Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Fighting for Our Right to Irrigate Our Farms and Caretake Our Natural Resources

See Page Two
Table of Contents

   Sample ESA Letter

Sample ESA Letters and Comments

 May 11, 2001

 The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

RE:  Endangered Species Act

 Dear President Bush

On behalf of our membership, as well as thousands of farmers and farm-dependent communities in the Northwest, I ask that you request Congress to also add the following species to the "endangered" list:

1.  Common Sense
2.  Farmers
3.  The American Food Supply
4.   Democracy
5.   Elected Officials that endorse current ESA travesties.

Specifically, the "Citizen Suits" provision of the Endangered Species Act has been so substantially and continuously abused that it must be rescinded or significantly restricted.  The net effect of collaborative and frivolous litigation brought against Rural America by politically extreme environmentalist groups qualifies for investigation under another Federal Act —RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act).  Most certainly, the collusion, extortion of basic properties (water rights) and livelihoods through excessive use of ESA gets dangerously close to "organized crime" against Rural America.

As our elected official, we implore you to examine the conditions occurring in the State of Oregon, and intended, by recently filed litigation, for the States of Washington, Idaho and Utah.

You simply must stop the madness!  A country dependent upon other countries for its food and energy supplies is a country sacrificing what's left of its democracy.  Please hear us.  Please bring sanity and balance back into the Endangered Species Act.



1200 in my mail box got it,you left out hunting,remember 13 million people bought hunting licences last year!  Bob



Friends: It pays to protest for your rights, as the 20,000 farmers and
taxpayers did last week in Klamath Falls, Oregon for their water
rights! Help is on its way! Our fishermen need the same help too, but they are out to sea at workfor
our food!

 With all due respect, "scientific peer review" by law will accomplish nothing, because a peer group of "conservation biologists" is just as crazy as one "conservation biologist". And getting rid of citizen suits accomplishes nothing other than cutting the hourly rate the enviros get when they sue. They will still sue every bit as much, under the Administrative Procedure Act.

I have more bitter experience with ESA reform than anyone else I know, and what is really needed is a change in the provisions regarding judicial review. It is the collapse of accountability in law that has fueled nearly all the problems. If the Government had to defend its decisions in front of a jury—as opposed to a peer group of "scientists"—it would lose nearly all of them.  James

 You ask what is the legal solution. I had some suggestions in the article
I wrote for the April, 2001, issue of Media Bypass entitled "The Making of
Another Inherently Void Case". If you have access to the article I think
you'll find it well worth the time to read. Contained in the article is
reference to an example FOIA (Freedom of Information Act Request. I've found
it to be important to establish a paperwork trail of good faith inquiry. In
the instance of challenging limited federal territorial jurisdiction, I'd
suggest sending a FOIA similar to the one mentioned in the article. You can
see and copy it by clicking on:
http://www.Angelfire.com/oh4/befree/AOIA0220.html Send a FOIA for each
location you are interested in. That's what I meant by not accepting any
presumptions. For example, when I wrote to the governor of Ohio concerning
the notices of acceptance required under 40 USCS 255 for the Federal
Building location in Dayton, Ohio, which houses the Federal District Court,
guess what? They have no such notices of acceptance on file. What does that
mean? If further inquiry is unable to turn up such notices, then the
mandatory requirements needed to establish bona fide federal jurisdiction
have not been met and that would mean that any federal cases tried in such a
location would all be inherently void. The issue of bona fide limited
federal territorial jurisdiction is the key to the door for any federal
action within a state. (Not State, but state) If you have further questions
about the FOIA process, check out some of my court filings on my home page
at: http://www.Angelfire.com/oh4/befree . If the feds don't even have the
bona fide key to the door, they don't have any bona fide basis to enforce
any federal law within a state. Try to get a copy of my Media Bypass article
as I think it will help clear up what steps to take.
I think you'll find that while the letter writing may have a certain
impact, if you never forcefully raise the issue of bona fide limited
territorial jurisdiction, that the end result may not be what you hoped.
However, the combination of letter writing and raising the issue, especially
if you find out that the requirements of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and
40 USCS 255 have not been met in a bona fide way, will turn out to be
nuclear destruction to the designs of federal encroachment.
Hope this helps. Let me know what you find out regarding the FOIA's.

