From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Oregon Wild is PacifiCorp’s best Ally in Klamath Dam Fight!
I encourage everybody to read this outstanding article by Craig Tucker taking to task Oregon Wild's elitist and poorly thought out "strategy" that sabotages years of efforts by the Klamath River Tribes, fishermen, real conservationists and environmental justice advocates to remove PacifiCorp's dams on the Klamath River.
"If you fund these jokers or answer their alerts, you may want to reconsider. They may have good intentions, but I've played battleship with four year olds that have a better mind for strategy."
Right on, Craig!
(Photo: The Klamath River Tribes and their allies hold up a banner at a press conference at the State Capitol in Sacramento on April 27 on their way to the Berkshire Hathaway meeting in Omaha Nebraska on May 4-5.)
"If you fund these jokers or answer their alerts, you may want to reconsider. They may have good intentions, but I've played battleship with four year olds that have a better mind for strategy."
Right on, Craig!
(Photo: The Klamath River Tribes and their allies hold up a banner at a press conference at the State Capitol in Sacramento on April 27 on their way to the Berkshire Hathaway meeting in Omaha Nebraska on May 4-5.)
Oregon Wild is PacifiCorp’s best Ally in Klamath Dam Fight
by Craig Tucker, Klamath Organizer for Karuk Tribe (e-mail: ctucker [at] karuk.us)
Oregon Wild's latest strategic blunder threatens Tribes' chance to save salmon and expand waterfowl habitat
For several years the feds, states, Tribes, farmers, enviros, and fishermen have been locked in negotiations over the fate of Klamath River dams.
While Tribes have taken the lead on an aggressive campaign against corporate tyrant PacifiCorp and their owner Warren Buffett, Oregon Wild (formerly known as ONRC) has done little to help the Tribes in their struggle to save their river.
The Tribes have repeatedly staged actions in Portland targeting PacifiCorp each requiring an eight hour bus drive to do so. We have never gotten support from Oregon Wild although they are just around the corner. When it comes to ending corporate oppression the guys at Oregon Wild are all talk and no action!
Instead, Oregon Wild has staked out an exclusive moral high ground that Indians, fishermen, farmers and anyone else trying to protect their families' health and income can't reach.
Today Oregon Wild posted an action alert to congress urging activists to oppose the settlement framework developed by Tribes and others. For those of us that actually live and die in the Klamath Basin, this is viewed as the best chance to save our fish, our water quality, and our rural economies. For the 'environistas' at Oregon Wild, they'd rather see Indians driven deeper into poverty than comprise with Farmers. The folks at PacifiCorp must be sending in the donations to these guys by the boatload!
The fact of the matter is that we are very close to the largest river restoration in world history in large part due to the political pressure our protests and actions have put on the company and elected officials and because we have been willing to work with the farm communities in the basin. Our Klamath Settlement Framework specifies dam removal, river flows that would allow salmon to recover, incentives for farmers to develop more wetlands, expands the size of Upper Klamath Lake, and more.
Because Oregon Wild has failed to achieve their organizational mission to drive farmers out of the basin, they'd rather see the deal go down in flames than compromise. This means that PacifiCorp and Warren Buffett will be able to continue their extraction of the Klamath's wealth and poisoning of our fishery. Thanks a lot, Oregon Wild!
If you fund these jokers or answer their alerts, you may want to reconsider. They may have good intentions, but I've played battleship with four year olds that have a better mind for strategy.
Learn more about our effort to remove dams at http://klamathmedia.org/
homepage: http://www.karuk.us
phone: 530-627-3446 x3027
by Craig Tucker, Klamath Organizer for Karuk Tribe (e-mail: ctucker [at] karuk.us)
Oregon Wild's latest strategic blunder threatens Tribes' chance to save salmon and expand waterfowl habitat
For several years the feds, states, Tribes, farmers, enviros, and fishermen have been locked in negotiations over the fate of Klamath River dams.
While Tribes have taken the lead on an aggressive campaign against corporate tyrant PacifiCorp and their owner Warren Buffett, Oregon Wild (formerly known as ONRC) has done little to help the Tribes in their struggle to save their river.
The Tribes have repeatedly staged actions in Portland targeting PacifiCorp each requiring an eight hour bus drive to do so. We have never gotten support from Oregon Wild although they are just around the corner. When it comes to ending corporate oppression the guys at Oregon Wild are all talk and no action!
