Lutz and the Dog have some explaining to do

10-22-2003, 04:56 PM

BrionLutz · 10-22-2003, 07:11 PM

Keta,

Actually the National Research Council is equivocal saying there's not enough evidence to say it was the water cutoff by Karl Rove. Not quite the same as letting off them off the hook.

As the CA Dept of Fish and Game determined, the fish kill was caused by the low flow.

And, as the story notes, the National Research Council is at odds with the CA Dept of Fish and Game study which concluded that the low flow is what killed the 40,000 fish.

Probably Occams Razor helps us out, the most obvious answer is probably correct.

When the fish biologists told the Bush Jr admin. that cutting off the water would kill the salmon and it did, that's likely what happened.

Ability to predict the Bush Jr disaster, have the salmon die off in record numbers and then to have the scientific work of the CA Dept of Fish and Game confirm would seem to "break the tie".

Remember, it was a political decision by Karl Rove in the White House to cut off the water to the salmon, not a science or Fish and Game decision, so that is probably the third strike and the Bush Jr admin does life for the murder of 40,000 Chinook.

Brion

[ 10-22-2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

Snapset · 10-22-2003, 08:53 PM

Sorry, Brion, but Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation or model that fits the data is the direction one should go when refining a theory. (Philosophy According to Mark Larson). The simplest model is not often the most obvious , in fact the simplest explanation to a chronic problem is often the most obscure.

With all of the undercurrents to this story relating to water rights and the conflicts they cause, carving the cause of the fish kill down to "Bush Jr. admin" is a gross misapplication of Occam's Razor. :tongue: Nice try, though.

BrionLutz · 10-22-2003, 09:37 PM

Snapset,

Quote:

Sorry, Brion, but Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation or model that fits the data is the direction one should go when refining a theory.

Eyup and that would be...no water, dead salmon and that's what we got, that's what the bios said we'd get before Karl Rove turned off the water, we did get 40,000 dead salmon and we did get the CA Dept of Fish and Game saying it was the lack of waterflow that killed off the salmon.

Sounds "simple".

The National Research Council couldn't come to a conclusion either way. Also, consider the title of the National Research Council work is: "Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery" and lists increasing water flow as one of the many changes that need to be made in the Klamath Basin to stop the decline in the salmon.

I'm sure Keta won't be citing them much in the future <grin>.

Brion

10-22-2003, 09:41 PM

Up to the same ol' stuf again Lutz.
They discounted California's attempt to steal the water for their own use.
The report came down on all sides but the bottom line is there was no justification for the water shut off and lake and river levels are not the key factors.

The "obvious answer" would be to restore the river to pre project flows. Less water mid to late summer in the Klamath and more water in the Trinity.

Quote:

I'm sure Keta won't be citing them much in the future

Why not? They support most of what I have said and disprove most of your misinformation.

[ 10-22-2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Flatfish · 10-22-2003, 09:42 PM

Jake has some 'splainin' to do?

Mark and the guilty looking dog.

Straydog · 10-22-2003, 09:52 PM

Keta,

Indeed you "told you so".

However, while they agree that turning off the water was not the only element that led to the kill, they didn't exactly totally discount that more water would have helped, as evidenced in this news article from another source. Further, their conclusions differed from the State's conclusions and thier submission that increased temps. and decreased flows didn't cause the kill is not accompanied by concrete evidence that it didn't.

More information on the report is contained in the LA Times article below.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1510746.story

THE STATE

Panel Urges Large-Scale Approach to Protect Fish in Klamath Basin

Federal committee recommends a series of actions, from toppling dams to restoring lakes, to prevent threatened species from dying out.

By Eric Bailey
Times Staff Writer

October 22, 2003

SACRAMENTO A federal science panel on Tuesday recommended that U.S. wildlife regulators take a far more sweeping approach to prevent extinction of threatened fish in the Klamath Basin, a region racked in recent years by one of the West's most contentious water wars.

After nearly two years of study, the National Research Council's scientific committee suggested a series of aggressive steps ranging from reviving long-drained lakes and wetlands to better controlling erosion from logging, restoring coldwater flows into tributaries, shuttering a hatchery and toppling dozens of dams.

But the 12-member panel stuck by a controversial finding it first announced in an interim report last year: that, based on the scientific evidence, increased flows in the Klamath River and higher water levels in Oregon's Upper Klamath Lake are not justified to protect coho salmon in the river and the lake's two species of sucker fish.

