View Full Version : My 2 cents on Klamath
07-19-2001, 02:17 AM
As a hunter and fisherman I hate to see one side against the other. ###But it seems to be the way it's going up there. ###And then you've got the farmers. ###I've never hunted up there, but I can see the importance of haveing water for habitat. ###But if you just hear the farmers and the hunters you'd think it was all about a sucker fish. ###But the way I see it there's salmon and steelhead in the picture as well and I don't want to see them go down in #'s anymore. ###Duck # as of last year were high 100 mill +. ###Salmon and steelhead were down just about everywhere. ###The weather sucked for both.
### ###Now add the farmer a new comer to Klamath as far as fish and ducks go. ###They think think they need water more than fish or ducks. ###They say they got rights to the water since the early 1900's. ###Duck and fish have been there for eons, framers a few decades. ###The place is a desert, try to farm a desert ###what's going to happin. ###Your going to end up short on water sooner or later. ###So when it happins, like now, they blame fish for thier problems. ###Or a law to help protect fish and wildlife from going exstinked. ###Hey farmer look in the miror your the one trying to farm in a desert. ###I for one am tired of subsdizeing you. Espeacialy at the expance of fish and wildlife. ###If you can't make it , then sell and get another kind of job. ###Nobody subsdizes me if come up short.
### I say fish and wildlife first than if some water's left let the farmers have it. ###So they they can grow thier crops, to plow under later. ###
### ###Bet that pisses a few of you off. ###And excuse the spelling
07-19-2001, 05:34 AM
I have to agree with you completely grizz. The farmers changed the environment in order to raise their crops. Now however, the changes are damaging the environment. So it is time to undo the changes.
I am against subsidies for farmers. If farmers need subsidies and price controls in order to make a profit then their are too many farmers. Like you, nobody comes along and bails me out if there is a glut of engineers in my field. I just have to work harder and better or find a new job.
It's bigger than that.
When America went west they refused to believe that it was truly a desert. It's called denial on a national scale. First they tried to dry farm the high plains, the Dakotas, Montana, Eastern Colorado, Western Nebraska, Oklahoma, Western Kansas. These are the dust bowl states. If somebody hadn't discovered the aquafier underlying these areas they would still be dust bowls today. The aquafier is running out, people are moving out in droves, the dust bowl will return.
Eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, the San Joaquin Valley, the Modoc plateau, the Imperial valley and the Klamath basin are even more of a desert than the high plains. Yes you can dam the mightiest rivers in the world and trickle the water through those dry desert lands, but at what cost?
The salmon are dying throughout the Columbia river basin, the soil is salting up in the San Joaquin Valley, the Colorado river delta is dead, the salts and dissolved metals pollute the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta.
Then there's the finances. With our taxes, the dams and canals were built. With our taxes, crop prices are subsidized. With our taxes, water is provided at far less than it's true cost. With our taxes, farmers are paid not to plant crops. With our taxes, idled cropland will be bought by the government when the whole thing falls apart.
The farmers have been snookered by the government and unwillingness of the american people to acknowledge a desert for what it is.
So what will we do? Well we have a choice:
1.Own up to the fact that a desert is a desert and act accordingly by planting desert friendly crops.
