Posted on 11/12/2002 12:33:12 PM PST by Glutton
One by one, the pieces of the puzzle that was this fall's massive salmon kill on the Klamath River are falling into place, and the picture that is emerging is not a flattering one for the Bush administration.
In September, more than 33,000 endangered salmon perished in the shallow, warm waters of the 180-mile Klamath River. Government scientists said the fish succumbed to disease but were reluctant to agree with local tribes, fishermen and environmentalists who blamed the federal government's federal water-allocation plan - a plan that places an overwhelming priority on satisfying the irrigation needs of Klamath Basin farmers.
The investigation into the Klamath fish kill is not yet complete, but recent developments strongly suggest that the government's critics are dead on target. The primary culprit appears to be the Bush administration and its policies that favor farmers over other water users, including the region's tribes, fishermen, wildlife and, most certainly, its salmon.
Last month, Michael Kelly, a federal biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service, went public with accusations that the administration had ignored his findings that increased water flows were essential to protecting salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. Kelly, who is seeking protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act, said his bosses yielded to pressure from the administration to lower water flows for fish so that farmers would receive their full allocation of water under a new 10-year water plan.
It also turns out that the Bush administration did its unlevel best to squelch three new federal reports that concluded that buying out Klamath Basin farms and leaving their irrigation water in the Klamath River would create a revitalized downstream fishery and expanded recreation with a value that substantially exceeds that of the farms. The reports by the U.S. Geological Service were completed last year and had gone through external scientific review. An author claims they were withheld for "internal political reasons" by high-level administration officials.
Meanwhile, conservation groups late last month sued Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to require her to phase out the leasing to farmers of 20,000 acres within two national wildlife refuges in the basin. The lawsuits were prompted by the administration's decision to ignore a common-sense finding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service three years ago that farming during drought years was not compatible with the purposes of the refuges.
Such actions reveal an administration that has extended its anti-environmental agenda to the Klamath Basin and that stubbornly refuses to consider alternative approaches that could restore the long-term health of the region - and avert future crises such as this fall's salmon kill on the Klamath River.
I see.
The new philosophical question should be:
"If a tree falls in the forest, and the Republicans are not in charge, who do we blame?"
That doesn't seem to stop some people from reaching a conclusion, does it. Could it be that their minds were made up before the investigation began?
By whose measure?
Certainly not the farmer's or their family's
Some editorial writer needs to do his homework a little better.
'Pod
Nope, just the end of those salmon, just like the millions of species that went their own way when the time came...
more than 33,000 endangered salmon
My supermarket apparently deals in endangered species.
I’m going to see if the meat department has any panda steaks.
I am quite certain, that it is George Bush's fault.
Your post reminds me of the Aesop's fable about how it didn't matter if a boy or old man were riding their donkey, or even if they spared it's back entirely and both walked; someone passing by would have criticism about what they were doing.
Suffice it to say, the Register Guard is a paper owned by the Baker family in a very, very liberal city. They know how to editorialize in a way they do not offend their customer base.
Now that is absolutely one of the funniest things I have ever seen on FR.
Liaberals defend lawless acts.
Ask liberals what laws you don't have to follow relative to them.
Can you lie to them? Rape their daughter? Lie under oath against them? Steal their money? Steal votes from someone they believes in?
Liberals have much tolerance for criminal behavior, but that's because they think of themselves as the person doing the crime, the one getting away with inappropriate acts. The one above the law.
Put the shoe on the other foot and they're just like us. No one likes it being done to them... Democrats are hypocrites with wonderful defense mechanism that prevent them from seeing what they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.