At 09:09 PM 4/17/99 -0500, Eugene Kridler wrote:

>(I served as the refuge biologist on the Klamath Basin Complex of
>Refuges there l955-56, and I'm flabbergasted that the USFWS permits
>this. It would be unheard of to the old timers. The article was given me
>by a former refuge manager of those refuges in the early 70's, and he
>too wonders what has gotten into the USFWS. This is the reason I put it
>on Tweeters. All is not well down there)

There was wording passed in the mid-60s or early 70s, if I recall
correctly,that has an impact on this situation. The intent of the
wording (I don't recall the exact words and it's the kind of law that
wants precise quoting) was to recognize the presence of ag on
this refuge as being on at least an equal footing with wildlife.

This stems from the historical fact that the refuge was formed
from reclaimed land as the result of a compromise to preserve
something of the wildlife resource that had been there before
BuWreck turned the entire Klamath/Tule complex into a massive
plumbing project.

The Congressional action I'm thinking of was passed to "clarify"
the situation when conflict between conservationists and ag
interests arose.

This conflicts with the traditional USF&W mandate regarding NWRs,
which is that grain crops and the like which benefit wildlife can
be farmed, and that's it.

So, the court cases are bound to be interesting, that's the
bottom line.

What's really needed is legislation declaring that Tule's to
be managed like the rest of the NWR, not co-managed for the
benefit of basin farmers.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net