(letters)

Photo by Keoki Flagg

Klamath Killjoy
I greatly appreciated "Salmon Stakes," by Ted Williams, in the March Audubon. The fish kill in the Klamath Basin is a tragic example of an ecosystem whose resources have been oversubscribed by the federal government. With so many competing users of limited resources, Native Americans, fish, and wildlife continue to take a backseat to commercial enterprise in the ecologically rich Klamath Basin.

The article points out specific problems faced by the Tule Lake and the Lower Klamath refuges, the only refuges in the country that permit farming for commercial purposes. Not only does farming in this region use vast amounts of scarce water, it also uses 56 different pesticides, 6 of which are known to be toxic to salmon. Land management on the refuges is guided by incompatible priorities: reclamation of wetlands for agriculture, and preservation of wetlands for wildlife.

Phasing out lease farming on the wildlife refuges and buying farms and water rights from willing sellers is the best way to restore balance in the basin. Last summer I introduced an amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill that would have prohibited growing alfalfa and row crops, such as potatoes and onions, on any new leases on the refuges. These crops are particularly reliant on high volumes of water and pesticides. The proposal was a simple, commonsense phaseout of toxic, water-intensive commercial farming in the basin. Although it would have affected fewer than 17 leases that were expiring that year, the amendment became extremely controversial and did not pass. Still, over 200 members of the House of Representatives supported it.

This year promises to be a dry one, and the problems in the Klamath are not going away. I plan to reintroduce my amendment, and I am optimistic that with the stakes raised by last year's devastating fish kill, we will prevail.

Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress
Portland, OR

Ted Williams wrote a very informative piece on the Klamath controversy; however, he is just plain wrong when he writes "of America's 540 national wildlife refuges, [the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake refuges] are the only two that permit commercial agriculture." Many refuges all over the country lease their land out to farmers, and the leases usually have strict limits on what to grow and how to farm it. For example, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas leases out recently acquired farmland that cannot be restored to native vegetation until future funding allows for it.

Large-scale farming on refuge land in the Upper Klamath Basin is very misguided and has resulted in a very discontented public. (I was harassed while working there as a U.S. Forest Service volunteer.) But few if any of the other farming programs at refuges around the country have had such disastrous consequences.

Scott Werner
McAllen, TX

Ted Williams responds:
The operative word here is "commercial." What happens on other refuges is called "cooperative agriculture"—a system in which managers make the decisions about what crops are needed for what wildlife and when. It's part of the refuge's comprehensive plan. What happens in the Klamath Basin and nowhere else is a lease-land bidding process in which farmers bid on plots, then plant crops no sane manager would want for wildlife—potatoes and onions, for example. The program is mandated by Congress, not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has scarcely any input.

Ted Williams's excellent article on the water woes of the parched Klamath Basin highlighted the many problems facing the region. Near the top of the list is the intransigence of the Bush administration, which seems more interested in fanning antigovernment flames and attacking the Endangered Species Act than in promoting real solutions.

In the Klamath Basin, the federal government, along with the states of Oregon and California, has simply promised too much water to too many interests. Even in good years there is not enough to go around. One innovative solution is a program to purchase land and water rights from irrigators who are willing to sell. By paying a fair market rate, the government could help farmers escape economic turmoil and at the same time free up more water for fish and wildlife. This could be a vital tool for bringing the demand for water back into balance with what nature can actually sustain.

Steve Pedery
Outreach Director
WaterWatch of Oregon
Portland, OR

Within my first week of moving to Orleans, California, nestled around the great Klamath River about an hour and a half east of Arcata, I took part in an intense discussion about combating the decision to keep water from the Lower Klamath and about stopping road building within the surrounding watersheds. Everyone here is in a frenzy to be heard, putting out newsletters, organizing cleanups, and writing grants for their causes. I am overwhelmed with a sense of unity in this tiny, secluded community, which is reaching out to protect its ecosystem. It was an incredible feeling to open the March issue and see your loud voice come through on last year's fish kill in the Klamath. Despite our love of nature's solitude out here, it is comforting to know we are not alone.

