Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
respond to FWS restoration proposals!! Take the
a. The concern I have heard expressed regarding this "task force" is the amount of overhead that is sucked up administratively. It is upwards of 40% of ever dollar goes to administration. If that's true, it is WAY to high.
b. The money should be focused on work that will actually get done on the ground and benefit Fish. Of course research and coordination are needed, but what good does it do if we continue to plan and study and never do anything that gets results.
c. Sounds like they have limited what can be done in their criteria.
d. More than one stakeholder group is interested in a "re-working" of what the Task Force looks like. In other words more stakeholders and less agency involvement.
Bottom line is, what in their past performance can we (or they) point to that has resulted in a measurable benefit to fish? I think it might be hard to find which isn't good.
One clear message they need to hear from folks is .. what is the bang for the buck? what have you done and how has it helped?.... my sense is that the stakeholders need to hold this groups feet to the fire a bit more.
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved