The Latest On Your Right To Fly Fish the Upper Sac & McCloud: It’s Getting Uglier.
By Tom Chandler on Oct 25, 2007 in Environment, Natural Resources Nightmare
[UPDATE: New information about the source of this Natural Resource plan — and the lack of honesty surrounding its origins. I plan to post something as soon as it’s confirmed (hopefully no later than Saturday). Stay tuned!]
Those with sensitive political palettes may want to turn away; we’re continuing to unravel Siskiyou County’s disastrous proposed Natural Resources Policy — which would essentially criminalize the act of fishing the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, Scott and Shasta Rivers.
Hold onto your waders. Unlike the rivers we love, this isn’t pretty.
The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors think this should be illegal.
The Short Course
In prior posts (read the first here, most recent here), the Underground’s Unpaid Legal Braintrust pointed out the questionable legal nature of the county’s proposed “Natural Resource Policy”, which threatened “non-navigable” status for the rivers in the county, despite the fact they clearly qualify as navigable under the state’s definition.
We also noted the thinly veiled threat from the author (Supervisor Marcia Armstrong) urging those writing e-mails against the plan to give up on the Shasta and Scott Rivers, or she’d be forced to go after the McCloud and Upper Sac (which the proposed plan does).
The good news?
The world is taking notice. The Orvis conservation folks are on this one like a brown trout on a minnow, and CalTrout is also gearing up. I just wrote a short news item for the esteemed California Fly Fisher, and contacting others who might have a stake.
I’m hearing some interesting noises (more news as it happens), and it appears we won’t be alone on this one.
And just so you know, your contributions are making a difference; rebutting the sometimes bizarre legal framework laid out by proponents has been extremely helpful (though new arguments surface almost as fast as the old ones are shot dead), and believe me — your e-mails have been noticed by the supervisors.
Sadly, it’s not enough; Supervisor Armstrong has openly stated she was going to see this resource plan implemented “no matter what” — and given the combative quality of her responses to most emails, I’d say she hasn’t budged from her goal.
As someone stated in an earlier comment: “It looks like a dogfight.”
It will be. Buckle up, Undergrounders.
The Onion Effect
Peeling away the layers of this whole movement is akin to peeling an onion; one unsightly layer after another reveals itself, and in the end, you’re basically left crying.
At least that’s where I’m at. Consider the following:
- Supervisor Armstrong appears unwilling to heed any of the volumes of negative public opinion headed her way (including your e-mails), and the questionable legal basis for this plan has been entirely ignored.
- Ms. Armstrong has publicly said she will decide which public comments warrant inclusion in the plan, and which don’t — a massive breach of the public trust.
- She’s appealed to her supporters for help in dealing with the unexpected opposition, and that group includes people from timber industry giants Roseburg and Sierra Pacific.
- Armstrong has cynically blamed “local fly fishing guides” for inciting this issue by exercising their legal right of access on the Scott and Shasta, and raised the specter of “biosecurity” (anyone know what that is??). This ignores the fact the Shasta River is largely closed to fishing (one section is open a small part of the year), and the Scott is hardly the county’s pre-eminent destination. We call bullshit.
- This plan was rolled out when the lone dissenter on the Board of Supervisors was out on personal leave — a move clearly designed to short-circuit public review.
- An “advisory” committee is being created (they’d use the Natural Resource Policy as a guideline) that’s loaded with representatives of extractive industries, so the voices of fisheries people would almost never prevail.
- The advisory committee specifically excludes Native Americans and State & Federal employees from participating — based on a nonsensical “conflict of interest” — yet it encourages participation from extractive industry folks who stand to most directly gain from its decisions.
The Bottom Line
The real agenda here is becoming clear; while the Natural Resources Plan contains dozens of pro-extractive industry provisions, Supervisor Armstrong’s real goal is to stifle any public right of access to the Scott and Shasta Rivers — and she seems willing to threaten anglers’ legal right to access the Upper Sac and McCloud to do it.
Armstrong’s wants to simply remove all state and federal oversight from the Scott and Shasta rivers, and allow her constituents to dewater them at will (which has happened in the past).
Both rivers play a vital role in the recovery of Klamath salmon (biologists estimate the Shasta River was the #1 Klamath tributary in terms of spawning and rearing habitat), and she and her cohorts have fought every attempt to protect habitat and salmon stocks.
What You Can Do
Whether you realize it or not, you guys have been on the tip of the spear on this one; your work has made a huge difference.
If you’ve already sent an e-mail, then pat yourself on the back, and have a seat; things are really starting to cook off, and more will probably be required of you soon.
If you haven’t sent a polite e-mail or called the Supervisors listed below, please take a minute to do so. Be polite, but firm — and carbon copy your e-mails to my tom.chandler@gmail.com address. We need to know the number and contents of every e-mail sent to the supervisors, especially Marcia Armstrong (we’re going to keep her honest on public input).
Tell them they’re doing significant damage to the local tourist economy with this harebrained (and likely illegal) plan, and that you’re unwilling to cede your legal right to access the Upper Sac, McCloud, Scott and Shasta Rivers.
Michael Kobseff (he supports the plan)
mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us
(530) 918-9128
Marcia Armstrong (the author and driving force behind this crazy resource grab)
marmstrong@co.siskiyou.ca.us
(530) 468-2824
LaVada Erickson (she?s on our side, but isolated politically)
erickson5031@sbcglobal.net
(530) 926-1285
Jim Cook (McCloud’s representative and plan supporter ? let him know how much the town stands to lose, and how we won’t forget this betrayal when he comes up for re-election)
jimcook@snowcrest.net
(530) 459-0459
Bill Overman (North county rep who might see the light)
bandm@nctv.com
(530) 842-5389
A Personal Aside
I’m like you.
I’d be happier doing almost anything besides sitting down, getting pissed off, and writing to people who don’t care that they’re mucking with my legal right to fly fish the rivers I love.
And in truth, I’ve tried to keep the Trout Underground’s “pissed-off” environmental posts to a minimum — it’s a fly fishing blog, and you guys don’t come here to add ten points to your blood pressure (bikini posts aside).
It’s just that sometimes, you simply can’t not do it. You can’t sit and watch your legal right to fish be taken away, knowing that it won’t be brought back for your kids, or their kids.
You can’t avoid calling or writing an e-mail to someone who think’s you’re a plague on society, or calls you a “goddmaned fin hugger,” or labels you a communist because you believe “the people’s trout” is a real legal concept in a free society, not a chapter from a Marxist textbook.
You can’t close your eyes and hope somebody else takes up the fight.
You just can’t.
See you at the keyboard, Tom Chandler.
Technorati Tags: fly fishing, fishing, stream access, stream access rights, upper sacramento river, mccloud river, shasta river, scott river, siskiyou county, siskiyou county board of supervisors, jim cook, marcia armstrong, bill kobseff
C3C Raine | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Hey Tom,
I figured I’d point out that it’s probably better to accept the ten point blood pressure rise, ’cause otherwise it’ll be a hell of a lot harder to lower it when you’ve got to drive an hour or two to fish when you live on a damn good fisherie! Also, you mentioned something about the county district attorney, what’s he doing with this thing (kirk andrus right?). Now, I’m gonna start writing a few emails…and I already asked this, but would Wally Herger have any power in this? I’m sitting here making him look good and I send him a letter from time to time, I could sneak this into one of them. I also wanted to say that (it’s been brought up but not officially) magnitude will help sink this thing! If you can get a good set of numbers that are backed up, like that bit about the value of each individual fish, what that would mean in view of catch and release, then compare that to dredging, timber harvesting, and cite the cost in environmental damages, cost to re-forest (don’t know if that’s a big deal), and put it all together - politicians can’t deal with facts, they’re smoke and mirror people. Presenting facts is like walking into their little house of smoke and mirrors armed with a couple of delinquent teenagers and a box of rocks - they’re gonna be scared!
I’d be happy to help, but I won’t be able to be at that meeting next week for obvious reasons - anything happening around Thanksgiving, I’ll be back the 21-25?!
C3C Raine | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
ps - I can do some number crunching, just let me know what you need.
C3C Raine | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
So last one, would I be totally off base in saying that white-water rafting, like the operation that Vince Cloward runs (have you contacted the River Exchange?)?
Timo McIntosh | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for posting these sagas. It is all part of fishing that we must think about and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand. Its like saying that a lack of stadiums would have no influence on pro sports…
Anyway, I sent my letters off, but I added the human side of the story; a set of life-journey altering events that my wife and I experienced up there over the summer. Hope it helps, and keep up the good fight.
Alex | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Did you know that the first letter of Marcia’s name upside down is a W?
Coincidence? I think not.
Tom Chandler | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
C3C: Good points, though this battle hinges more on philosophical differences than what you might call facts.
After all, the south end of Siskiyou County features the growing (and sustainable) economy, while the north end… doesn’t. And I’d love to see a north/south breakdown of the county’s revenue sources.
Yet the districts have been rigged ensure under-representation for the southern end of the county.
As for Herger, he would almost certainly support Armstrong over a bunch of fin huggers (don’t get me started on him).
And yes, the River Exchange are involved — it’s getting to be a pretty big deal.
Timo: Thanks.
Alex: Good noticing. Has anyone ever seen the two in the same room? I’ll bet not.
Kevin McKiou | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
//myopinion=on
It seems clear to me from browsing Marcia’s website (http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/) that she is serious as a heart attack about this Policy on Natural Resources. Furthermore, she has built her legal arguments on the issue of Navigable vs Non-Navigable waterways (http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/). Given her background, I doubt she put this together…which means she has legal council on this matter. Given her sphere of influence I am betting she is willing to take what ever political heat us fin-huggers can dish out. In her mind, it will blow over.
It looks to me like she is way ahead on this and the only way to slow her down is legal action. It sure looks like she is anticipating legal action. The brief on navigable vs non-navigable cites a number of cases where private rights were upheld in spite of state (or governmental) laws. I think the good news is that she has her cards on the table. I figure she figures to scare off opposition.
I am not sure how one proceeds here. Is it the county’s responsibility to get a ruling overriding state law on navigability of a waterway? Must the legal action come from a land owner? Or, can the county just pass a law and say “sue me”. If they do the latter, the dredgers would be in the streams doing their thing until somebody gets a court order to stop them. Who knows how long that will take.
One thing is clear. Marcia does not believe the state can enforce what ever laws apply to navigability of a river.
The bottom line for me is it appears the only thing that is going to stop this is court action. That battle can be fought now, before the damage is done, or later while the stream beds are being dredged. I suggest that the time to act with legal action is now - before the damage is done.
//myopinion=off
Kevin
Naperville, IL
Tom Chandler | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
C3C Raine | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
“And I’d love to see a north/south breakdown of the county’s revenue sources.”
Those are the sort of facts I’m talking about…they should be on public record somewhere too.
Now, can ANYONE tell me whether or not a river rafting business counts as commercial use?
Thanks.
C3C Raine | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Nevermind, it doesn’t matter
From State of California:
“Members of the public have the right to navigate and to exercise the incidents of navigation in a lawful manner at any point below high water mark on waters of this state which are capable of being navigated by oar or motor propelled small craft.? (People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (3d Dist.1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1050 [97 Cal.Rptr. 448, 454].) This includes waterways capable of being navigated only by kayak. (People v. Sweetser (5th Dist. 1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 278, 283 [140 Cal.Rptr. 82].) Commercial use of a waterway is not required as ?a waterway usable only for pleasure boating is nevertheless a navigable waterway and protected by the public trust.? (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 435 n.17 [189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709].) citing People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado (3d Dist. 1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 403 [157 Cal.Rptr. 815, 817] and People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (3d Dist.1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1040 [97 Cal.Rptr. 448, 454].)”
Tom Chandler | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
C3C: You got it. River Dancers runs trips every spring on the Scott.
Navigable….
jim jones | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Okay, Tom,
You got me–hook,line and sinker (well, micro-shot, anyway). Great piece, so Peace. Thanks for bringing the Scott and Shasta Rivers into the discussion. You got it exactly right. It’s not just (or perhaps even mainly) about access there.
It’s about water. If there are no anglers, there is no oversight of the excessive (and unscreened) diversions for growing (mostly) alfalfa. The folks in Siskyou County don’t get it yet, and as on the Sacramento River below Keswick, the American River, Owens Valley and the San Joaquin River (hopefully), I’m afraid it’s gonna take the proverbial board between the mules’ eyes to get their attention.
It took a lawsuit to put the Sac River winter run salmon on the Endangered Species list and get the old board of directors of the Tehemal Colusa Irrigation Dist. replaced by a more progressive group. Same approach–lawsuits–were required with the American River and the others I’ve mentioned. California Sport Fishing Alliance has a very good track record in “suing the bastards.”
There are several legal bases for stopping the dewatering of the Scott and Shasta: Public Trust Doctrine, Endangered Species Act, Cal. Constitution (which is one of the avenues we used against East Bay Municipal Utility District, Fish and Game Code.
The State Lands Commission, depending on who is currently on it (sadly, under Rep. admins there has been less sympathy for public access), has been agressive, at times, on access issues.
Just some thoughts. Really busy lately (fact checking :)), but, I’ll try to give this issue a bit of a boost in the circles I travel in.
Thanks again,
Jim
jim jones | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Oops, should have checked my facts before posting. It’s the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance http://users.rcn.com/ccate/CSPAPagerev0.html.
C3C Raine | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply
Mail’s off, you were cc’d tom, let me know what you think.
Tom Chandler | Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
Jim: Ok, peace. And it’s about water in that there are a lot of endangered species his headed the way of those who divert water from the things.
Ms. Armstrong feels the water’s there for agricultural use (period), and wants to head off the eventual restrictions on diversions.
I think it may come down to a lawsuit, but I want the supervisors to vote on this thing (or throw it out) so blame for the resulting lawsuits (waste of my tax dollars) can be apportioned come the next election…
C3C Raine | Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
You know, if worse comes to worse, I know of some kids (low-lifes really) down in dunsmuir who like to smash in people windshield for literally no more reason than someone suggested it - best part is that apparently police can’t do anything about it even when someone writes something like this somwhere like this, “it doesn’t prove anything.” Just throwin this out there.
overmywaders | Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
Chris,
Usually it is remarks like your’s (suggesting senseless vandalism) which undermine a solid cause. Ms. Armstrong would be remiss if she didn’t copy your remark and use it to indicate the character of the people opposing her - “They are threatening violence against the citizens of Siskiyou County”.
The issue is legal and moral. Your suggested response is, alas, neither.
Tom Chandler | Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
C3C: The email looked great. I’d like to reiterate what overmywaders mentioned; a couple e-mails were somewhat impolite, and even though they’re a small fraction of what was sent, they’re being highlighted in an attempt to negate the rest.
Be firm but polite.
C3C Raine | Oct 27, 2007 | Reply
My apologies, those comments were simply an off-subject citation of the way things seem to work in our county as far as politics, justice, and protection of public rights goes…probably the same anywhere. I meant it to reflect this situation in that they’re doing this, an illegal and injust act, because they fully believe they’ll get away with it unscathed - sad thing is, they probably will.
I’ll be sure to make this sorta thing a little more generalized and less targeted if I do something similar in the future.