Become a friend of

   the Klamath Bucket  

            Brigade

   Send Donations Here

     All donations are tax  

             deductible

 

 

 This Website is Dedicated to

 Alvin Alexander Cheyne

January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005

 

GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.

 

 

 

 

      

 

Suit seeks to block state plan for water use on north state rivers
October 23, 2009
Redding Record Searchlight

Commercial fishing groups and environmentalists teamed up to file a lawsuit Thursday challenging a state plan to balance fish and farming along two Northern California rivers.

Represented by Earthjustice, an Oakland-based environmental law firm, Klamath Riverkeeper is leading the lawsuit against the California Department of Fish and Game. In the suit, the Orleans-based nonprofit watchdog group says the DFG's watershed-wide incidental take permits would allow farmers and ranchers to take more water from the already depleted Scott and Shasta rivers.

"These proposed permits are essentially license to kill salmon," said Erica Terence, spokeswoman for Klamath Riverkeeper. "With conditions deteriorating for fish every year on the Scott and Shasta, DFG should be proposing programs that expand protections for fish, not destroy them."

The agency proposes shifting from individual permits for farmers and ranchers to a waiver for agriculture work in both valleys.

Jordan Traverso, DFG spokeswoman in Sacramento, said the agency hadn't yet been served with the suit.

"So no response until we see the suit," she said.

Joining Klamath Riverkeeper in the lawsuit are the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, Environmental Protection Information Center, Sierra Club, Northcoast Environmental Center and Institute for Fisheries Resources.

Reporter Dylan Darling can be reached at 225-8266 or at ddarling@redding.com.

Readers Comments:

 

October 23, 2009
8:43 a.m

 

jerryh writes:
Before one cent is spent on improving salmon fish habitat, gill netting should be outlawed and enforced on the North American Continent. The fish going up to spawn have been and will be slaughtered. Many are sold and some rot in the nets. The reservations claim that they are not part of the United States and they have no intention of cooperating. Every stakeholder would benefit by stopping all gill netting.

 

October 23, 2009
9:16 a.m.
Powderfinger writes:

in response to jerryh:

Before one cent is spent on improving salmon fish habitat, gill netting should be outlawed and enforced on the North American Continent. The fish going up to spawn have been and will be slaughtered. Many are sold and some rot in the nets. The reservations claim that they are not part of the United States and they have no intention of cooperating. Every stakeholder would benefit by stopping all gill netting.

Native Americans have rights to gill nets. That cannot be banned. Other fishermen should not be allowed to net. I know a lot of people like to blame native americans for the fish plight but from where I live on the Trinity River we see it differently. If it wasn't for the Native Americans controlling the flow and water rights the Trinity would be in the same terrible shape as the Klamath and others.
Bill Clinton enacted the Trinity River Restoration Act before he left office that was backed by the native americans. That literally saved the Trinity. The fish population is starting to come back and the health of the river has made a huge turn around. We should be able to do this to the Klamath. The Trinity River still has way too much water diverted down south. That should stop. But we are making progress here.

 

October 23, 2009
9:23 a.m.
BkPkers2 writes:
It would be both interesting and enlightening to see just exactly how many Native Americans participate in gill netting for the purpose of feeding their families - I think overall you would probably find very few actually do so.

I have absolutely no issue with Native peoples being allowed to fish as they have for centuries, if they plan to do so only to feed themselves or family - but there really seems to be little analysis available to support that theory. The act of gill netting just "because the government says they are permitted to do so" seems counter productive to all concerned.

If Native Americans really believe they are stewards of the land - then gill netting month after month when salmon runs are diminishing seems to side against that premise - however, in all fairness, so does allowing commercial fishing anywhere near the mouth of a spawning river or tributary.

 

October 23, 2009

1:22 p.m
CHESTERFIELD53 writes:
Well said BkPkers2!!
October 23, 2009
2:25 p.mku writes:

in response to BkPkers2:

It would be both interesting and enlightening to see just exactly how many Native Americans participate in gill netting for the purpose of feeding their families - I think overall you would probably find very few actually do so.

I have absolutely no issue with Native peoples being allowed to fish as they have for centuries, if they plan to do so only to feed themselves or family - but there really seems to be little analysis available to support that theory. The act of gill netting just "because the government says they are permitted to do so" seems counter productive to all concerned.

If Native Americans really believe they are stewards of the land - then gill netting month after month when salmon runs are diminishing seems to side against that premise - however, in all fairness, so does allowing commercial fishing anywhere near the mouth of a spawning river or tributary.

Do you think the amount of fish the Native Americans manage to harvest would really have anywhere near the impact that commercial fishing has? Commercial fishing involves tons upon tons of fish and other sea life and provides an entire industry with a viable living. In native waters or on a reservation, it may provide a few Native peoples with a living but no where near the level that it provides for commercial use. So please do not cast blame upon native peoples. You are comparing melons to berries.

Carcasses are left in the river to decompose, wash downstream, for other aquatic animals to feed upon, as nourishment for other life. It is a necessary though unpleasant part of life. It has been a natural part of life for millions of years. If we clean it up too much and accidentally sterilize it, what will live there?

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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