|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade 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.
Criss hit the nail on the
head
At that same meeting that Criss referred to on Nov. 1, 2011, Curtis Milliron (DFG), after hearing about 75 minutes of negative feedback from the supervisors and the public about the new in-stream flow studies planned for the Scott and Shasta rivers, said, “I don’t care. We’re going ahead with it.”
That shows just how much DFG values input from local government and the public.
Just a week later, the new head of DFG, Charlton H. Bonham (formerly of CalTrout) explained their “approach” for our watersheds (SDN, Nov. 8). In his guest opinion piece, he said that “it is possible to find common ground” among those involved. It is my opinion that they (DFG) are not interested in finding common ground at all. Over the years, there have been many good ideas for improving water flow and temperature proposed to the DFG. They have NEVER acted on any of them!
Later in his column, Bonham talks about community outreach, open house meetings, facilitated working groups, etc. I attended one of those “meetings” last year. DFG manipulated the meeting and avoided public discussion, while “listening” to the interested parties, fulfilling their legal obligation.
The Department of Fish and Game is a rogue government agency that has its own agenda. As the situation exists today, they don’t have enough water so they will use their new “study” to try and get more ... from diverters.
Siskiyou Daily News
Letter to the Editor
January 27, 2012
Callahan, Calif. — In his
letter to the editor (SDN, Jan. 16),
Brandon Criss hit the nail on the head.
The California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) has an agenda and their new
study is predetermined and just another
tool they hope to use to get them what
they want: more water, more control and
more power.
At that same meeting that Criss referred to on Nov. 1, 2011, Curtis Milliron (DFG), after hearing about 75 minutes of negative feedback from the supervisors and the public about the new in-stream flow studies planned for the Scott and Shasta rivers, said, “I don’t care. We’re going ahead with it.”
That shows just how much DFG values input from local government and the public.
Just a week later, the new head of DFG, Charlton H. Bonham (formerly of CalTrout) explained their “approach” for our watersheds (SDN, Nov. 8). In his guest opinion piece, he said that “it is possible to find common ground” among those involved. It is my opinion that they (DFG) are not interested in finding common ground at all. Over the years, there have been many good ideas for improving water flow and temperature proposed to the DFG. They have NEVER acted on any of them!
Later in his column, Bonham talks about community outreach, open house meetings, facilitated working groups, etc. I attended one of those “meetings” last year. DFG manipulated the meeting and avoided public discussion, while “listening” to the interested parties, fulfilling their legal obligation.
The Department of Fish and Game is a rogue government agency that has its own agenda. As the situation exists today, they don’t have enough water so they will use their new “study” to try and get more ... from diverters.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
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