Instead, Oregon Wild has staked out an exclusive moral high ground that Indians, fishermen, farmers and anyone else trying to protect their families' health and income can't reach.
Today Oregon Wild posted an action alert to congress urging activists to oppose the settlement framework developed by Tribes and others. For those of us that actually live and die in the Klamath Basin, this is viewed as the best chance to save our fish, our water quality, and our rural economies. For the 'environistas' at Oregon Wild, they'd rather see Indians driven deeper into poverty than comprise with Farmers. The folks at PacifiCorp must be sending in the donations to these guys by the boatload!
The fact of the matter is that we are very close to the largest river restoration in world history in large part due to the political pressure our protests and actions have put on the company and elected officials and because we have been willing to work with the farm communities in the basin. Our Klamath Settlement Framework specifies dam removal, river flows that would allow salmon to recover, incentives for farmers to develop more wetlands, expands the size of Upper Klamath Lake, and more.
Because Oregon Wild has failed to achieve their organizational mission to drive farmers out of the basin, they'd rather see the deal go down in flames than compromise. This means that PacifiCorp and Warren Buffett will be able to continue their extraction of the Klamath's wealth and poisoning of our fishery. Thanks a lot, Oregon Wild!
If you fund these jokers or answer their alerts, you may want to reconsider. They may have good intentions, but I've played battleship with four year olds that have a better mind for strategy.
Learn more about our effort to remove dams at http://klamathmedia.org/
homepage: http://www.karuk.us
phone: 530-627-3446 x3027
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is incredibly dangerous. Oregon Wild is trying to prevent a deal being cut that would undercut the Endangered Species Act and cement in place the completely unsustainable industrial development of the upper basin wetlands -- aka the WILDLIFE REFUGES -- half of which are now devoted to chemically intensive, subsidized industrial agriculture.
The settlement now under discussion -- from which key conservation voices have been EXCLUDED, and that alone should send up the red flags -- is one that could well make salmon recovery in the upper basin impossible.
The tribes are focused on their own self-interest, which is very important. But folks should not be intimidated by Craig's bluster here: there are critical ecological issues at stake that must not be sacrificed, no matter what the skin color of those making the demands.
If this is such a great deal, why can't it be made fully public and transparent? Why are the environmental advocates who have done so much to bring the issue to a head being shut out of the closed-door discussions? And why are they being attacked?
Craig suggests that Oregon Wild is doing PacificCorps' bidding. I think he's doing the farmers'.
The settlement now under discussion -- from which key conservation voices have been EXCLUDED, and that alone should send up the red flags -- is one that could well make salmon recovery in the upper basin impossible.
The tribes are focused on their own self-interest, which is very important. But folks should not be intimidated by Craig's bluster here: there are critical ecological issues at stake that must not be sacrificed, no matter what the skin color of those making the demands.
If this is such a great deal, why can't it be made fully public and transparent? Why are the environmental advocates who have done so much to bring the issue to a head being shut out of the closed-door discussions? And why are they being attacked?
Craig suggests that Oregon Wild is doing PacificCorps' bidding. I think he's doing the farmers'.
You might want to research the issue before taking the anti-Oregon Wild spin as gospel.
Oregon Wild has been pushing for dam removal on the Klamath River for years, and has sued Pacificorp over violations of the Endangered Species Act. Tucker is upset because Oregon Wild (and other groups) are opposing a "deal" that some in the basin are trying to make with the Bush administration. Some Tribes are willing to go along with permanent agricultural development on the areas' six National Wildlife Refuges, weakened ESA enforcement for fish, and lower water flows for the Klamath River in order to buy the Bush administration and the irrigators' support for dam removal.
Dam removal is important, but it you shouldn't sacrifice other natural resources to get it. And attacking Oregon Wild for defending wildlife refuges from the Bush administration and corporate agriculture is pretty lame.
Oregon Wild's alert is on their website (http://www.oregonwild.org), or you can go to it directly here:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oregonwild/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11333
For more information on "the deal" Craig Tucker is trying to defend, read the LA Times article from last week:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath7may07,0,7457311.story?coll=la-home-local
Oregon Wild has been pushing for dam removal on the Klamath River for years, and has sued Pacificorp over violations of the Endangered Species Act. Tucker is upset because Oregon Wild (and other groups) are opposing a "deal" that some in the basin are trying to make with the Bush administration. Some Tribes are willing to go along with permanent agricultural development on the areas' six National Wildlife Refuges, weakened ESA enforcement for fish, and lower water flows for the Klamath River in order to buy the Bush administration and the irrigators' support for dam removal.
Dam removal is important, but it you shouldn't sacrifice other natural resources to get it. And attacking Oregon Wild for defending wildlife refuges from the Bush administration and corporate agriculture is pretty lame.
Oregon Wild's alert is on their website (http://www.oregonwild.org), or you can go to it directly here:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oregonwild/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11333
For more information on "the deal" Craig Tucker is trying to defend, read the LA Times article from last week:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath7may07,0,7457311.story?coll=la-home-local
Is this the same Dan Bacher who wrote this?:
"I absolutely oppose 'enviro-bashing,' since it is destructive and counter-productive to the cause of fishery restoration. Some of the current "enviro-bashing" originates from the support of some environmental groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council and the Ocean Conservancy, for marine reserves."
"I absolutely oppose 'enviro-bashing,' since it is destructive and counter-productive to the cause of fishery restoration. Some of the current "enviro-bashing" originates from the support of some environmental groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council and the Ocean Conservancy, for marine reserves."
Both sides of the debate need to agree that dam removal is of primary importance for Klamath River restoration. Removal of lower four Klamath dams will indeed prevent the buildup & infestation of toxic algae 'Microcystin aeruginosa' and simultaneously improve water quality (adding oxygen, cooling temps, faster velocity, etc..) needed by salmon for survival..
Agriculture also benefits from the removal of lower four Klamath dams as the evaporation potential is far greater as water remains standing still behind dams. Also the nitrates from fertilizer runoff wouldn't be trapped behind dams either, resulting in massive infestation of toxic algae..
There is no legitimate argument against removal of the lower four Klamath dams besides Berkshire Hathaway & Warren Buffet's lust for profits off of operating the outdated dams at taxpayer & ratepayer expense. If it was really about green energy and reducing global warming as Buffet claims, why don't we see those solar cells and windmills instead of suffocating, hot, slow and toxic Klamath rio agua behind the dams??
However, making deals with & giving the industrial agribusinesses of the Klamath Basin a green light to further develop sensitive wetlands (ie., see Tule Lake 'Potato Refuge') into plantation style monoculture fields dependent on heavy fertilizer input isn't good for salmon, migratory wildfowl or any other species along the Klamath riparian ecosystem. Prior to conversion to agriculture the Klamath basin were productive wetlands..
"This was what you found when you arrived in Klamath Falls a century ago: swamps everywhere, and birds thick as flies. The Klamath Basin, a high arid plateau the size of Connecticut, didn't get much rain -- about as much, on average, as the Texas Panhandle -- but what it got it kept, draining the runoff from surrounding mountains into three shallow lakes and a vast system of wetlands. Ten million birds paused to feed here during their migration from Canada to Mexico. Egrets, terns, mallards, pelicans, eagles, tundra swans, and herons browsed amid thickets of 10-foot-tall bulrushes known as tule (too-lee). The Klamath Indians pulled tens of thousands of sucker fish from the lakes every year. This was the Everglades of the American West.
Where some saw a thriving wetland, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation saw farmland drowning under water. Starting in 1906, the Bureau drained and replumbed nearly the entire basin, building a complex set of canals that shrank Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake to one-quarter their original size and sending the water to irrigate thousands of acres of crops and pasture. After the farmers had their share, some of the water would drain into the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife refuges, and some would be pumped back into the Klamath River. Over time, a map of the project came to resemble a guide to the London Underground."
article @;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_366_01.html
Wetlands can instead be seen as benefits to farmers of the drought prone Klamath basin. Wetlands in the Klamath basin region collect water over large areas and allow for groundwater percolation and aquifer recharge. This cannot be duplicated under plantation agriculture..
"Background
The high desert surrounding the Klamath River Basin would seem an unlikely place for a vast natural network of lakes, marshes, and rivers. This region of Southern Oregon is one of the driest places in the state. Yet while rain is scarce, snow is abundant in the mountains that ring the basin, and the annual snowmelt feeds the lakes, marshes, and rivers. At the northern end of the region sits magnificent Crater Lake, Oregon's only National Park.