2. Continue on in our corporate denial and just "try harder" by building bigger dams, longer canals and deeper wells.
Based on my 40 years of observing people in action, I'm betting that we'll take option 2 and beat our heads against the wall until they bleed. ###
07-19-2001, 09:24 AM
Boys, boys, boys. ###The farmer is not the villain here. ###The farmer taking water wouldn't effect the sucker adversely nearly as much as the lake not being there (pre-Klamath Project) during a drought. ###The Salmon that is endangered is dependent on flows many miles downstream from the Basin. ###Everyone claims the low water and the high temp of the water are affecting the salmon. ###Does anyone think that in a drought year, pre-Klamath Project, there would be a lot of water in the system this time of year. ###Or that the water coming down would be cooler than it is now. ###Didn't think so. ###The increased flows needed for the salmon come from a dam well downstream from Klamath farming and the refuges. ###The damn upstream from the Klamath Basin is currently holding water right to the top. ###There is plenty of water currently in this lake for farmers, the refuge and the suckers with the overflow going downstream to Irongate (the downstream Dam). ###But the only times flows get increased are around Irongate's power generation facility needs. ###It ain't the farmers - it's the power generators that are causing the majority of the problems for the salmon. ###You're not hearing about this because of the CA’s power situation and frankly if the ESA action came down against the power generators it would cause even more problems. ###34 million people screaming about power shortages will outweigh the ESA, but 1400 farming families are evil for wanting water that’s legally theirs (water guaranteed by the Klamath Project). ###Everybody needs to read up on what is happening in the Basin before you pass judgment. ###Farmers may not be completely blameless, but they are waterfowl friendly in the Basin and are a lot friendlier to Salmon than the Power Generators. ###The sucker - they'll do just fine if left alone - they survived the dry river during droughts before the Project, they'll survive in low water conditions now.
07-19-2001, 10:37 AM
Mike, what side of the fence would you be on if they siphoned off 70 precent of the water from all waterfowl breeding grounds, diverted it to a place the waterfowl could not use, ###and in MITIGATION for STEALING their water and habitat, started a captive breeding system where DFG ###would capture female birds, rip them open and take their eggs, incubate and hatch them, raise them for a couple of weeks and then turn them loose to fend for themselves. Give them 75 degrees,9 ph with a disolved O2 of 59. That is what is in the klamath now. (i love real time stream gauges, they can't lie anymore). It would be like making the ducks swim in 120 degree acid water,with a plastic bag closed over their head. And then when your mallards, down from 6-8 million returning ###each year(6million in low water years) you got 12000 back. Would you scream and try to fix the problem? After the desert farmers take all the water from the fish they will go after your precious refuge,after all 30 years from now the population will have grown so much that land is needed to grow food for the masses, people first right?
07-19-2001, 10:48 AM
Mike, you're right there's alot of diffrant reasons for this problem. And I would like to see it work out for all. ###I do try to read whats going on up there though. ###One thing I read that got me fired up. ###Was some of these farmers davirted water from a river causeing salmon and steelhead smolts to be killed. ###These guys aren't makeing it easy for me to be simptheyic. (sp)
07-19-2001, 12:56 PM
That 70% of the flow that is being siphoned off would have traveled downstream during a 4-6 week period during spring run-off. ###The rest of the time pre-Klamath Project, downstream CFM flows out of the Basin should not that different from today. ###Are you stating that 4-6 weeks of holding water/flows behind Irongate and Upper Klamath make that difference? ### Or are you complaining about chemical imbalances in the river or both? ###If you're complaining about Ag chemical run-off - that is a problem anywhere farming exist in CA. Do you suggest we stop all farming in CA, since the problem with ag chemicals is everywhere from Imperial Valley to the Tulare Basin to the San Joaquin and Sacramento River drainages to the Klamath Basin in this state. ###I certainly don't have a quick or easy solution. ###The temp and flows downstream are a function of Klamath, Pit and Trinity electrical generators, not Klamath Basin farmers. ###If the generators choose to release water more consistently rather than as peak electrical demand that would have much more affect on water temp. ###As far as a breeding program for salmon - the salmon die after spawning anyhow so ripping them open and turning the fry loose to fend for themselves really doesn't change anything. ###There needs to be a balance between water users, not just in the Klamath Basin but all of CA. ###The massive amounts of water artificially traveling south in this state are scary. ###If we ever had a prolonged drought involving the central valley drainages - we would see real water wars. ###Unfortunately for wildlife people vote and will always come first. ###More so in SoCal, so it could be very ugly in NoCal. ###If I understand what you are trying to say, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions - just the information used to come to them. ###I think we're trying to pin too much on the farmers, when actually trying to keep our own electric bills down and avoid blackouts probably has more to do with the problem.
The incident your referring to happened on another tributary of the Klamath an wasn't part of the area where all the water was cut-off. ###I agree these farmers screwed with the resource to try and make a point with the USFWS and the BOR. ###There were better ways to get the point across - they should have given the authorities notice and the "ditch" would never run dry and caused the die-off. ###Supposed to be some heavy fines/citations issued for that, but DFG backed-off with warnings. ###Either way I don't think that will happen again.
I would agree that farmland is more waterfowl friendly than suburbs but farmland is not more waterfowl friendly than marshland. And marshland is exactly what a large chunk of what the Klamath basin farmlands used to be before it was "reclaimed" by diking and draining it.
Rice might be an even trade, since when it's flooded it can serve as wetlands (as we well know with the rot water situation) but the vast majority of other crops support far less waterfowl than what the same acreage would have if it had not been drained.
80 - 90% of our lost wetlands were "reclaimed" for agriculture. While it's now true that development is surpassing agriculture as the main culprit in the ongoing destruction of wetlands, agriculture still has a 150 years head start.
After the Kesterson debacle I'm somewhat suspicious about agriculture's "support" of wetlands. I think they view wetlands as a place to dump their wastewater after it has leached the salts and metals out of their desert soils. Kesterson was the end point of their drain and we ended up with a bunch of mutated, dead waterfowl. Lower Klamath is in the same position since it's fed primarily from agricultural ###runoff. Every drain has a cesspool at the end. Desert land agriculture, requires drains to get rid of the poisoned water. What better way to look good and champion the wildlife cause by dumping that water in a marsh. Remember: "Is all for the birds!" :[ ### ### ###
07-19-2001, 03:28 PM
But the hwadwaters of the Klamath, the wood,williamson,sprague, scott, salmon rivers are more spring fed than runoff. Yes, there is a large amount of spring rain and snow melt stored behind the reserviors, but the water that is incoming thru-out the rest of the year has percolated down thru the lava base from as far away as Bend Ore. Mush of the upper williamson flow is 3 feet underground but still flows 1300cfs. Last time I looked the flow in klamath was 400cfs. Agency lake is large and shallow, accounts for a great deal of evaporation and warming. Water coming into agency lake is high50's low 60's but leaves the lake at high 60's to low 70's. Anything above 65 degrees is DANGEROUS to coldwater species like trout and steelhead. Warm water holds less disolved oxygen and fish get stressed. Above 75 degrees, start digging graves. Humans have logged the big trees that shaded rivers, kept them cool and provided cover. Then by de-watering the rivers reduced the capacity to keep rivers cool. Water looses/gains less heat/cold than air, and those fish need the water. Ag chemicals have changed the PH some but most of the change comes from the pollution that is trapped in KlamathFalls Valley that gets incorporated into the water. Holding decaying logs in the lake for logging, chemicals from industry and pollution from cars and trucks are just as much to blame as Ag chemicals. My family as well as your has made sacrifices during the energy crunch, I don't know why klamath farmers don't think they should too. They have had less that 4 inches of rain last year, that is less that DEATH VALLEY! Although those some of those dams make power, most are for water storage/diversion to central valley projects. More water is diverted and pumped out of the Trinity river system than is allowed to go downstream, flood or not. ###We need to quit letting everyone and their 12 kids from coming to Calif, keep breeding like rats and drinking up the most precious resourse we have. I do not agree with CWA siding with the farmers up there, I understand you have to because of politics but CWA is wrong this time. I don't care about the chub, but if we don't do something about salmon/steelhead now, 10 years from now it will be too late. What happens if there is a drought next year too? or the year after? Those farmers are doomed. It is time to step into the 21st century, change farming practices and crops to ###work with ecology of the area they live in. My point about ###the mitigation hatcheries is they have wiped out the wildness and survival instincts of salmon by taming them to live in hatcheries, infected them with disease(BKD,whirling disease etc) and they can no longer survive. Would you want to hunt tame ducks? Yes salmon die but their carcasses feed organisms that feed aquatic insects which feed salmon/steelhead fry and smolts. The rivers are barren waste lands now. They grow green slime from high water temps and high amounts of fertilizers in water table. Combined with high water temps, the moss strangles river and all in it. Insects that do survive die from PH change. Very little insect/ fish life can survive high acid water or high alcaline. Sorry about spelling, I turned 40 and suffer from CRS now. PS>Scott river is running dry right now, farmers in scott valley basin keep pumping to grow HAY. LIke we need more straw. Use rice straw for bedding. Their #1 customer uses straw to make compost. We could find something else to make compost out of (like RICE STRAW). ###
It's kind of strange that farmers can pump all the water they want from underground aquafiers to squirt it into 100 degree heat to grow hay. Just because it's underground does not mean they should be allowed to take all they want. Depleting underground reserves, dries up springs, creeks and potholes. There should be no free lunch, pumping water out of a public resource like an underground aquafier should be monitored, payed for and it should be subjected to environmental impact studies. Exactly what is the long term impact to lowering the watertable 20 - 30 feet? I don't know.
What I do know is that Springtown near Livermore was named after the artesian wells that used to gush water all year round. This water ran through the arroyo and kept water in the creeks that wandered through what is now Hacienda business park. Then in the winter the creeks would overflow and you had duck ponds. That don't happen anymore. The water table dropped due to excessive pumping, the creeks were ditched and now we have PeopleSoft buildings springing up. ### ###
07-19-2001, 05:57 PM
Mike, I agree that the generation of power is a problem also but I think you are minimizing the impact of the farming diversions and the resulting lack of water/polution resulting from them. Add that to the fact that they are also sucking at the public teet and I can not find sympathy for their situation.
07-19-2001, 07:32 PM
YEAH THE DEAL UP THERE REALLY STINKS NOT ONLY FOR THE WILDLIFE BUT MY DAD HAS PROPERTY UP THERE AND HE IS A FARMER AND ITS KILLING US TOO.
You are right RangeNerd, LA had no right to run the Owens valley dry in order to develop the San Fernando valley. And now their butts are being sued by Trout Unlimited to make them maintain minimum stream flows.
I'll accept your point that the ranchers and farmers built most of the original canals in the Klamath basin but I'll tack on the fact that they are also the ones who diked and drained most of the original wetlands in the basin.
I've heard the "farmers provide wildlife habitat" mantra over and over. I drive by the signs lining I-5 ###through the valley proclaiming how without farmers there would be no wildlife. For the most part it's crap. Did you ever wonder why national wildlife refuges are called "refuges" and yet still allow hunting? It's because they're not refuges from hunters......... they were originally refuges from the plow! That's right, Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed Tule and Klamath (the first waterfowl NWRs) as refuges to rescue them from being drained and plowed into oblivion.
I agree that farmland provides some marginal wildlife habitat (although rice is much more than marginal), however when every stitch of cover is plowed under to the very edge of the road, I have a hard time seeing this habitat. You can drive I-5 for hundreds of miles through the valley in the winter and see literally millions of acres of dirt without so much as a weed to provide wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat my eye. There is a small percentage of farmers who are willing to sacrifice some profit to set aside fence rows and field corners as habitat for wildlife and my hat goes off to them, but the vast majority of agricutural land is worthless as habitat. There may be some waste grain but that's not habitat and if the machinery could be made to totally eliminate the waste grain do you think farmers would use it? You know they would.
You're right though, it's bad science and bad biology, but it's also bad agricultural practices. Drive through the San Joaquin valley when it's 100 degrees and watch all the water being sprayed through the air. Less that half of that water ever hits the ground. They are sucking the life out of the delta and shipping it south to shoot it into 100 degree air to grow cotton! And don't forget this is "wildlife habitat" provided by farmers. ###
(Edited by Jay at 8:57 am on July 20, 2001)
07-19-2001, 11:01 PM
I have a link from NOAA about status of US west coast steelhead. This is why they are letting the fish have SOME water. I hope duck populations don't go the way of the steelhead. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/factshet/stelhd02.htm
07-22-2001, 03:13 AM
Where can I find historical info on the creation of the Klamath Basin farm land and refuges.
Should be interesting reading.
Here's the Indians perspective : http://www.klamathtribes.org/history.html
Here's the UC Davis link: http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/kris/
Here's the EPA link: http://www.epa.gov/ecoplaces/part2/region9/site3.html
Here's the Oregon Natural Resources link: http://www.onrc.org/programs/klamath.html ###
Of course each of these has their own agenda. Take it with a grain.