We must realise that America and Britain face the same problem/evil merely
in different guise - it is the burgeoning of BIG Government increasingly in
the thrall of globalist corporate interests and the ideological interests &
greed of a tiny tiny clique of deeply evil individuals seeking a New World
Order and One World Government for their own 'GAIN' at the expense of the

The EU is just a building block of the NOW just as is NAFTA, the UN, WTO,
IMF etc.

Thank you again to our American friends for their help and it is to be hoped
that enough people in Britain are sufficiently awake and aware to help you
in their turn.

What goes around comes around!!

Greg in England.

The material below (FROM THE OREGON CATTLEMAN) is similar to an extensive discussion of science that appears in a Supreme Court case called Daubert, which I and others have attempted to apply in the ESA context without success. It will have no more strength in a statute than in a Supreme Court opinion, because the underlying problem is one of "deference" to agency action by federal courts. Further, getting the government further emmeshed in the definition of science simply expands the role of government, rather than contracting it.

Data is inherently subject to interpretation, and the problem is that we have raised entire generations of "scientists" whose interpretations are crazy. One person's cloud of dots is another person's "statistically valid science". The judgment of ordinary citizens, who know craziness when they see it, are what we can trust. Federal judges feel, based upon Supreme Court precedent interpreting the APA, that they can do nothing about agency craziness.

The best legislative solution would be to require the Government to defend its ESA decisions before a jury in the community affected upon a preponderance of the evidence when challenged, with full discovery rights on the part of citizens, creating a special species of judicial review for ESA decisions and supplanting the APA entirely. There were provisions like this in 1994 reform bills that went nowhere.

But really, all this ESA reform stuff is a pipe dream. We need to get God Squad exemptions for the people really getting screwed, get administrative re-interpretations of the Act, and get administrative decisions delisting all the species. Bush can do all this stuff with the stroke of a pen. I wrote a memo that was delivered to Gale Norton that explained much of this. I never heard back. Bush doesn't need any Democratic votes to pass new law, though that would be nice; he needs to change the adminstration of existing law.

The ugly truth, as best I can tell thousands of miles from D.C, is that his RINO advisers don't want to solve the problem, they just want to posture and make it look like they are trying to help you all.


We feel that "peer reviewed" science is not enough unless it is defined. We are sending you what we have put together for the purpose of defining what science is and is not in our attempt to get it into Oregon state law. Also is the words we believe will be as near as we can get to a silver bullet to make the ESA be what it should be, a mechanism to protect truly endangered species rather than every species that all the half baked, enviro, graduate candidates decide to do a thesis on and then have their room-mate peer review. Those words are "statistically valid science". The Oregon Cattlemen's association are committed to getting this language into state law and hopes it can be put into the ESA. If it were there there would be no Klamath crisis, and the salmon would not be listed as endangered or threatened, there would be no power crisis or fuel shortage. Thanks for considering this in our urgent drive for amendments.

thanks, s

A number of phrases are used to describe science as the basis of our
laws, policies and decisions dealing with natural resources (forestry,
agriculture, water, fish etc). We have terms such as: the best science
available, peer reviewed science, scientific information, valid
science, scientific theory, good science, and bad science.

The goal of fundamental science is to discover the laws of Nature, which
means we are interested in finding that few set of rules that apply to
all objects and systems in the Universe. Without a definition of science
any of the above descriptive phrases can be used to justify actions to
solve problems....and it can all be done in the name of science. A
scientist can state an opinion, pontificate about his or her vast
experience of making personal observations, or speculate about what might
happen if his or her idea isn't followed.