The basin's marshes and wetlands sustain hundreds of thousands of birds, including snow geese, tundra swans and white faced ibis, as well as dozens of species of ducks, grebes, cranes, egrets and other water and shore birds. The region also supports the largest population of wintering bald eagles in the lower 48 states. Many types of wildlife, from river otters to elk, also depend on the basin's waters.
Klamath Lake is the last stronghold of the Lost River and shortnose suckers (known as Kaptu or C'wam to local Native American Tribes). The Klamath River, which begins in Oregon and flows southwest through California to the ocean, still supports salmon, though in much smaller numbers than in years past. These fish are a critical part of local Native American culture. Treaties signed by the federal government require programs to maintain both salmon and suckers as a resource for local Tribes.
As early as 1908 biologists recognized the importance of the Klamath for migratory birds, and a portion of the marshes were given some protection with the designation of the Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Today six National Wildlife Refuges dot the region. The protection they offer to fish and wildlife is limited, however, by the leasing of land within their boundaries for private, commercial agriculture.
The Klamath Project
Though European settlers first began farming in the Klamath basin in the mid-1800's, the current steep decline of natural resources did not begin until 1905. In that year the federal government, seeking to encourage the settlement of the region, began a massive project of draining lakes and wetlands and diverting water for irrigated agriculture in the high desert. The Bureau of Reclamation did so without the consent of the Klamath Tribes, who had signed a treaty with the United States giving them control of the water.
Known as the Klamath Project, the Bureau's program replaced the natural rivers, lakes and marshes of the basin with a complex plumbing system intended to deliver water for farms. The needs of fish and wildlife were given little consideration. Several lakes were drained completely to make room for cropland, while others were turned into artificial reservoirs to deliver irrigation water. The Lost and Klamath Rivers were connected through a series of dams and new channels, and their natural cycles were eliminated to provide stable water supplies.
Eighty percent of the natural wetlands in the basin were destroyed as a result of the Klamath Project, and summer flows in the Klamath River have been reduced to a trickle. The state and federal governments issued "water rights" in the region, granting irrigators the right to divert a set amount of water. This water came at the expense of the Klamath's marshes, lakes, and rivers as well as the fish and wildlife that depended on them. Over the years, more rights have been given away for this precious resource than the environment can sustain.
The Klamath Basin Today
Today the situation is grim. Lost River and shortnose suckers that once teemed in Upper Klamath Lake are threatened by some of the worst water pollution in Oregon. Massive algae blooms, caused in part by run-off from farmlands above the lake, kill both these fish and the Lake's prized rainbow trout. Low flows in the Klamath River have created a severe problem for salmon, killing 30,000 fish (including endangered coho) in the fall of 2002, and a series of hydroelectric dams block them from coming up the river to many of their historic spawning streams in Oregon."
article @;
http://www.waterwatch.org/Campaigns/Klamath/klamath2.htm
What people forget when discussing the psuedo debates of 'farms vs. fish' is that the wetlands also provided indigenous people with plenty of food if left in it's natural state of inland lakes. Wocus lily and tule reeds were harvested by the Modoc people, later displaced by the Modoc War..
"The Modocs were never a large group. They did not, in fact, live as a tribe but in many small bands. Before 1800 they numbered only 400 to 800 people, occupying an area known as the Lakes District that covered portions of Oregon and California. Using obsidian, or "volcanic glass," to tip their arrows, they hunted and lived off game they found in their 5,000 square miles of hunting range.
The seeds of the wocus, a pond lily, were ground in mortar stones make of lava, and the resulting food was one of their primary staples. Another water plant, the tule, provided material for the skillful hands of the Modoc basket weavers. Wickiups, inverted, bowl-shaped earthen structures entered through a hole in the top, afforded shelter. This, then, was the life of the Modoc people prior to 1880."
article @;
http://www.cheewa.com/modoc.html
The sheer size of the Klamath wetlands prior to agriculture resulted in an abundance of food and building material for indigenous people and migratory waterfowl. The displaced Modoc peoples can return to their homes in the Klamath basin from faraway Oklahoma. Wocus lily harvesting is equally as important for the Modoc as salmon harvesting is for the Karuk. While many Euro-americans may claim preference for potatoes over wocus lily, it also follows that many have never even tried wocus lily flour and don't know what it tastes like. Today we immigrants to the Klamath basin can act on our ethics and return the wetlands to their original state as refuge for indigenous wildlife, wocus and waterfowl. Surely the duck hunters wouldn't mind sharing the wocus lily with vegans??