(Edited by Jay at 9:49 am on July 22, 2001)
07-22-2001, 09:37 AM
Jay ###Interesting stuff. Thank You. ### ###Fubar
07-22-2001, 11:58 AM
Big dog. farmers do not need help unless there is a disaster (drought, flood etc)
What price supports do is hold down the price of food. If it was a true open market run by the farmers without a middleman then it would be a consumers nightmare.
How would you like to pay $10 for a gallon of milk or $20 a pound for rice?
07-22-2001, 02:47 PM
I disagree Scank. The first hint of skyrocketing prices like that and not only would people stop buying it but someone is going to underprice ###the market and then someone will underprice the first one and so on. Eventually that ones that can't make it without subsidies and market controls would have to find a different way to make a living. That is how it works in most other markets.
How many companies make computers? You don't see the government stepping in to help out some small company because they can't compete with Dell or Gateway. Have you ever heard of any other producer being paid by the government to NOT produce their products?
In a real market, anywhere else but farming, those that can't compete move on.
07-22-2001, 05:25 PM
The Government bailed out Chrysler and New York City. How are you going to survive without food?
yea, right! The answer is the same has slaughtering hen mallards last season even though we had a TWO(2) bird limit. yea, you think you know...
07-22-2001, 09:55 PM
In regards to the first part of your response, yes Chrysler was given a loan I think. It was not a string free gift and it was a one time shot, not a yearly process. As for New York city, not sure what that was.
If there are too many farmers now and the government is controlling the market and paying them to not grow, once the numbers are reduced there will still be the same amount of food being produced.
For the second part of your response, I think your phonograph jumped tracks or something. What heck does hen mallards and a two bird limit have to do with this conversation?
07-23-2001, 01:12 PM
Here's the skinny on the suckers: http://bluegoose.arw.r9.fws.gov/fish/Klama...sinSuckers.html (http://bluegoose.arw.r9.fws.gov/fish/KlamathBasinSuckers.html)
(Edited by Jay at 2:02 pm on July 23, 2001)
Here's the farmer's point of view: ###http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/sixpositions.htm
(Edited by Jay at 3:53 pm on July 23, 2001)
07-23-2001, 03:25 PM
I have taken no side on this matter other then the fact we import 70% of our oil, so I guess we should start importing 70% of our food. then we can be held hostage by somemore 3rd world countrys.
Hopefully my youngest son will land a job in Alaska then mom and dad will fallow.
I have totaly had it with all the problems in KA. and most are caused by the fact they won't close the southern boarder, and deport what don't belong here.
Gentlemen, ###You all need to learn the Klamath issue before making rash decisions about "farmers" and "fish" in that region. ###There has been so much information in this forum that is untrue, that it hurts the lay person trying to understand this issue. ###Let me give you a few facts. ###FACT 1- The historic Tulelake and Lower Klamath Lakes recieved water every year (pre-project) from the lost river (Tulelake) and from The Klamath Lake/River (Lower Klamath). Fact 2- The Klamath Project was overlayed on these historic lake beds. ###The project water supplies today, equalled historic quantities provided to these vast lakes pre project. ###The claim that this is an arid desert is not totally true, it was former lake bed. ###There are so many issues involving salmon, steelhead, and other fish species in the Klamath. ###Power, Agriculture, Municipalities, Pollution, and OVERHARVEST of fish species are all reasons for their declines. ###To simply jump on the more flow=more fish bandwagon is not reasonable. ###It has been shown time and time again to be untrue. ###It is also a fact that waterfowl in the Klamath basin recieve roughly 50% of their food from agriculture. ###Agriculture in the basin is tremendously important for sustaining pacific flyway populations. ###It sounds like a lot of you want agriculture to leave the basin and this will solve fish issues and lead to a better ecosystem. ###What do you do with the re-claimed farmground? ###Do you restore the wetlands and turn it back into marsh? ###SOunds good but think about it. ###WETLANDS NEED WATER TOO!!!! ###and lots of it (Ave. 3.5 acre/feet evaporation/year in Klamath). ###If the fish need all the water in the system, how can you justify increasing demands on the Klamath Project by restoring wetlands. ###We need to take a holistic approach to this problem and all stakeholders need to work together to find solutions. ###Simply pointing a finger at Ag is wrong and will bite you in the butt. Private farmers and ranchers are the best partner you can have when it comes to conservation and comments like the above, do not help encourage the old-school farmer to change management slightly to benefit wildlife. ###I am so sick of uninformed people pointing fingers and placing blame. ###I am willing to bet these same folks live in big metropolatin areas where habitat values = zero. ### ### ### ###
