NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1908 guests online.
|
Add new comment'Fish protection' debunked as motive for bankrupting Oregon farmersSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 2002-02-10 08:23.
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 7, 2002 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Fish protection' debunked as motive for bankrupting Oregon farmers It comes too late to save the farms and livelihoods of hundreds of southern Oregon farmers left high and dry last summer, but the National Academy of Sciences released a report Feb. 5 bearing out what those farmers have been saying all along -- the federal government did not have sufficient scientific evidence to cut off irrigation water to the farms below Oregon's Klamath Lake Dam. Two hundred thousand acres of the Klamath Valley in southwest Oregon went without irrigation water last summer, with 1,500 affected farm families suffering losses that may total $250 million, dwarfing a $20 million emergency federal aid package. But the problem wasn't drought -- there's still plenty of water behind the dam which the federal government built in 1909, thereafter holding "land lotteries" for veterans of both the First and Second World Wars, encouraging the winners to settle the valley and set up farms by signing contracts which promised irrigation water would always be provided. Rather, the farmers were effectively put out of business -- 90 percent of farms in the area being left entirely without water and thus condemned to total crop loss -- when the Bureau of Reclamation broke the irrigation contract, supposedly to save two species of "threatened" sucker fish living in the lakes above the dams and to avoid harming the Coho salmon in the river below. The farmers have contended all along that populations of suckers (previously regarded as a "nuisance" or "trash" species) above the dams have actually been not diminishing but skyrocketing -- from 5,000 in the lake when the species were listed as endangered more than a decade ago, to at least 100,000 today. And the NAS review due out today now agrees there was not sufficient scientific evidence to justify the actions of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in withholding the water previously promised to the farmers. The decision was made without even checking to see whether populations of suckers above the dam have risen, fallen, or stayed the same (a study which would take years), reports Peter Moyle, a professor of fish biology at the University of California, Davis (and one of the study's authors.) As for the Klamath River coho salmon, the data available doesn't prove increased summer water flows would benefit the fish, Moyle said this week. In fact, he pointed out that water used to increase flows would come from reservoirs where the water is too warm for the fragile coho, anyway. The Klamath Valley abomination has never been about saving fish -- it's been about the antigrowth agenda of radical environmental groups like the Oregon Natural Resources Council, whose spokesmen hate the region's very lushness because it's artificial. Such groups forthrightly state their goal is to force farmers off the land. In this case, the Oregon "greens" drafted a plan which calls for the federal government to buy much of the basin's farmland, turning a lush and verdant valley which feeds hundreds of thousands of Americans back into as a "desert preserve." "Rural Cleansing," the local farmers call it. And it's working. Businesses were already closing -- and school populations falling by as much as 30 percent -- in towns like Klamath Falls, population 17,000, and Tulelake, Calif., population 1,000, as early as last June. What an interesting new religion, this doctrine that man's proper role in the world is to be less fruitful, do less multiplying, and to turn the gardens of the earth into deserts. What ever shall we call it?
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. For information on his monthly newsletter and on his next book, "The Ballad of Carl Drega," dial 775-348-8591.
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken add new comment | quote | 1132 reads
Reply |
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
1 day 18 hours ago
3 days 39 min ago
3 days 1 hour ago
1 week 3 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago