Why does this work. Because volunteers meet face to face with constituents. These types of meetings, particularly with local politics, have a greater impact than any other type of political advertisement.

You want a politician to do something and there is a significant number wanting the same thing. Let them know you will not just donate to their opponents campaign but will work for their opponents in the next election and they will sit up and take a closer look at your issues.

I have seen this done on several occasions and it is always amazing to me how the light bulb switches on in a politicans head once they know their decisions are not just amassing bad sentiment but an army of political operatives as well. They tend to do some quick reevaluatig.

I’ll be sure to make this sorta thing a little more generalized and less targeted if I do something similar in the future.

Be firm but polite.

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.

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…

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

Navigable….

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].)”

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.