07-27-2001, 12:34 PM
Joe ###Welcome to Jesses Forum. Thanx for the information. I was curious, What would be your answer to solving this problem? ### ### ### ### ### ###Fubar
07-27-2001, 04:31 PM
Joe, I would like to know, why do you think farmers have more rights to the water than fishermen, commercial or recreational, or the indians. They had been promised a lot more stuff than the farmers were, before the farmers were and the Klamath farmers have been sucking the water out of that valley for the past 80 years. Klamath river WAS the #3 LARGEST SALMON RUN RIVER ON THE WEST COAST! It whooped a$$ on even the river in alaska. Now commercial harvest has been nearly completely curtailed, sport harvest is limited to 4000+/- fish a year(that many fish used to come up the Klamath a day)coho's are nearly extinct and yet the klamath farmers can't live without 1 drop less water. I have no sympathy this year. Tule/Klamath valley by definition of precipitation is a desert. It recieves average of less than 12" a year. If not for water diversion, farmers could not grow crops there. Tule lake recieved less rain fall this year than DEATH VALLEY! I would like to help but farming can't take from more than it gives back. Farmers in the valley need to conserve, grow products that aren't so water hungry and change from flood irigation/sprinklers to drip or ditches. Spraying hay, alfalfa etc. with sprinklers in 90 degree heat in the middle of the day isn't going to gain you any friends, neither is flooding your horse/cow pastures 6" deep with water during a drought. You all should go take a ride to Napa valley and see how they water now. Very few sprinklers, it is all drip. My apple trees all 20 acres, ALL drip. I couldn't afford to pump that much water. I don't have to use as much herbicide since the weeds don't get enough water to become a problem. Next year I'm ripping out 5 acres of trees, and planting grapes. $1800 a ton, apples$40-$250 depending on grade. I will make more in that 5 acres than the rest of my farm, with less work and water. Farmers can be wildlifes friend, but sometimes they are the enemy. I haven't heard one Klamath basin farmer say anything about water for the refuges, which the gov't keeps going to keep the ducks and geese out of your crops. I'm too pissed to type anymore---------
07-27-2001, 05:24 PM
good point ###mudroller. ###maybe the state can redirect some of the Napa wine (alcohol) profit to retrofit irrigation in other ag areas of CA.
07-27-2001, 06:18 PM
Here's a link to a website that some of the Klamath Farmer's have set up.
07-28-2001, 01:20 AM
tommyo-why should anyone bail them out. It would be like bailing out the candle factories at the turn of the century(the other one)when electric LIGHT BULBS became more used in USA. The guys who kept riding horses to work got passed by the guys driving cars. Is life better now. No. Would I like to go back to candles, smoke signals and riding horses everywhere, NO. THe Klamath farmers need to start farming like it's 2001, not 1871. We can't give away all the potatoes, rice, wheat, barley, corn and other crops we over produce, and the gov't PAYS these guys money to not grow food, supports the prices at the wholesale market to keep the rest of them making a profit and then these guys want the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES to buy their farms because they overextended their water supply. In business, you gamble everyday, they gambled and lost and they should pay the price. I gamble everyday, will my apples get blown off the trees, do they have enough water/fertilizer, can I get them to the cannery while the prices are high, should I change to a U-PICK tourist trap, should I buy a new tractor this year, etc. They could GET A JOB like I did. So did my better half. But you don't hear me telling THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES to buy my farm since it is costing me quadruple to pump water this year since my electric bill is so high. I just DEAL WITH IT.