Erin E. Perkins
Orleans, CA

The Forest and the Trees
I would like to share a different perspective than that which Ted Kerasote credited me with in "Roads to Ruin: Slow Burn" [March], about Duncan Canyon in California's Tahoe National Forest. My primary goal is to help re-create the old forest that was burned—not simply log large trees that are dead or dying from the fire.

Regrowing old forest will require up to 250 years without intense fire. Our restoration plan emphasizes severely burned areas of the Duncan Canyon Roadless Area—large patches of land with acres after acres of blackened spires silhouetted against ash-covered ground. Without some removal of the fire-dead (completely black) trees, concentrated groupings of them will fall amidst the establishing grasses and brush, creating a major fire hazard. Some of the large dead trees are planned for removal. However, in moderately burned areas these trees will be left to provide critical habitat for many species of birds and mammals and to help supply future soil nutrients.

Many individuals think that it's bad for the government to sell trees. Actually, timber harvest is a tool that can be used to remove the dead trees at minimal cost to the public. There simply is not enough money in the federal budget to cover the cost otherwise.

Richard A. Johnson
District Ranger
Foresthill, CA

Ted Kerasote responds:
Many believe that the major fire hazard in Duncan Canyon isn't large burned trees falling but small trees, brush, and slash that need to be removed. My understanding from other sources within the Forest Service is that only $600,000 will be spent on such cleanup, while $3.5 million will be spent on replanting. One could argue that the allocation should be reversed. As one of Mr. Johnson's colleagues told me, "If it were up to me, all of the money would go to cleanup." I don't think any of us disagree on the goal—better wildlife habitat, a healthier forest, and a return to the historic regime of frequent low-intensity fires. The means to get there still need to be worked out.

As an ATV owner, I found the comment "What's more, ATVers have a history of ignoring closed areas" ["Roads to Ruin: Off-Road Rage," March] to be a little strong for me. As with most activities, there are a few individuals who misuse their privileges. Besides, anyone who travels by jet airplane should not be pointing a finger at someone else's pleasure.

Bill Carr
Hermon, NY

P.S. My ATV is more fun to ride on the way to my birding area, too.

Ted Kerasote responds:
Would that only "a few individuals" in the ATV community misuse their privileges. If that were the case, we wouldn't be seeing so many problems with the creation of new trails, erosion, and CLOSED signs torn down. Responsible ATV users, like yourself, have been trying to rein in this misbehavior, but it's a slow process. And the finger isn't pointed at anyone's pleasure; it's pointed at the misuse of the machine.

Urban Myth
The cry now coming from Montana, of all places, about urban sprawl is disheartening. "Real Enviros Live in Town" [March] touches on this problem with the same logic Tom Hylton did in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book, Save Our Land, Save Our Towns. These two goals go hand in hand. Neither land nor resources are limitless. We have tamed much of nature. Now we need to tame the stampede of earth-gobbling equipment and teach it to rebuild our worn-out cities.

John L. Cox
Penn Valley, PA

I thoroughly enjoyed Alan S. Kesselheim's "Real Enviros Live in Town" but disagree with his conclusion that if more people lived in town, more countryside would be left unspoiled. How many more could live in town? Five thousand? Fifty thousand? More? And if the population were to grow unchecked, would not a host of extractive entities be set loose to feed the expanding market for oil, timber, metal, water, and power? The ultimate source of sprawl is overpopulation. We should help people where they live rather than invite them to America. Their presence will only hasten the unintended destruction of our last great places and the quality of all life. The ark is full.

Jim Zaino
Countryside, IL

Don't Forget to Write
Send letters to Letters to the Editor, Audubon, 225 Varick St. 7th Floor, New York, NY 10014 or editor@audubon.org. Include your name, address, and daytime phone. Letters may be edited for clarity and length. To see more letters, go to Sound Off.

© 2003  NASI

Sound off! Send a letter to the editor about this piece.