"Tules growing in the lakes and marshes gave the maklaks a versatile material. They made canoes of tules, built homes with tules arranged on a framework of poles, covered communal storage pits with tule mats, wore tule leggings and tule sandals, and wove tules into baskets to sift wocus through. Shells of dried wocus seeds yielded a dye for tules used in basket-making.
Great quantities of wocus were stored in those mat-covered pits. Ten thousand acres of the lily grew in Klamath Marsh alone, providing a food so abundant that maklaks depended on it to survive when other foods were not available. Also helping the maklaks to survive harsh winters at 4,000 feet, with fierce winds and heavy snows, was the faith that their creator had provided them everything they needed."
article @;
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/narratives/subtopic.cfm?subtopic_ID=266
also see;
http://rogueimc.org/en/2005/09/5362.shtml
Remove the lower four Klamath dams AND protect the Klamath basin wetlands!!
Agriculture also benefits from the removal of lower four Klamath dams as the evaporation potential is far greater as water remains standing still behind dams. Also the nitrates from fertilizer runoff wouldn't be trapped behind dams either, resulting in massive infestation of toxic algae..
There is no legitimate argument against removal of the lower four Klamath dams besides Berkshire Hathaway & Warren Buffet's lust for profits off of operating the outdated dams at taxpayer & ratepayer expense. If it was really about green energy and reducing global warming as Buffet claims, why don't we see those solar cells and windmills instead of suffocating, hot, slow and toxic Klamath rio agua behind the dams??
However, making deals with & giving the industrial agribusinesses of the Klamath Basin a green light to further develop sensitive wetlands (ie., see Tule Lake 'Potato Refuge') into plantation style monoculture fields dependent on heavy fertilizer input isn't good for salmon, migratory wildfowl or any other species along the Klamath riparian ecosystem. Prior to conversion to agriculture the Klamath basin were productive wetlands..
"This was what you found when you arrived in Klamath Falls a century ago: swamps everywhere, and birds thick as flies. The Klamath Basin, a high arid plateau the size of Connecticut, didn't get much rain -- about as much, on average, as the Texas Panhandle -- but what it got it kept, draining the runoff from surrounding mountains into three shallow lakes and a vast system of wetlands. Ten million birds paused to feed here during their migration from Canada to Mexico. Egrets, terns, mallards, pelicans, eagles, tundra swans, and herons browsed amid thickets of 10-foot-tall bulrushes known as tule (too-lee). The Klamath Indians pulled tens of thousands of sucker fish from the lakes every year. This was the Everglades of the American West.
Where some saw a thriving wetland, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation saw farmland drowning under water. Starting in 1906, the Bureau drained and replumbed nearly the entire basin, building a complex set of canals that shrank Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake to one-quarter their original size and sending the water to irrigate thousands of acres of crops and pasture. After the farmers had their share, some of the water would drain into the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife refuges, and some would be pumped back into the Klamath River. Over time, a map of the project came to resemble a guide to the London Underground."
article @;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_366_01.html
Wetlands can instead be seen as benefits to farmers of the drought prone Klamath basin. Wetlands in the Klamath basin region collect water over large areas and allow for groundwater percolation and aquifer recharge. This cannot be duplicated under plantation agriculture..
"Background
The high desert surrounding the Klamath River Basin would seem an unlikely place for a vast natural network of lakes, marshes, and rivers. This region of Southern Oregon is one of the driest places in the state. Yet while rain is scarce, snow is abundant in the mountains that ring the basin, and the annual snowmelt feeds the lakes, marshes, and rivers. At the northern end of the region sits magnificent Crater Lake, Oregon's only National Park.
The basin's marshes and wetlands sustain hundreds of thousands of birds, including snow geese, tundra swans and white faced ibis, as well as dozens of species of ducks, grebes, cranes, egrets and other water and shore birds. The region also supports the largest population of wintering bald eagles in the lower 48 states. Many types of wildlife, from river otters to elk, also depend on the basin's waters.
Klamath Lake is the last stronghold of the Lost River and shortnose suckers (known as Kaptu or C'wam to local Native American Tribes). The Klamath River, which begins in Oregon and flows southwest through California to the ocean, still supports salmon, though in much smaller numbers than in years past. These fish are a critical part of local Native American culture. Treaties signed by the federal government require programs to maintain both salmon and suckers as a resource for local Tribes.
As early as 1908 biologists recognized the importance of the Klamath for migratory birds, and a portion of the marshes were given some protection with the designation of the Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Today six National Wildlife Refuges dot the region. The protection they offer to fish and wildlife is limited, however, by the leasing of land within their boundaries for private, commercial agriculture.
The Klamath Project
Though European settlers first began farming in the Klamath basin in the mid-1800's, the current steep decline of natural resources did not begin until 1905. In that year the federal government, seeking to encourage the settlement of the region, began a massive project of draining lakes and wetlands and diverting water for irrigated agriculture in the high desert. The Bureau of Reclamation did so without the consent of the Klamath Tribes, who had signed a treaty with the United States giving them control of the water.
Known as the Klamath Project, the Bureau's program replaced the natural rivers, lakes and marshes of the basin with a complex plumbing system intended to deliver water for farms. The needs of fish and wildlife were given little consideration. Several lakes were drained completely to make room for cropland, while others were turned into artificial reservoirs to deliver irrigation water. The Lost and Klamath Rivers were connected through a series of dams and new channels, and their natural cycles were eliminated to provide stable water supplies.
Eighty percent of the natural wetlands in the basin were destroyed as a result of the Klamath Project, and summer flows in the Klamath River have been reduced to a trickle. The state and federal governments issued "water rights" in the region, granting irrigators the right to divert a set amount of water. This water came at the expense of the Klamath's marshes, lakes, and rivers as well as the fish and wildlife that depended on them. Over the years, more rights have been given away for this precious resource than the environment can sustain.
The Klamath Basin Today
Today the situation is grim. Lost River and shortnose suckers that once teemed in Upper Klamath Lake are threatened by some of the worst water pollution in Oregon. Massive algae blooms, caused in part by run-off from farmlands above the lake, kill both these fish and the Lake's prized rainbow trout. Low flows in the Klamath River have created a severe problem for salmon, killing 30,000 fish (including endangered coho) in the fall of 2002, and a series of hydroelectric dams block them from coming up the river to many of their historic spawning streams in Oregon."
article @;
http://www.waterwatch.org/Campaigns/Klamath/klamath2.htm
What people forget when discussing the psuedo debates of 'farms vs. fish' is that the wetlands also provided indigenous people with plenty of food if left in it's natural state of inland lakes. Wocus lily and tule reeds were harvested by the Modoc people, later displaced by the Modoc War..
"The Modocs were never a large group. They did not, in fact, live as a tribe but in many small bands. Before 1800 they numbered only 400 to 800 people, occupying an area known as the Lakes District that covered portions of Oregon and California. Using obsidian, or "volcanic glass," to tip their arrows, they hunted and lived off game they found in their 5,000 square miles of hunting range.
The seeds of the wocus, a pond lily, were ground in mortar stones make of lava, and the resulting food was one of their primary staples. Another water plant, the tule, provided material for the skillful hands of the Modoc basket weavers. Wickiups, inverted, bowl-shaped earthen structures entered through a hole in the top, afforded shelter. This, then, was the life of the Modoc people prior to 1880."
article @;
http://www.cheewa.com/modoc.html
The sheer size of the Klamath wetlands prior to agriculture resulted in an abundance of food and building material for indigenous people and migratory waterfowl. The displaced Modoc peoples can return to their homes in the Klamath basin from faraway Oklahoma. Wocus lily harvesting is equally as important for the Modoc as salmon harvesting is for the Karuk. While many Euro-americans may claim preference for potatoes over wocus lily, it also follows that many have never even tried wocus lily flour and don't know what it tastes like. Today we immigrants to the Klamath basin can act on our ethics and return the wetlands to their original state as refuge for indigenous wildlife, wocus and waterfowl. Surely the duck hunters wouldn't mind sharing the wocus lily with vegans??
"Tules growing in the lakes and marshes gave the maklaks a versatile material. They made canoes of tules, built homes with tules arranged on a framework of poles, covered communal storage pits with tule mats, wore tule leggings and tule sandals, and wove tules into baskets to sift wocus through. Shells of dried wocus seeds yielded a dye for tules used in basket-making.
Great quantities of wocus were stored in those mat-covered pits. Ten thousand acres of the lily grew in Klamath Marsh alone, providing a food so abundant that maklaks depended on it to survive when other foods were not available. Also helping the maklaks to survive harsh winters at 4,000 feet, with fierce winds and heavy snows, was the faith that their creator had provided them everything they needed."
article @;
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/narratives/subtopic.cfm?subtopic_ID=266
also see;
http://rogueimc.org/en/2005/09/5362.shtml
Remove the lower four Klamath dams AND protect the Klamath basin wetlands!!
