Gone. Kaput. Voted down 3-2.

Holy crap. Tomorrow, I’m having slaw dogs for lunch.

Many of you helped fight the battle against this ridiculous policy document, which threatened to limit legal access to the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, Scott and Shasta Rivers — and included a whole host of other anti-fisheries policies.

In fact, the Undergrounders rallied to the tune of a wad of phone calls and 200+ total emails (some of them sent to five different supervisors, putting us close to the 1,000 total emails mark).

A lot of other blogs fired up their readers, and suddenly, our Board of Supervisors came face to face with the reality that the world was watching.

We also saw considerable opposition from the south end of Siskiyou County (the north county/south county dynamic is… ahem… complicated), and organizations like CalTrout.

Here’s the kicker: we expected a “no” vote from Lavada Erickson, were happy to hear Supevisor Bill Overman decided against it, and fell off our chair when we found out Supervisor Marcia Armstrong cast the third “no” vote.

If you’ll recall, she authored the specific resource policies that caused the most uproar. I’m happy she decided it needed to go away, though I hope something else isn’t in the offing.

Anyway — you magnificent emailing bastards — revel in what you helped accomplish. I am.

See you altering the political landscape, Tom Chandler.

(UPDATE: I forgot to add that Ms. Erickson wanted me to thank my readers for their outpouring of support. She’s often the sole pro-fisheries, pro-tourism, pro-environmental voice on the current Board of Supervisors, so feeling the weight of support was a welcome change.)

In the current issue (January/February 2008), Williams does a masterful job of exposing the “Wise Use” movement — the same folks supplying the juice behind the temporarily derailed Siskiyou County Natural Resource Policy.

Of course, that’s same policy that tried to take away your legal right to access and Siskiyou County’s rivers. And yes, that’s the same policy that was eviscerated by several hundred e-mails from the Undergrounders.

There’s no online link to the Williams story, so if you want to see who’s really behind the attempts to kill your right to access public waters, you’ll have to buy the magazine.

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

And while we’re throwing props the way of the dead tree media, California Fly Fisher ran a news item about our battle to beat the Siskiyou County Natural Resources Plan. Good on ‘em.

Sadly, this whole matter is far from dead; a certain unpopular-with-fly-fishers County Supervisor has said she’s not much interested in getting public input on the Natural Resource Plan, and that she’s convinced there’s no legal basis for public access to the Scott and Shasta.

In other words, it ain’t over yet. I suspect they’ll try again, only this time, they’ll know the world is watching.

Better refine those mad letter writing skills, Undergrounders. Bet we’re going to need them.

See you on the river, Tom Chandler.

That’s because the news is good. Not perfect, but good.

No, the supervisors didn’t vote to do away with the whole Natural Resource Advisory Committee idea.

In fact, they didn’t vote on it at all.

The good news? The language forcing the committee to use the much-reviled draft Natural Resource Policy (the document that contains the illegal non-navigability clauses) was stricken from the ordinance.

The bad news is the board hasn’t committed to any kind of process for developing a set of sane, rational Natural Resource Policies.

You could say I’m uneasy. But relieved.

It’s not all out victory. But it’s a win. And clearly, all the noise caught their attention (by meeting time, you folks had sent 113 emails downrange).

Not one of the supervisors defended or even mentioned the draft Natural Resource Policy in their comments — even as one person after another stood up and characterized those policices as divisive or narrow or illegal or any of a handful of other unhappy words.

We’ve still got to keep an eye on this issue, but it won’t rear up on its hind legs again until January.

In the meantime, I’m going fishing. You magnificent, email-writing bastards should too. Enjoy the stuff we’ve been fighting for.

See you on the river (finally), Tom Chandler.

All that’s left is to hold our breath and wait for tomorrow’s vote on Siskiyou County’s Natural Resources Plan (2:30 pm), which threatens to declare all the county’s river’s non-navigable (and non-accessible to most fly fishers).

No one will say you guys didn’t do your best; our voice was clearly heard by the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors.

Whether they heed it or not remains to be seen.

The public comment at the last Board of Supervisors meeting ran about 90% against the plan. I imagine it will be the same at this meeting, and god knows the supervisors have heard plenty from the Underground’s legions on the Internet.

If they’re going to vote for it at this point, they’ll do so against the weight of public opinion, which at the very least saps some of their momentum, and creates some sticky questions for them when they’re up for reelection.