Controversy swept the fertile agricultural basin straddling the Oregon-California border in 2001 after federal officials increased water allotments for fish and slashed irrigation deliveries to farmers. Environmentalists, Indian tribes and others have been wrangling ever since with farmers and the Bush administration, which boosted water deliveries to agriculture in 2002 but then drew blame for a fish die-off that claimed 33,000 salmon and steelhead trout in the Klamath River.

Both sides in the debate welcomed the report's call for solutions throughout the sprawling Klamath River watershed, which spreads from the Cascade Mountains of Oregon south into the dense northern woods of California.

Bush administration officials reacted with caution, but said the report justifies many of their actions and relieves them of blame in the fish kill while pointing the way for solutions that don't focus on simply taking water from farmers.

"While it may be a lot harder to take the broader approach, it is more fair," said Sue Ellen Wooldridge, the Interior Department's deputy director. "If it obligates everyone in the basin to work harder, that's too bad, but that's the appropriate approach. The easy answers aren't always the right answers."

Agricultural interests in the Klamath Basin welcomed the research findings as validation of their long-held belief that farmers have borne too much blame for problems with the fish.

"It's great news," said Dan Keppen, Klamath Water Users Assn. executive director. "It pretty clearly shows that the focus on us was wrong, that this needs to be a watershed-wide solution. We see this as a very positive step."

But environmentalists and others fighting for protection of the threatened fish say the scientific panel's conclusions, though in many cases welcome, represent the sort of slow-developing solutions that will be tough to finance and could meet stiff resistance throughout the region. Implementing the recommended new research and a few small-scale projects could cost up to $35 million, and major efforts such as removing dams would add considerably to the price tag and delays.

"What I think they got wrong is relying on solutions that are going to take five, 10, 15 years to implement," said Steve Pedery of Oregon WaterWatch. "In the meantime, these fish don't have that much time to waste."

Even so, he and others said they saw plenty to like in the thick report.

A prime objective is for the federal wildlife agencies to make a broader push with all of the parties that have an impact on the basin, not just focusing on Klamath farmers. Jeffrey F. Mount, a UC Davis geology professor on the panel, said wildlife regulators need to use "the array of tools they have available" through the U.S. Endangered Species Act. One example: Wildlife agencies could put more pressure on the U.S. Forest Service to prevent sediment runoff into streams from logging and road building, which can smother spawning beds.

The panel also called for better fish studies as well as monitoring of water quality and other environmental conditions. Removal of Chiloquin Dam would open up 90% of the historic spawning habitat on Upper Klamath Lake.

Conditions on Upper Klamath Lake, meanwhile, have grown so bleak that recovery of sucker fish there is at best a long-term prospect, the panel said. Years of upstream ranching, erosion and naturally occurring phosphorous on the lake bottom have created algae blooms that rob oxygen and can cause periodic die-offs of the endangered Lost River and short-nosed suckers.

Among others, Peter Moyle, a UC Davis biology professor and panel member, pointed to alternatives such as reintroducing the fish to a small Oregon lake where suckers were killed off decades ago to make room for sport fish. The panel also suggested that marshy Lower Klamath Lake and the remnants of Tule Lake in California be at least partially revived to help boost sucker populations. Mount of UC Davis said it would mean "some farmland would go," a controversial step in the basin.

Down river, the panel said that survival of the coho salmon hinged more on the temperature of river flows than dramatic boosts in volume. Removal of dams on the Klamath would restore the cold flow from several small creeks drowned by reservoirs.

But dam removal is no easy task, and often controversial. One of the dams has created Lake Shastina, a popular recreational lake. But it also blocks nearly a quarter of the historic salmon spawning grounds and valuable coldwater flows from the Shasta River.

Likewise, cold flows on other tributaries such as the Scott, Trinity and Salmon could be boosted by returning water to the system that is now diverted by farmers to grow alfalfa and other crops in California.

The panel conceded that higher river flows in general could help other species, such as steelhead trout and chinook salmon, a mainstay of the West Coast's commercial fishing industry.

The National Research Council committee said that hatchery fish on the Klamath might be hurting coho, crowding out their wild cousins. To test that theory, the panel said the hatcheries could be shut down for three years, the lifecycle of salmon. "I'll bet," Moyle said, "you'd see an increase in coho."

As for the 2002 fish kill on the Klamath, the panel disagreed with arguments from the California Fish and Game biologists that dwindling river flows and crowded conditions caused the disaster. The report said there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude that flow or high water temperatures caused the fish kill.

Copyright L. A. Times
10-22-03

Straydog · 10-22-2003, 09:57 PM

Keta,

What is your opinion of what the public reaction will be if and when they decide to rid Lake of The Woods of Sportfish?

Do you think that will happen?

[ 10-22-2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

10-22-2003, 10:00 PM

SD,
California has a long history of stealing water from its neighbors and I would be skeptical of anything that originated there. When I get the full report I'll know more about what the real conclusions are.
One thing for sure is the dam on the Sprague River needs to go.

PS:
I don't understand the Lake of the Woods connection. The stream that flows out of it is a seasonal one and it is a high gradient stream with many falls. I�m not sure there was any fish in the lake before it was stocked. It�ll be a big bite in the a** for me as this lake is where I do most of my fresh water lake fishing. I hope it doesn't come down to the removal of the kokanee.
I guess I can always re learn 4 Mile lake. It's a much harder to fish due to the wind and clear water.

[ 10-22-2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Snapset · 10-22-2003, 10:03 PM

Sorry Brion, but "Simple" and "Obvious" are 2 different words having 2 different meanings.

For example:
Your arguments are so obviously politically motivated that my feeling is a debate with you would never approach a root cause.

Another example:
The simple truth of the matter is we don't know, and we may never know.

Besides, you and I both know that simple solutions between 2 competing populations don't exist. (Just look at Israel and Palestine) Occam's Razor does not fit this dynamic problem. It leads to closed minds, exclusion of evidence, and simplistic conclusions in error, based on non-representative data.
I will give you credit for not going with the most obvious response, instead you took a flyer and tried to pin it on the President. That leap of logic was truly breathtaking.

Straydog · 10-22-2003, 10:06 PM

Keta,

I agree.

What do you think about the dam that creates Lake Shastina........... think that will go??

What about that Sprague dam, will there be a lot of public resistance to removing that one?

Yea, I was really caught off guard when I read about L.O.W in the Tribune this morning. :whazzup:

I also thought of you and the time you spend fishing there.... :depressed:

[ 10-22-2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

10-22-2003, 10:13 PM

The Sprague River Dam will go due to the fact that it is the major cause of the mullett (sucker)
decline.

Lake Shastina I wouldn't know. It is in California and the State won�t admit they are the main cause of the problems. I wouldn�t mind seeing Iron Gate gone too. Steelhead and salmon back in the Upper Klamath Basin

I'd trade Lake of the Woods for a harvestable mullett population and a long term stable irrigation supply. Smoked mullett are good and they help to make the best garden.

[ 10-22-2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

CATCH AND EAT · 10-23-2003, 07:27 AM

SNAPSET

Woody · 10-23-2003, 07:31 AM

Go get 'em Snapset

10-23-2003, 07:39 AM

Lutz,
Last night I read the SUMMARY and found no mention of Karl Rove.
Would you please post a link to your information source.

An interesting thing I read in the summary, the coho spawn and live in the cooler tributaries (the same ones that the State of California has allowed to be dewatered) and not in the main Klamath. Now doesn�t this sound like something I posted and was either ignored or it was denied?

I haven't found anywhere in the summary where they recommended increased water flows. Again I ask, would you please post a link to your secret source of information?

As for the "shutting down" (your words) of the down river water, It never happened. The flow was reduced but never �Shut Down�. What was �Shut Down� was the water that historically never went down river, costing the Klamath Basin millions of dollars and causing much hardship on the people that live here.

Quote:

Quote from Lutz
Sounds "simple"

your words not mine

[ 10-23-2003, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Straydog · 10-23-2003, 07:44 AM

Keta,

It is sure not new news that Coho are Trib. spawners! However, they spawn later than Chinook and I am wondering if these tribs are still dewatered when they spawn.

I suppose some may be......... is this specificaly addressed in the report or did it just mention the fact that silvers are trib. spawners? (Steelhead are too.......)

I would have thought you knew that.

10-23-2003, 07:50 AM

I was just pointing this out to some here that do not understand how the system works (Lutz). The coho also rear in the tributaries, if there is any water left in them.

BrionLutz · 10-23-2003, 01:49 PM

Keta,

Quote:

They discounted California's attempt to steal the water for their own use.

