more money to manage fish and farms
By Jacqui Krizo
Klamath Courier Reporter
February 8, 2006
"They misspent the $21
million dollars, they ruined the fisheries, and they blamed the Klamath
irrigators for lack of fish. And now the group wants to be reauthorized and
receive more funds,"
"It's time for the Task Force to be taken to task."
Another concerned coastal
fisherman, Scott Cook, of
"They did not follow the
law. They did not take care of people they entrusted to put fish in the
river," Cook said.
Chris Parilo from California
Congressman John Doolittle’s office advised, "Now is the time to write
your Congressmen and Senators about your thoughts and concerns regarding the
Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force."
Locally affected county
officials also have criticized the Task Force.
"Only $1,671,542 or 10
percent of the whole was actually spent on on-the-ground habitat restoration
projects," stated Siskiyou County District 5 Supervisor and Task Force
member Marcia Armstrong in a recent report. The Task Force has received
$16,182,197 of the $21million authorized by Congress.
Coos County Commissioner John
Griffith said irrigators and commercial fishermen are all producers. He said
The
Task Force’s studies and recommendations affect farmers, fishermen, loggers,
miners and Indians.
- Background on the
"For
100 years the California Department of Fish and Game managed the fish
populations on the Klamath in a proper and responsible way, but in the early
1980s they began getting their hands tied," said Cook. "With total
disregard for the well being of the people of this country, the green movement
looked solely after there own interests and began dictating policy on the
Klamath, through injunctions and litigation. By 1987, the CDFG could no longer
do their job."
The
Klamath Restoration Act of 1987 created a program to assist the Secretary of the
Interior restore fisheries by raising fish in hatcheries and rearing
ponds. It authorized $21 million to restore and maintain an optimum level of
fish, stocking rivers and improving habitat.
The
Act was to "provide fishery resources necessary for Indian subsistence and
ceremonial purposes, ocean commercial harvest, recreational fishing and the
economic health of many local communities." It established a management
council and task force.
Congress
and GAO express concerns regarding the Task Force
House
Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA), Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore),
and Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif) were among the Congressmen who requested an
investigation of the Klamath Restoration Program, Management Council, and Task
Force by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO report concluded,
"Fish and Wildlife officials are not able to demonstrate that the
Restoration Program is in compliance with the Act’s nonfederal match
provision." It also states FWS accounting records do not provide the
detailed information needed to assure restrictions are being complied with.
Do
you want Congress to reauthorize the Klamath Fisheries Task Force? Here are
points Moore and Cook consider important to make in letters to representatives.
They identify some of the tasks and accomplishments of the Task Force:
2. The Act was intended to put fish in
4. Raising fish in hatcheries as
required by the Klamath Restoration Act would provide enough fish for Indians,
commercial and sports fishermen, and not force Klamath irrigators to forgo water
to create artificially elevated flows in the
5. At a Task Force meeting, the TWG, Technical Working Group, presented their report stating that mining, dams, timber harvest, roads and agriculture have decimated the fishing runs. Rather than spending funds to put fish in the river, they downsized hatchery propagation and created reports blaming miners, dams, loggers, backroads and agriculture for the lack of wild fish. Their management policies have negatively effected the timber industry, mining, agriculture and fisheries.
6. At the October 2005 Task Force, Chairman John Engbring from the Department of the Interior, chairman of the Task Force, told the Task Force that they have no recovery plan now. He told Petey Brucker of TWG and Klamath Forest Alliance to draw a correlation between restoration projects and salmon numbers to try to justify more funding from Congress. Brucker thought that would be hard to do. Engbring also said rather than presenting the Congressional delegation with a detailed packet of spending and projects, they should show them a few "polished papers." The Task Force discussed hiring a layout person to help make an impressive pamphlet.
7. Ron Reed from the Karuk tribe
accepted the individual award from Engbring for Earl Crosby who was not in
attendance.
9. Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen has a seat on the Task Force. Scott and Moore said PCFFA does not
represent
"Write
your representatives this February with direction whether to recommission the
" Feel free to get
farm, city and fishing organizations to send recommendations to their
representatives, as well."
Farming
and fishing communities are both affected by the studies and recommendations of
the Task Force. Your elected officials and representatives need to get input on
whether the Management Council and Task Force should be re-funded for 20 more
years. Following are some addresses for some of the representatives:
Congressman John Doolittle, R
Congressman Greg Walden, R
House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA), 2411 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, Ph: (202) 225-1947, Fax: (202) 226-0861 Email: rpombo@mail.house.gov
Congressman
Peter DeFazio D-Ore., 2134 Rayburn H.O.B., Washington DC, 20515, Phone: (202)
225-6416, E-mail: http://defazio.house.gov/emailme.shtml
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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