Thanks gulo for reminding people of Dan's earlier words. From the same article Dan Bacher also wrote;
"These are just a few examples of dozens I could give on how environmental groups and fishery conservation organizations have worked together to restore and enhance the state's fish populations. We should take a cue from Merle Haggard in making the "voice of the people" heard by working in broad coalitions of anglers, hunters, environmental groups, Indian tribes, recreational boaters, commercial fishermen and sustainable farming advocates. "Enviro-bashing" only serves those who aim to divide and conquer us from achieving our goal of restoring fisheries and the environment."
article @;
http://www.counterpunch.org/bacher03022004.html
Since the article was dated 2004 maybe Dan forgot those meaningful words of coalition building includes "sustainable farming". Developing wetlands for migratory birds into plantation style agribusiness monoculture cannot be defined as "sustainable farming" no matter how far we stretch the word..
However, an example from the Tohono O'ohdam Community Action program encourages indigenous food harvests;
"The destruction of indigenous food systems is causing similar, albeit somewhat less dramatic, damage to the health of Native people and communities throughout the U.S. The physical and cultural survival of many Native peoples requires the rejuvenation of these food systems. Like in Native communities across the U.S., such renewal is beginning to happen on the Tohono O'odham Nation.
The Tohono O'odham Community Food System, a project of Tohono O'odham Community Action, is working with individuals, families, communities and institutions to combine elements of the traditional food system with new forms of organization. These strategies include:
establishing community gardens where the traditions and techniques of O'odham gardening can be passed on to a new generation;
helping families grow traditional O'odham crops at home;
organizing trips to collect traditional O'odham foods such a cholla buds, saguaro fruit and mesquite beans;
revitalizing farming in traditional flood plain fields;
sponsoring storytelling events and other cultural activities which are based in traditional food production; and
providing opportunities to sell and distribute traditional O'odham foods within the community and elsewhere."
article @;
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/where_we_work/united_states/news_publications/art4144.html
Why not try this concept with the Modocs & Klamath and their wocus lily??
"These are just a few examples of dozens I could give on how environmental groups and fishery conservation organizations have worked together to restore and enhance the state's fish populations. We should take a cue from Merle Haggard in making the "voice of the people" heard by working in broad coalitions of anglers, hunters, environmental groups, Indian tribes, recreational boaters, commercial fishermen and sustainable farming advocates. "Enviro-bashing" only serves those who aim to divide and conquer us from achieving our goal of restoring fisheries and the environment."
article @;
http://www.counterpunch.org/bacher03022004.html
Since the article was dated 2004 maybe Dan forgot those meaningful words of coalition building includes "sustainable farming". Developing wetlands for migratory birds into plantation style agribusiness monoculture cannot be defined as "sustainable farming" no matter how far we stretch the word..
However, an example from the Tohono O'ohdam Community Action program encourages indigenous food harvests;
"The destruction of indigenous food systems is causing similar, albeit somewhat less dramatic, damage to the health of Native people and communities throughout the U.S. The physical and cultural survival of many Native peoples requires the rejuvenation of these food systems. Like in Native communities across the U.S., such renewal is beginning to happen on the Tohono O'odham Nation.
The Tohono O'odham Community Food System, a project of Tohono O'odham Community Action, is working with individuals, families, communities and institutions to combine elements of the traditional food system with new forms of organization. These strategies include:
establishing community gardens where the traditions and techniques of O'odham gardening can be passed on to a new generation;
helping families grow traditional O'odham crops at home;
organizing trips to collect traditional O'odham foods such a cholla buds, saguaro fruit and mesquite beans;
revitalizing farming in traditional flood plain fields;
sponsoring storytelling events and other cultural activities which are based in traditional food production; and
providing opportunities to sell and distribute traditional O'odham foods within the community and elsewhere."
article @;
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/where_we_work/united_states/news_publications/art4144.html
Why not try this concept with the Modocs & Klamath and their wocus lily??
Perhaps next time Dan Bacher will ask Craig Tucker why he is supporting the Bush administration's salmon policies in the Klamath Basin. Those sell-out environmentalists, don' t they know that Bush is our friend?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network