The problem of not having science defined and not separating the general
laws that govern different natural resource disciplines of water science
and fish science, is being felt in a very real and painful way in Klamath
County. A biological opinion was written by the federal agencies based
on what they perceive and many describe as "science". In fact, the
biological opinion is not science but is the opinion of scientists who
work for NMFS and USFWS. Opinions of scientists, speculative comments,
pontificating narratives of thought experiments are not a part of
science, because an opinion provides no evidence of facts. Science is
objective. Opinion, personal observations, and thought experiments are

We have allowed the beliefs of people who know a little about fish
physiology, to be combined with their understanding and experience
developed through reading and work to be declared "the best science
available" for all of us. The references provided in the biological
opinion do not address the general laws of Water Science. "The best
science available" in the Klamath Basin appears to be embodied in the
"biological opinions" about Fish Science. This mistake has been made
without a definition of science or requirement for a "statistically
valid" burden of proof by the government in the Klamath Basin, and it
should never happen again. Oregon must begin to unravel the myths that
have us bogged down in a quagmire of arguments, litigation, and political

Of utmost importance to the Oregon Cattlemen's Association is that we
begin to take steps to define science and then use science. We should
no longer accept a belief or opinion as fact if it can't be backed up
with a "statistically valid experiment or case study" that can be
replicated in the state during more than one year. Fish Science can no
longer be the substitute for Water Science because someone believes the
laws of one are the same for the other. Oregon's natural resource
programs must be based on a foundation of organized knowledge
established in testable laws and theories required to be confidently
relied on as "science".

Oregon Cattlemen's Association Definition of Science

Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the
universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws
and theories. The success and credibility of science are anchored in the
willingness of scientists to:

1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication
by other scientists. This requires the complete and open exchange of
data, procedures and materials.

2. Abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more
complete or reliable or observational evidence.

Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction
that is the foundation of the credibility of science.


"Statistically valid science" refers to a hypotheses that has been posed,
data collections made using the standard methodology, with results of
the data measurements objectively assessed using an analysis of the data
described in the science of statistics. Many of the statistical methods
are described in Snedecor, G.W. and William Cochran. 1967. Statistical
methods. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.

The criteria to determine if a study or work is "statistically valid
science" are:

1. Peer review. The information has been critically reviewed by other
persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific
discipline. The criticism of the peer reviewers has been addressed by the
proponents of the information. Publication in a "refereed scientific
journal" usually indicates that the information has been appropriately

2. Methods. The methods that were used to obtain the information are
clearly stated and able to be replicated. The methods are standardized in
the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been
appropriately peer-reviewed to assure their reliability and validity.

3. Logical conclusions and reasonable inferences. The conclusions
presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies
and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The
conclusions are logically and reasonably
derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any
gaps in information
and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are
adequately explained.

4. Quantitative analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate
statistical or quantitative methods.

5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions,
analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed
with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge.

6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions
are well referenced with citations to relevant, credible literature and
other pertinent existing information.

The following are not science:

Belief - A belief contains no data to support a position or opinion. An
individual simply believes that he/she is correct with out any
measurable evidence to support the opinion. This category of information
is of little value when considering a body of evidence and is not an
application of science.

Observation - An observation contains little or no measured data to
support a position. An outcome was observed but there is no way to
distinguish between a number of factors that may have contributed to the
outcome. This category of information is only slightly better than

Literature reviews - Literature reviews are no better than the
information reviewed. If belief and observation are used in the
literature review there is little value in the document. Similarly if
research is omitted or misquoted the review is nothing more than an
agenda document. A literature review is not scientific research. If
done correctly it is a synopsis of known research and is used identify
research needs.

Computer models - Computer models are an attempt to simplify and
simulate a natural system with mathematical equations. A model is based
on a number of foundation assumptions (i.e. a column of water in a stream
is static and all solar energy is instantaneously and uniformly absorbed
by all of the molecules of water). This means that the model is no
better or worse than the quality of the assumptions, information, and the
mathematical relationships used to form the model. Models are not
research in a classical sense they are a simulation based upon existing
information. Their value is primarily to find gaps in existing knowledge
and for hypothesis generation. Their ability to generate results or
trends that relate to the real world is largely dependent upon the
assumptions found in the model.




I am a 1973 Notre Dame Biology BS and have retained 3 renown Phds,Taylor,Kay and Mitchell,all experts in ESA,Wolves,and opposed to Eco-extremism.I have spent as a CEO $55 million in legal fees,the OCA is strongly advised to retain the aforementioned to place their "IMPRIMATUR" on a definition that Fed lawyers and enviro groups will challenge.This also will set those on their heels who characterize ranchers as stupid with big belt buckles and hunters as "Rambo"I cannot make this recommendation more strongly.I


  May 10, 2001

To be read and entered into the official record of the United States Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing:

To the addressees of this email, and to the remaining members of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee who do not have email addresses:

There is a crime taking place in Klamath Falls, Oregon. The criminal is
dressed in "sheep's clothing, masquerading as someone "protecting endangered
species" so "the public will know that those bad, bad farmers won't get to
eradicate/exterminate any more bugs/fish/animals/plants/whatever." From what
distant planet did that line of thinking come from, and however did it come
to be accepted in our society as being correct???

Let me present a quote from a tome on birdwatching, published by a well-known
non-governmental organization (NGO) of which I'm certain you're familiar:


It is probably a healthy exercise, when considering the extinction of species
in this age, to remember that many thousands of life forms have ceased to
exist from wholly natural causes -- dinosaurs spring invariably to mind. And
further that some organisms -- especially primitive forms which, as it were,
are "past their prime" -- will pass into oblivion both without human
assistance and in spite of it.

--from The Birdwatcher’s Companion, page 229, authored by Christopher Leahy
of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, 1982

All right, let's pretend that the American people are not ALL without
cognitive thought processes, and proceed on the assumption that SOME of us
are well aware of the "plan."

This is not a "conspiracy theory," it is simply business run amok.

The Mafia was never so brazen as those who are simply using people's emotions
and our splendid English Language to rob them of their inheritance!

Let me simplify: Our country, like her patriots and her statesmen, has a
backbone. She stands tall and proud, with grace and Godliness, the Bill of
Rights and Constitution keeping her safe from those who would "sell her down
the river."

Folks, contrary to current popular belief, everything does NOT have its
price. There are a goodly number of our fair citizens who cannot be
prostituted into selling their children's birthrights. Discovering that
fact, those who would wield their mighty clout/power/bank accounts have had
to resort to "other methods." They have decided to use those words that
Americans have come to trust, to make them think that they are being
"protected, managed, etc.," and that their lands and waters can be better
cared for with "government funds" and in the hands of strangers, than they
can with their private care.

It has become fashionable to contribute to the Sierra Club, The Nature
Conservancy, and hundreds of other such NGOs. I remain convinced that NO ONE

Returning a river to its wild state means that trees will clog its course,
wild animals will defecate in it, and birds flying overhead will scatter
seeds of the dreaded "Post-European settlement" humans who dare to plant

Walking away from land or a forest does NOT mean that that land and that
forest will magically become picture perfect. Realistically, the kind and
loving hand of the farmer, rancher, logger, miner, recreationist, and
homeowner, will impart a quickening of life. Birds and animals come to the
hand that feeds them. Human beings who are also resource providers have
nothing to apologize to fringe groups who CALL themselves
"environmentalists," all the while having no clue what the word really means.
To truly "walk the walk," you need go no further than the hardworking, REAL
Americans who have Bucket Brigades in Oregon, Log Hauls in Montana, Darby
Farmland Rallies in Ohio, Jarbidge (shovels) Road Openings in Nevada, and so
on. The real backbone of our country does not need a federal hand saying
"We'll protect America for the public good," and with the other hand taking
the "federal funds" from the taxpayer's pocket! Does this not strike you as

The terrorists who have even law enforcement afraid to arrest them, who wreak
havoc on housing, farm fields and equipment, who destroy the private property
of working, honest people, and then crow about it on their websites and to
the press, they are the ones who should be apologizing: from a prison cell!

In closing, members of this Committee, and the others to whom I speak, do be
so bold as to look in a mirror and consider: what would the Founding Fathers
think of your actions, to date? Would they give their blessing to the
millions being squandered to the United Nations (a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, and
one to whom no American serviceman owes ANY allegiance)? Would they not tell
you that what is happening to those who quietly hold this country together,
is WRONG? Would they not tell you that our REPUBLIC, and all for which is

Miss Julie



Table of Contents Homesteaders Contact


Page Updated: Saturday February 25, 2012 05:14 AM  Pacific

Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001, All Rights Reserved