Mudroller, You have some very good points. ###You are also talking about a lot of seperate "highly" controversial topics that deal with the Klamath Basin (and elsewhere in the US). ###I agree with you about how great the fishery on the Klamath used to be. ###I also agree that effieciency in irrigation systems is a very important topic. ###However, when you look at all the problems facing the Basin currently, it is important not to blame Klamath Project water users for all negativities that fish species have experienced along the entire Klamath River. ###You have to realize that only a portion of water in the Klamath River comes from the Upper Klamath Lake. ###There are the Shasta, Scott, Trinity, and Salmon Rivers that are all major tributaries to the mighty Klamath. ###There are problems in these sub-watersheds as well that affect the fish in the Klamath R. ###When it comes to water rights in these tributaries and the Upper Klamath Lake, who does have the priority rights? ###Should the Indians have priority, and if so then should they also have priority to ground water (like the water you are using to irrigate your farm)? ###Should the landowners who made claims early have priority, or should our trusty government have the rights? ###This is a mightly complicated question and one that remains unanswered at this time. ###If it is logical that first-come first serve is law, then Indians should have all the water in the USA. ###They should also have their land back (which again includes your farm). ###I could go on and on... but my point is that we co-exist with the Indians, Farmers, Fishermen, Hunters, City Folk, and the like and we have to work together to come up with some solutions. ###We all need to recognize that we will NEVER restore the Klamath River to it's full potential for fish production and likewise we will NEVER restore the Klamath Basin for it's maximum waterfowl values. ###Reason: People are in the picture; trains, cars, development, diversions (ag. and municipal), etc. ###We must recognize this and then identify what we want the watershed to look like (with the people in that picture) and then identify where the problems are. ###Once this is completed, we can collectively work at fixing those problems. ###If you do deem a private landowners management counter-productive from the goals and society would like that person to stop what he is doing (let's say farming a piece of ground), then you should compensate that landowner for retiring the property. ###These are all issues that people in the Basin are struggling with. ###Recognizing how important cooperation from farmers and ranchers is to completing a watershed program, you would try and have them be your allies instead of your enemies. ###If you (and your like) turn this into a them vs. us scenerio, we are all bound to lose. ###I guarentee that. ###A person question "Are you a duck hunter"? ###
07-30-2001, 10:22 PM
Joe, yeah, I duck hunt, but I also flyfish and deer hunt, pig hunt, quail, dove and chuckar hunt. I hunt refuges and private land. I understand the plight of the farmers in the Klamath basin, but it is a problem that ALL farmers deal with. I have a problem with people who expect others to fix their bad decisions. If my wells went dry, I would not expect YOU and 298 million other Americans bail me out. I would do something else with my land. We have been led to believe that all the farms in the klamath basin are "family" farms. I have a family farm. 11,000 acres is a corporation farm. Corporate farmers care more about bottom line than what is good for environment, other farmers(their competion) and wildlife. Some may put up a good front like Bud, Coors, Archer Daniels Midland,etc but when it comes down to it, they could give a rip if there is a duck, steelhead, or a deer left up there. The refuges didn't open up until NOv. last year, remember why? The rice farmers weren't done harvesting and they wanted the birds to stay on the refuge. Ducks,deer and fish are an inconvienence to grain farmers, they EAT his profit. We are nieve to think they are concerned about wild game. I figure I lose 2-3 tons of apples to birds, deer and human munchers, but I would rather SEE a deer chowing on my truck payment than starve him out. When I started farming there were no quail, pheasant on farm and few doves. By limiting tractor work in between rows, leaving cover by creek alone, cutting back on herbicides and pesticides, the game has come back and is thriving.I also planted sunflowers, barley, clover and wild flower mix in between rows so to attract game and insects. ###Have you ever seen ducks or any game bird in a hay field, alfalfa field or a potato field? Next they'll start growing cotton up there. The answer to the problem is to quit wasting the resourses we have and we all need to stop having so many kids. Did you know the amount of water evaporated out of the California Aquaduct system in one year could supply 14 million peoples drinking water needs? Just putting a cover on that would solve a lot of needs. I don't like the farmers up there portraying themselves as victims, them against the mean old gov't. They have been raping the land up there for generations and when you ask them to give something back during a time of need, that's when they want more than their share, and screw everyone else.
07-31-2001, 05:43 AM
Well said Mudroller!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.