Nope...National Reseach Council doesn't even mention the CA Dept of Fish and Game study which concluded that restricted water flow killed the salmon.

Quote:

The report came down on all sides but the bottom line is there was no justification for the water shut off and lake and river levels are not the key factors.

Nope..they stated they could not find any justification, not that there was no justification, scientists are so trixie <grin>.

So the National Research Council is neutral on the water flow while CA Dept. of Fish and Game and the other biologists who predicted the fish kill would occur and studied after it occured have the best scientific evidence to date that it was Bush Jr White House political consultant Karl Rove's decision to cut off the water to the salmon during the heat wave that resulted in 40,000 dead salmon.

That the National Research Council report was actually about the decline in salmon in the Klamath due to bad water policy is why I'm sure you'll be disclaiming it in the future.

You won't like it's recommendations which include greater water flow for the salmon and suckers.

Brion

BrionLutz · 10-23-2003, 01:55 PM

Keta,

Quote:

Last night I read the and found no mention of Karl Rove.

I think you are confused. The National Research Council was asked to look at the decline of Salmon in the Klamath. The specific fish kill was due to a political decision by Karl Rove, Bush Jr's Political Consultant to cut off the water.

The NRC and CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife only go over the effects of the decision, not the fact that Karl Rove made it.

Brion

skein · 10-23-2003, 02:10 PM

Huh? We're going around in circles on this one. Maybe that's why they call in the "spin" doctors.

Seems to me, Bri, that you're putting your own words (and spin) in/on the report. Did you decide by a process of elimination that it was Rove's decision, or did he make the decision because the buck stopped at his desk, or does it actually say somewhere that Rove made the decision? Or do any of us really know?

Skein

10-23-2003, 03:51 PM

Lutz,
Rove was your invention, same as everything in your last two posts in this thread. Where does your data come from? Please post some links.
Please answer questions with true data that you can give me links too.

I can tell by your posting that you either haven�t read the summary of fail to comprehend what you read.

Here are some links that will help you. The first full paragraph on the second link is where you can find some information that is counter to your misleading postings.

Bottom of page
Most of page

Quote:

You won't like it's recommendations which include greater water flow for the salmon and suckers.

These are are counter to each other. Suckers live in the lake, salmon in the river. Lake levels have nothing to do with sucker population health. Hot lake water kills salmon.

[ 10-23-2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

BrionLutz · 10-23-2003, 04:13 PM

Snapset,

Quote:

Besides, you and I both know that simple solutions between 2 competing populations don't exist. (Just look at Israel and Palestine)

Hmm...so Bush Jr is killing the salmon over religious differences? Wow! I wouldn't be surprised but I think I'll stick the obvious politics and the scientific facts. See links below.

Quote:

Occam's Razor does not fit this dynamic problem. It leads to closed minds, exclusion of evidence, and simplistic conclusions in error, based on non-representative data.

That certainly explains Keta latching onto the NRC study which doesn't support him and then offers solutions to the decline in salmon in the Klamath Basin that contradict him.

1. Interior Dept. and NOAA biologists reserve water to protect salmon.

2. Bush Jr/Karl Rove/Gail Norton override biologists and divert water from salmon.Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2003.

3. 40,000 salmon die.

4. CA Dept. of Fish and Game do scientific study and conclude low water flow killed salmon.

5.National Research Council in a report on the decline of salmon in the Klamath Basin say that they cannot find any evidence either way that low flow killed the salmon.

6.US Fish and Wildlife Report says that low flows killed the salmon.

Overwhelming scientific evidence is that low flows killed salmon. Particlularly damning are the predictions of the salmon die off by the bios (it did happen just as they predicted) and the fact that the decision to cut off the water to the salmon was made by Karl Rove, Bush Jr's political consultant over objections of fisheries bios.

Brion

CATCH AND EAT · 10-23-2003, 04:17 PM

10-23-2003, 04:50 PM

#1. No link? Did you make this up?

#2. Not been proven, as of now.

#3. Either inflated numbers or more of your misinformation. The official numbers are about 33,000 chinook.

#4. More of the State of California's standard water politics. California feels that all water west of the Rockies belongs to them. This is an attempt to take the water from the Klamath.

#5. Does not support the fantasies of the enviro left. Does not say low flow caused the fish kill.

#6. Low flow of cool Trinity River water not hot Klamath water.

Quote:

Overwhelming scientific evidence

No, you are wrong here too. Where is your data?

So far I can support every thing that I've read in this report with the exception of what they want to do at Lake of the Woods. This I don't understand due to the fact that the suckers never had access to it.

You will have to try much harder than this.

[ 10-23-2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Snapset · 10-23-2003, 05:01 PM

Brion, your use of the word "Overwhelming" when describing the scientific evidence is misleading at best.

You make a weak argument when you try to represent opinions as facts. There are a number of scientific opinions about the cause of the fish kill. They conflict. So where is the overwhelming evidence? The only evidence that overwhelms me is the evidence of exagerrated rhetoric used to try to influence people who don't have the time to check all the "facts".

It looks like I am going to have to keep a watchful eye on your posts, Brion, until you develop a cozier relationship with the truth.

lingslayer · 10-23-2003, 05:40 PM

Nice observation Snapset. The anti farmer spin on this topic has never been about the real situation in the Klamath River and it's tribs, much less the truth.
Its more about the trash put out by the rabid enviro groups. If its not a mis-quote or quotes out of context, its "facts" based on poor or incomplete science. The other sources of water that were available to the lower Klamath in the past are just now being looked at.

Instead of the one that dried up in the late summer anyway.

Even when you do post truthful articles to read on the subject they don't get read, or snippets from them get quoted out of context.

There is alot of bad science out there, on this and a few other subjects as well. Some people just gravitate to it as gospel because it supports their cause.
Jamie

10-23-2003, 05:55 PM

Their stated goal is to depopulate the Upper Klamath Basin and create "The Serengeti of the West".

BrionLutz · 10-23-2003, 07:19 PM

Keta,

Quote:

#1. No link? Did you make this up?

You missed the controversy with the Federal Marshals guarding the water gates etc? Time, Newsweek, CNN? No...I didn't think you did.

Quote:

#2. Not been proven, as of now.

Well..that reknown Stalinist left wing rag The Wall Street Journal pointed out how Rove made the decision. I can post more references (it was a big story) but I'm sure you'll deny them also. I'm happy just to skewer you with the Wall Street Journal, of all the leftist enviro media sources.

Quote:

#3. Either inflated numbers or more of your misinformation. The official numbers are about 33,000 chinook.

Yikes. Three strikes! Low estimate 33,000, high estimate 132,000...I'll be conservative and stick with the 40,000.

CA Dept. of Fish and Game: Because limited time and resources prevented surveying the entire length of the river bank by foot, the extent of the fish kill was determined from boats. Biologists conducting the boat surveys expressed concern regarding their ability to observe and count all of the dead fish. Therefore, the fish kill estimate should be considered as very conservative. For example, one crew walked a short stretch of the shoreline near the 101 Bridge to collect biological data from the dead fish. The crew stopped walking when they had counted 200 fish. A DFG Senior Fisheries Biologist noted that the counts made during the walking survey were at least four times greater than those made from a boat over the same distance and during the same time frame (Phil Bairrington, DFG Senior Fisheries Biologist, Arcata, personal communication).

Quote:

#4. More of the State of California's standard water politics.

We call them biologists with CA Dept of Fish and Game. They call you "wrong". Not sure your claiming "politics" is an effective counterpoint on your part but desperate times require desperate measures.

Quote:

#5. Does not support the fantasies of the enviro left. Does not say low flow caused the fish kill.

Dude! That was your source. It says it could not find evidence. We call that neither confirming or denying.

You missed #6 which was the US Fish and Game report which confirms that CA Dept of Fish and Game report that it was low flow that killed the salmon.

Point was your source was neutral while all other scientific sources pointed to the low flow decision by Karl Rove.

Look on the bright side, you'll be calling your source, the National Research Council recommendations, all kinds of names like "politics", "fantasies of enviro left", "misinformation" "inflated numbers" as they get cited for reforms which will...ta da...increase the water flow to the salmon.

Brion

10-23-2003, 08:04 PM

What will you come up with next. You still haven't answered anything.

#1. This was done using questionable science.

#2. Still hasn't been proven, as of now.

#3. Your numbers are not only misinformation they are, in my opinion, outright lies. The total estimated run was only 130,000, so by your methods there was a -2000 fish return? 130,000-132,00= -2000

It doesn't work that way!