One Small Victory

I found out this afternoon that we were able to force a few changes in the ordinance language, so it no longer forces the committee to use the existing Natural Resource Policy (the one we’ve been fighting). Unfortunately, neither does it force the creation of an all-new policy based on public input.

Still, it’s a start.

I’m going to make every effort to be at the meeting, and I’ll let you know what’s happened. (Naturally, the meeting’s taking place right smack in the middle of a drizzly day BWO hatch, proof that the Supervisors are anti-fly fisher…)

Thanks again! We now return you to your regularly scheduled fly fishing programming.

See you in board chambers, Tom Chandler

I’m pissed. For the past week and half, I’ve been playing “nice” around the Siskiyou County Natural Resources Plan — the one that threatens our legal right to access and fish the rivers of Siskiyou County.

Those days are over.

The vote on this train wreck of a Natural Resource Plan is next Tuesday (11/13), and based on an alarming e-mail from someone who should know, we’re apparently on the verge of losing this thing (a week ago, I heard otherwise).

So the hell with “toning it down” for the benefit of any squeamish organizations.

Time to get back in the saddle.

I’m going to lay out all the ugly stuff below, but in case you’re not in the mood to peg your blood pressure by reading about a bunch of political bullshit of gigantic proportions, I’ll start with the call to action.

That way, you can skip the political crap, and just do what’s needed to protect your right to fish the Scott and Shasta Rivers (not to mention the Upper Sac and McCloud).

Deal?

Here’s What’s Gotta Happen

I need as little as 90 seconds of your time. My only admonition? Be polite! You’ll see why below.

You’re simply going to email three of the supervisors and also “cc” the county clerk (and copy me).

Why the clerk? To make sure these emails become part of the official record, which may not have happened to your earlier emails. (How’s that make you feel?)

• Michael Kobseff (mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us)
• Bill Overman (bandm@nctv.com)
• LaVada Erickson (erickson5031@sbcglobal.net)
• Colleen Setzer, County Clerk (csetzer@co.siskiyou.ca.us)
• Trout Underground (tom.chandler@gmail.com)

Here’s What We Need to Say

We’re going to stick to the basics. No need to clutter your e-mail with anything beyond your name and the issues that matter. If you’ve only got 45 seconds, then simply cut and paste my bullet points, add your name and a closing line, and mail away.

If you’ve got a couple minutes, rewrite my stuff so the supervisors can’t devalue your effort by calling it a “form letter campaign.”

Still, what counts here is volume. If we can send the fisher-friendly supervisor into that meeting room with 100 emails — if we can jam the Supervisor’s packets with a triple-digit outpouring of “the public is watching you” — we might be able to turn this thing.

Maybe.

Here are the bullet points:

• The Proposed Natural Resources Plan and Committee damages Siskiyou County’s sustainable, renewable tourist economy. Fishermen won’t come here, even if just the Scott and Shasta Rivers are declared non-navigable (though the plan clearly includes “all” rivers in the county). When half the County’s tourist-related businesses start suffering, what will the Board of Supervisors do?
• The Proposed Natural Resources Plan and Committee Ordinance avoids public comment. Modoc County invested eight months writing their plan, and held a half-dozen public meetings. Siskiyou County’s draft policy document shuns public input, and was apparently written by one person — who somehow retains the “right” to accept or decline public comment. How is that good public process?
• The Proposed Natural Resources Plan practically guarantees expensive, wasteful legal challenges. Despite one supervisor’s protestations to the contrary, a half hour of research makes it clear the Scott, Shasta, Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers qualify as “navigable” under Federal and State definitions. It’s also clear that all rivers not designated non-navigable are to be considered navigable (not vice versa). Why are we essentially asking for lawsuits — which the county will lose?
• Any suggestions the navigability of rivers “was frozen at statehood” ignores the Fall River decision (and others), where attempts to impede public access to navigable rivers were thrown back by lawsuits.

Don’t use abusive or accusatory language (two of the names on the list above are our friends). One supervisor’s been whining about the small number of nasty emails (the same guy who cryptically accuses Trout Underground e-mail writers of being “misinformed”  — and repeatedly characterized your public input as “bizarre and irrational”).

The only whining they get to do comes after they’ve lost their attempt to run you off “their” rivers.

Otherwise, Supervisor Marcia Armstrong — who’s already trying to pack the Natural Resources Committee with her hand-picked cronies; who is already deciding which public comments are acceptable; and who wrote this ridiculous, illegal natural resource policy — will win.

And we lose.

Also, if you know any business owners up here who depend on fishermen to make a living, then drop them an email. Let them know that their own Board of Supervisors are willing to sacrifice south county businesses so extractive industries can prosper.

That’s the action plan. From here on down is just more fuel for the fire.

Why the Hell Are We Doing This Again?

I don’t even know where to start. If you’re new to this issue, you can see all my posts on the subject by clicking here.

The single best post on the subject can be found here.

Essentially, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors want to implement a set of Natural Resource Policies that designates all the rivers in the county as “non-navigable.”

That would deny you the right to fish those rivers where they adjoin private property. What’s worse, they’re all clearly navigable under state and federal definitions.

The plan is essentially one gift to extractive industry after another, and contains so many outrageous policies, it’s hard to know where to start.

Supervisor Armstrong will tell you she’s simply codifying policies the county’s already committed to, but It’s hard to call this anything but a ridiculous power grab on behalf of her extractive resource buddies.

In addition to the legally brain dead non-navigability stipulation, others sections say the only real use for water is to grow grass for livestock, that unchecked suction dredge mining is environmentally benign, and that publicly owned forest and rangelands must be managed for maximum cattle and timber yields (all other uses are secondary).

Sounds great, eh? There’s plenty more where those came from.

A Cloud of Misleading Statements and Obfuscation

Most galling has been the cloud of misleading statements around this from the start, and despite the fact that Ms. Armstrong has been caught with her hand in the extractive resource cookie jar, she’s attempting to brazen it out.

In my own email to the supervisors — which provided clear evidence of the illegality of designating the county rivers as non-navigable — Armstrong’s response was the political equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears and humming a song.

Apparently, the concept at work here is that repeating false information often enough makes it come true.

No, the rivers in this county weren’t frozen in a non-navigable status at statehood. No, the Shasta and Scott Rivers haven’t “long been held as non-navigable.”

None of that matters.

Of course, we were assured from the beginning that this plan was based on one instituted by Modoc County, and that also turned out to be a real whopper.

Modoc County actually bothered to get public input and formed a committee to develop their plan. In this case, Marcia Armstrong has already written the plan — long before the natural resource advisory committee has even been formed.

Hell — the County’s existing Natural Resource Director wasn’t even consulted on this plan.

And all the above ignores the reality that the county can’t even legislate most of the items in the plan.

And I could go into what appear to be attempts to pack the not-yet-formed committee with extractive-friendly cohorts, but that’s another post.

For now, I know this plan is moving closer to getting approved, and I’m sitting here typing this garbage instead of heading out on the river and throwing tailing loops at trout.

See you fighting the good fight, Tom Chandler.

[tags]fly fishing, fishing, stream access, river access, [/tags]

More coming on this one soon. See you anywhere but Yreka, Tom Chandler
[tags]natural resources policy[/tags]

Here’s a quickie: Do any of the Underground’s readers live in the Weed, Lake Shastina, or Shasta Valley area?

If so, the Trout Underground Needs You!

Please contact me right away via the Underground’s Contact page. We need a three-minute favor, and I wouldn’t ask if it wasn’t important.

[tags]shasta valley, weed, i want you[/tags]

I’ve promised to play nice for a week, so I’m just going to say this; the avalanche of e-mails and letters from Underground readers has made a difference. A big difference. Trust me. BIG.

 
Your work is making a difference. Now, we wait. And enjoy the river.

The supervisors received e-mails from all over the world, and there were a healthy number of local and regional responses (including several that hit the trifecta — biz owners who were experts and constituents).

The Underground’s Legal Braintrust

Just as valuable were the suggestions and research, all of which went into the larger message sent the way of the supervisors.

That message wasn’t just “we don’t like this.” It was “we don’t like it, and as near as we can tell, neither does the legal system, and to prove it, here’s a legal cite.”

My first post on this issue generated a record 70 thoughtful comments, and it’s ample testament to the power of an organized “Web 2.0″ community that it was the Undergrounders (not the Underground’s sniveling head writer) who very quickly established the legal framework by which this plan became legally laughable.

Plus, you helped galvanize other organizations into action

You even got me off my butt and looking into Modoc County’s version of this plan, a bit of research which is paying dividends — information which likely offers the Undergrounders, the Supervisors, and Siskiyou County a way forward.

Public Comment the Key

I’m not going to say I’m in love with every aspect of Modoc County’s Land Use Policies, but they got one part very right — they invested eight months and a half-dozen public input meetings into the construction of their plan.

By contrast, Siskiyou county’s plan appears to have been written by one (or at most two) people, it’s being rushed, and it seems that public comment is largely unwanted (it’s not really public comment if the author picks and chooses what’s included, is it?).

