Wednesday, May 16, 2007

L.A. Times Article on Conflict Over Proposed Klamath Agreement

This article from the May 7th issue of the L.A. Times talks about the Oregon based groups, Oregon Wild and WaterWatch, that object to the proposed setttlement over the Klamath.

A key quote-

"After more than two years of discussions, 26 of the 28 groups — U.S. water and wildlife agencies, the states of California and Oregon, fishermen, four tribes and an array of environmental groups — have agreed to push forward to settle details in the agreement.

Meanwhile, Oregon Wild and WaterWatch of Oregon, the two groups vocally objecting to what they describe as concessions to farmers, have "essentially been voted off the island," said John DeVoe, WaterWatch's executive director."


At 5/16/2007 11:08:00 PM, Anonymous O. Kisutch said...

So Oregon Wild and WaterWatch support dam removal. But they want to make sure the Bush administration doesn't sacrifice wildlife refuges, the ESA, and flows in the Klamath River.

Craig Tucker is attacking them because they are defending the wildlife refuges. And Tucker is jumping into bed with the Bush administration and Klamath agribusiness (the guys who caused the 2002 Klamath River fish kill).

Tell me again who the sell outs are? Why is Tucker defending a deal that could lead to lower water flows in the Klamath River, the very thing that caused the 2002 fish kill?

At 5/17/2007 09:58:00 AM, Blogger saf said...

It's amazing, in the last two days I've recieved comments from not only a wolverine (gulo) but a coho salmon (o. kisutch) as well.

At 5/17/2007 11:19:00 AM, Anonymous gulo said...

destroy it and we will come...

At 5/17/2007 10:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just wondering what the hell Tucker is thinking. To get the dams out, Tribes and environmentalists need to work together. Why join with the Bush admin and agribusiness and bash the enviro's?

At 5/18/2007 08:35:00 AM, Blogger saf said...

I thought Craig Tuckers article was pretty illustrative of his position.

I think that both sides need to work a little harder to clarify the Klamath Basin Farming issue.

Questions I would like to see clarified.

1.Does Oregon Wild advocate kicking the farmers out of the refuges?

2.Does the proposal that Craig Tucker is advocating allow for further expansion of farmed areas?

This is a very difficult debate and I think that both sides have used insulting language and that will only lead to more animosity, making it even more difficult to resolve this.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Search the Web at