#4. Many call then "Biostitutes" that will lie for "a higher purpose". They're trying to steal more water for California.

#5. My source was the summary, try reading it. Or is it you refuse to admit that you are wrong, again?

#6. Not quite what the report said. Again I will ask you to try reading the summary. Or is it you STILL refuse to admit that you are wrong?

Quote:

Look on the bright side, you'll be calling your source, the National Research Council recommendations, all kinds of names like "politics", "fantasies of enviro left", "misinformation" "inflated numbers" as they get cited for reforms which will...ta da...increase the water flow to the salmon.

Another example of you putting words into others posts that are not true.

Can you admit to the truth for once in your life?
I support the study and feel that if it's implemented as written, not as interpret by eco-fascists with their own agenda, we can save the suckers and have a harvestable salmon population in the Klamath River.

[ 10-23-2003, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

BrionLutz · 10-23-2003, 08:21 PM

Keta,

Quote:

#4. Many call then "Biostitutes" that will lie for "a higher purpose". They're trying to steal more water for California.

Well you call CA Dept of Fish and Game and US Dept of Fish and Game "biostutes" but we know you don't mean it. You're just mad that the scientist's research showing that the low flow ordered by the White House killed the 40,000 Klamath salmon contradicts your opinions.

Brion

10-23-2003, 08:31 PM

Chose to believe what you want. What I posted is what I, as well as anyone that has had to deal with these liars, feel is true. For some proof look up Linx Hair. I also had to deal with "Biostitutes" from the other side when we were fighting to save the last free flowing section of the Klamath in Oregon from being dammed in the '80s. I know the Klamath System and how it works, you don't have a clue.

The -2000 fish return is the "Tallest Tale" that I've heard in a long time. I sure need some humor to break up my evening ROFL!

BrionLutz · 10-23-2003, 10:09 PM

Keta,

Quote:

Chose to believe what you want.

I do tend to believe the scientists.

NRC=No evidence either way.
CA. Dept of Fish and Game=Evidence low flow killed salmon.
US Dept of Fish and Game=Evidence low flow killed salmon.

Quote:

What I posted is what I, as well as anyone that has had to deal with these liars, feel is true.

So now the National Research Council, CA Dept of Fish and Game, US Dept. of Fish and Game are all "liars"? Just because they disagree with your "feelings"? A bit harsh don't you think? I guess that's how the Pope felt when Galileo broke the news about the sun and earth.

That's what happens when you go with your feelings vs. the facts and figures and the scientific reports.

Brion

10-23-2003, 10:18 PM

Quote:

So now the National Research Council, CA Dept of Fish and Game, US Dept. of Fish and Game are all "liars"? Just because they disagree with your "feelings"? A bit harsh don't you think? I guess that's how the Pope felt when Galileo broke the news about the sun and earth.

There you go again

Is it you can't read or comprehend what you read? Maybe you are just so clueless that you actually believe what you are posting

You twist what others post to further your agenda. It only makes you look foolish. Thank you for the help in making my points

Quote:

That's what happens when you go with your feelings vs. the facts and figures and the scientific reports.

You better be more careful where you get YOUR FACTS Try reading all of the summary,

130,000-132,000= -2000 My gut still hurts from laughing about this "fact" that you cooked up.

[ 10-23-2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

BrionLutz · 10-24-2003, 10:23 AM

Keta,

Quote:

You twist what others post to further your agenda.

Well..most folks call those "twists" direct quotes. As to how "twisted" your quoted comments are, that seems obvious <grin>.

My agenda is more salmon.

We'll probably have to leave it where the three scientific reports on the Bush Jr - Klamath fish kill leave it.

NRC=No evidence either way.
CA Dept of Fish and Game=Low flow killed salmon.
US Dept of Fish and Game=Low flow killed salmon.

Brion

10-24-2003, 10:36 AM

Direct quotes my a..

You sure are funny

Truth from an unbias source
NRC=No evidence either way.

Water stealing, agenda driven biostitutes
CA Dept of Fish and Game=Low flow killed salmon.

Agenda driven biastitutes doing this for "a higher cause"(as in linx fur) Their " SCIENCE " has been proven wrong in the past, and I think it's the NMFS that does the salmon in the Klamath Basin.
US Dept of Fish and Game=Low flow killed salmon

[ 10-24-2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

CATCH AND EAT · 10-24-2003, 11:01 PM

Bush Jr.? Oh please...