The result is the pulpy, largely anti-legal mess we’ve been beating up on for the last couple weeks. I have hopes that’s all about to change.

We’re not done, but we are holding in a “wait and see” mode (if you haven’t sent a polite e-mail yet, feel free to do so — that’s still helpful).
This isn’t a Hollywood movie, but the prospects for a Hollywood-style ending are looking better.

Stay tuned. Updates if necessary, and more news Tuesday evening — at the latest. Don’t relax overmuch; we might still have to go nuclear on this, but we won’t have to do it today.

For now, take a deep breath. And we return you to your regularly scheduled fly fishing blog (but feel free to add any new thoughts and comments).

Link Love

I fell behind, but wanted to thank the other sites who ponied up support. That includes the angst-ridden steelheaders at Voluntary Beatdown, the Former Supreme Court Justices at OverMyWaders, the just-discovered SwitchFisher, the already-mentioned Fishing Jones, and the kinda-scary Murdock at flyfishingmagazine.com (and anyone else I missed or forgot — send me an e-mail).

Then there were the Orvis Conservation folks. They didn’t want any credit (sorry!), but they showed up with moral support in the kind of fight that’s typically not very popular among corporations.

You guys are great. All of you.

See you on the river (and it’s about goddamned time), Tom Chandler.

[tags]fly fishing, fishing, stream access, stream access rights, river access, river access rights, [/tags]

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.

[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[/tags]

This would be illegal if some have their way…

Even though it’s clear the supervisors can’t legally designate the local rivers as non-navigable — making wading illegal where private property adjoins the river — several of them are still trying.

It spells trouble for us if they succeed, and on a whole range of issues, including access, water quality, habitat protection and many others.

Sadly, the most recent tactic involves a thinly veiled threat; in an e-mail to an Underground reader, one supervisor suggests that if support isn’t forthcoming to have the Scott and Shasta Rivers designated as non-navigable, she’ll be forced to launch a full-on assault on the McCloud and Upper Sacramento.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t much care for threats.

It gets worse.

The supervisor who authored the document publicly stated that she will decide which public comments are accepted and which aren’t.

Transparency? An open process? Nah. Don’t need ‘em when you’re pursuing a reckless public policy course.

Bring It On

While this plan initially snuck in under the radar, it’s finally being scrutinized in the full light of day, and the vast majority of the feedback has been negative, if not downright hostile.

Given the significant pushback the supervisors have received from CalTrout, TU, local residents and fly fishers (especially our own Underground mob), it’s clear they’re feeling the pressure.

Still, the two ringleaders aren’t budging; Supervisor Armstrong is now replying to e-mails with complaints that “local fishing guides” are causing problems through the simple act of (legally) fishing the Scott and Shasta.

Hmmm.

The rest of her stance remains largely opaque to the facts: she feels the Shasta and Scott have long been recognized as non-navigable (wrong); that the Klamath is the only navigable river in the county “under current law” (wrong again - one of our own readers shot that down with a US Supreme Court cite); and that the county even has a voice in this issue (wrong yet again).

Based on a casual reading of many of her weekly newspaper columns, she also feels that rivers are made to be dewatered, that fullscale mining, timber and agriculture operations don’t harm fish populations, and that destructive land use policies are fine because we’ve always done things that way.

This is the same supervisor who’s attacking CalTrout for the mere act of studying water flows in the Shasta River, and if that attack isn’t recommendation enough to get you to join CalTrout, then I don’t know what is.

Next Round: November 6

First, let me say this in big, bold, capital letters:

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT.

The research, the spot-on comments, and the small avalanche of e-mails have made a real difference. Our biggest ally on the BOS (LaVada Erickson) finally has a little political clout, and the proponents of this plan (including one who seems to changing direction) suddenly find themselves blinking into the glare of public scrutiny.

Take a minute to pat yourself on the back.

But know this: we’re not done yet.

I’m crafting a lengthy email for submission to all the supervisors using the information my readers unearthed, and I’m aiming letters to the editors of the local papers (the Mount Shasta Herald already published my first).

Naturally, I’ll share any responses, and at some point, I’ll ask the Underground Army to submit another flurry of e-mails (I’m looking into ways to automate the process).

Then the meeting itself looms; Tuesday morning, November 6.

No, I don’t really expect you be there, but hell — why not plan a long weekend trip? Hit the BWOs on the Upper Sac, the October Caddis on the McCloud, the steelies on the long-suffering Klamath — then show up Tuesday morning with a fistful of receipts for the money you’ve spent in the county.

Think a few of the supervisors might squirm a little when asked why they feel the need to criminalize the very activity that supports a big chunk of the local economy — a sustainable, non-extractive activity?

Think that supervisor Jim Cook — who supposedly represents the town of McCloud — wants to explain his tourist-economy-killing stance to his supposed constituents, who rely on fly fishermen to help keep that small town afloat?

I doubt it.

Much more to come. See you in the political trenches, Tom Chandler.

(Click to read the original post on this subject.)

[tags]fly fishing, upper sacramento river, mccloud river, shasta river, scott river, stream access rights, caltrout[/tags]

Sadly, you might not have much access to that river if the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors’s proposed Natural Resources Plan declares the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, Shasta and Scott Rivers as “Non-Navigable.”

That means you’ll have no right to wade or fish those rivers between the high water marks — rights you’ve enjoyed (until now). (The adjacent landowner owns the streambed on non-navigable rivers).

Will you lose the right to wade the Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers?

Of course, one of the tests of “navigability” is whether the waterway has been used for commerce in the past, and the Upper Sacramento has definitely been used for commerce.

In other words, the Sisikiyou County Board of Supervisors wants to limit your legal right to access the Upper Sacramento between the high water marks.

Wow. Stream access issues finally come home to the Trout Underground.

Feeling gentle and relaxed? I’m not. I’m pissed.

The Cuckoo’s Nest

Politics up here are byzantine, and while the south end of the county is where all the growth is occurring — especially in sustainable industries — the power rests up north. Controlled largely by ranchers, agriculture, timber, mining interests, etc, the concept is they’re willing to manage natural resources for the good of those few constituencies while the rest of us — including fly fishermen — can basically kiss their ass.

If you think that’s an overreaction, then read these selected paragraphs from the draft version of the County’s Proposed Natural Resources Plan:

• Siskiyou County opposes any additional designations of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the County;
• All rivers in Siskiyou County with the exception of the Klamath River, are recognized as non-navigable streams, with bed and banks owned as private property by adjacent landowners. The Klamath River has been declared as ?navigable,? however, private property rights in mineral claims in the bed and banks are recognized;

They also want to classify in-stream suction dredge mining as an entirely “benign” activity, and get a load of these gifts to cattle ranchers:

• Current grazing allotments shall be continued and principally managed to produce forage to support maximum carrying capacity by domestic livestock;
• Traditional use of grazing allotments for livestock grazing will take precedence over other competing uses;

And if you think “competing uses” includes fisheries, you’re right.

There is nothing good for fishermen or the environment in this crazy document, which is bascially an anti-environmental manifesto from the early 90’s “Wise Use” movement — one filled with gifts to extractive industries (mining & timber), cattle interests, agriculture, etc.

(Can anyone explain why the rights of suction dredge miners are so carefully protected when fishermen receive no significant mention?)

It’s a divisive screed, and even the timber guys think it’s too restrictive. It also ignores all the progress that’s been made in recent years by ranchers and environmental groups working together.

Finally, it’s attempting to control things which this county has absolutely no jurisdiction over — a state of affairs which guarantees gridlock and lawsuits.

Sound good yet? No, not to me either.

Protect Public Access on the Upper Sac and McCloud

Contact the County Supervisors (e-mail or call — contact information below) and let them know you don’t support the Environmental Resources Plan, and that if enacted, it will harm the sustainable tourist economy in Siskiyou County.

The first two Supervisors actually sit on the committee (Armstrong is driving this policy), and if you only contact two people, they’re the two. (My advice? Send e-mails to everyone, but call Kobseff and Armstrong.)

Michael Kobseff
mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us
(530) 918-9128

Marcia Armstrong
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 representative — let him know how much the town stands to lose)
jimcook@snowcrest.net
(530) 459-0459

Bill Overman
bandm@nctv.com
(530) 842-5389

I know you guys get a dozen e-mails a day asking you to take action, but for anyone who fishes the Upper Sacramento, McCloud, Scott, Shasta Rivers, this one’s worth a few minutes.

Even if the “non-navigable” designation is thrown out, the other provisions are ridiculous, wholly unbalanced, and will ultimately damage our fisheries.

This is only the tip of this very messy, messy thing, with lots more to come. See you in the political arena, Tom Chandler.

[tags]siskiyou county, stream access, upper sac, upper sacramento river, mccloud river[/tags]