Lake Earl Grange A Community Action Grange (Rev 2) BASE

Lake Earl E-News Opinion Editorial
LEG News
LEG Actvities
LEG Youth
LEG About Us
LEG Contacts
LEG Archives
CA Grange
USA Grange
LEG Links

For More Pacific Shore Info - Click On Pic Below.
For More Pacific Shore Info - Click On Pic Above.


To The Concerned Constituents of Del Norte County

Published by Thomas W. Resch, President of PSPOA

(Pacific Shores Property Owners Association)

Here are the financial facts about Pacific Shores

Since 1964, Pacific Shores Property Owners have paid your County $3,300,000 in property taxes. It appears that your County took this money and spent it on your citizens because they never spent a dime of it at Pacific Shores.

The above tax should not be confused with the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District Tax. This District Tax is an assessment paid only by lot owners in Pacific Shores for paying the costs needed to complete studies required by the agencies for building permits.  Since 1988, the costs on this project so far are around $2,000,000.

Now let's review: Del Norte County has collected $3,300,000 in Pacific Shores from property taxes and spent that money on everything in the community except Pacific Shores and the District has spent $2,000,000 of their own money (not a dime from tax payers outside of Pacific Shores).

Now your two current Supervisors Ms. McClure and Ms. McNamer along with our ex-supervisor Sarah Samples in September of 2006 voted to send a Resolution over to LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) to get rid of the Water District in Pacific Shores.  This battle at LAFCo continues to this day.

My opinion on this type of leadership in your community: As we grow up, we all make mistakes- its what I call the “brains below your beltline” syndrome.  As we get older, hopefully, the brains pass above the beltline and get firmly situated on the shoulders.

Where do you think the brains are here?  If the County received $3,300,000 over the years, and the Water District spent $2,000,000 of their own money on their own project, would you use your power as a Supervisor in the County to get rid of them?

 It’s time to get rid of McClure and McNamer and bring some common sense to Del Norte County.  Let’s get the brains above the beltline.







Friday March 09, 2007

Commentary: Dave Peyton: When the wealthy get all preachy . . .

I am not a member of the Class Envy Club. Never have been and, God willing, I never will be.

I think being a journalist has prevented my being envious of rich folks. Being a journalist has given me an occasional glimpse of how wealthy folks really live.

I've discovered that they have the same problems as everyone else, sometimes even more. And while I've never given a member of the affluent class a happiness test, I suspect that, if I did, I'd find they're not any happier than I am.

I've always had a fear that I might get rich and be forced to go on golf outings to Myrtle Beach or sit in skyboxes at footballs games. I can think of nothing any worse.

I enjoy football games, but I enjoy them best sitting in my underwear in my recliner with Toes the Cat sitting on my lap.

As for golf, well, I've never understood how some seem to get so much pleasure out of the game.

I've known my share of rich folks who like to flaunt what they have. That's fine. They can flaunt it all they want.

If, however, they over-flaunt, I simply walk away.

Or else I start flaunting my middle-class life in the country. That usually turns them off.

If there's anything that angers me, however, it's rich folks who proclaim that we need to control our extravagance. And here I'm talking about Al Gore, a man who owns a mansion in Tennessee that's uses 20 times the amount of energy an average household uses each year.

And yet, he says we all have to curb our energy usage to keep global warming in check.

It's not going to happen, Al, and you're a fool for living the way you do and saying what you say. Furthermore, it's more than a little foolish to predict a global apocalypse because we're burning too much fuel, then stoke the fires to heat your swimming pool.

I don't know which are worse -- rich folks boasting about how rich they are or rich folks trying to burden me with guilt because I heat my tiny house to 75 degrees on frigid days and own a car that only gets 28 mpg.

I don't listen to either. Never have and never will.

(to enlarge - click pic)


All the above included in note below:

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:



(click above pic to enlarge)

The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions

Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.

How Little We Know

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

What Leads, What Follows?

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Renaissance Man, Marathon Man

When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.

“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”

This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”

The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.

Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”

“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”

Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.

With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”

Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.

“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.

“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman


All the above included in note below:

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:





Don't Believe the Hype

Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.

Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.



All the above included in note below:

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:




In My Opinion:

12-22-06 2040hrs

Just When You Thought You Were All Alone

The Enviro / Conservancy Drive To Beat The American Public Back Into The Neolithic Pristine Cave Ages


As you read on, ask yourself; why does the story below sound so disgustingly familiar? A clue: California Off Limits to Californians - Wilderness Bill, Miller / Relim, Goose Creek, Tollowa Dunes, Pacific Shores and on and on "ad nauseum"! 


So when they shout:

  • Save it for future generations - You ask, will somebody please define "future generations"?
  • Preserve those pristine environments - You ask, will somebody please define "a pristine environment"?
  • Promote and enforce biodiversity - You ask, will somebody please define "bio & diversity"?
  • Protect and recreate the primeval balance - You ask, will please define "primeval"?


The answer, if one, which will come back, will be some variation for the elimination of human presence!


It's natural and self evident that human nature will always seek and reach for its biological apex; the nature that surrounds it should therefore be properly understood, controlled and managed fore and with this in mind.


Disagree? Send the editor a letter:



In My Opinion:

12-22-06 2040hrs

OHV Practitioners Face Government Extravaganza

In US Wilderness Bill


Well did we win or did we lose?  I guess like so much that comes out of the Washington bubble these days we could say - both. In the keeping of public area, trails and roads open to multi use by the public, Del Norte fared better than most other parts of the country affected by this "government lockdown and lockout" action.


But did we do well and / or could we have done better? The take on this is very complicated and will take years to play out (i.e. as we go through successive forest fire periods and redefinitions for the use of public lands by we the public).


So I guess all one can do at this stage is provide and direct your attention to all the information that's out there and say - "you decide".


Personally I trust the US public arena of ideas. I would be more than willing to bet that when we look back at this - bit further down the road - what we will see will be something very different than what has been proposed for signing today!


So "LEGrange E-news" has set up a separate "Gateway Page" as a forum on Public / Private Land & Its Use. This page will be online and available for your information 24/7. It will be appropriately linked to other informative sites and articles on the www relating to these issues and related actions planned and ongoing. It will seek to be your personal gateway to worldwide public and private land use ideas, issues and actions.


For our Gateway Page - click here.



In My Opinion:
Date: 08/21/06 01:47:17

Department of the Interior

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office

1655 Heindon Road

Arcata, CA 95825

ATTN: Field Supervisor

RE: Proposed Special 4 (d) Rule for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (WSP).

Field Supervisor,

I wish to express a sincere thanks to the US Fish & Wildlife Service for seeking to inform the public about the application of "Special Rule 4(d) under the Endangered Species Act for the Western Snowy Plover for Unit 2.

Although seemingly useful, I find "Special Rule" 4(d)" in regard to WSP habitat area at Tollowa Dunes / Lake Earl is deficient in site specific observation and lacking in verifiable qualitative and quantitative supporting data. So much so that the resulting assumptions on breeding habitat are both vague and ill directed.


Therefore, I believe the poorly defined management goals put forth under  "Special Rule 4(d)" for this habitat area are inappropriately chosen, realistically not attainable and realistically not maintainable.

Presently, there are no breeding WSP birds utilizing this habitat area and there is extremely limited if any data that clearly indicates the Plover would ever utilize this habitat area for breeding. Thus, any monitoring program or management goals to create and maintain a habitat are speculative at best and extremely preliminary at this point.

Considering the health of the current population of WSP along the west coast, the present and past lack of breeding birds in this habitat area and the limited historical and verifiable site specific scientific data used to support the plan's "Breeding Bird Goal" in this habitat area; I strongly ask that "Special Rule" 4(d)" not be applied in this instance and to this habitat area.

I, as well as many others in Del Note County find the proposed management plan, under "Special Rule" 4(d)" for the Tollowa Dunes / Lake Earl habitat area, lacking in quality, objectivity, utility, and informational integrity and as such may be in violation of the letter and spirit of the OMB "Data Quality Act" (amended PRA. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

So, many others and I vigorously request the present comment period be adequately extended to allow further research and more extensive public input.




Armand L. Trinitapoli

Resident of Del Notre County, CA

Chief Informational Officer of the Lake Earl Grange (577)

Co-chair of LEG Conservation and Environmental Committee


In my opinion:

On Wednesday 19 July 06 The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act Was Voted Out Of The US House Resources Committee


The US House measure HR 233, "Wilderness Bill", was voted out of committee last Wednesday. A measure that will use public tax monies to lockout much of the tax paying public from 28,417 acres of Del Norte County.


It will go on to the US House floor next week for a vote and will probably be passed. Later a compromise between the Senate and house versions will be worked out with this probably being passed also. Shortly afterward an approximate 275,000 public acres will for all practical purposes disappear from current and future public use.


Oh yes, an elite priestly class will administer, monitor and continue to enjoy it. The present and future general public however, will more likely only see two-dimensional renditions of its incredible majesty in some upcoming edition of National Geographic magazine.


The cruel joke on all of us is that this travesty will, in reality, offer nothing more in conservation or protection than what is already provided by the government's present regime. It will, however, have the chilling effect of saying KEEP OUT to our generation and our children's generation and those well beyond.


It will be a hollow victory feather in the caps of those who used it to misinform, deceive and disenfranchise those they were elected to represent.


These "sell outs" will crow about the "30 pieces silver" they saved for you, but keep in mind the value they offer back is only a small portion of what they took from you and was your heritage to begin with. Whatever monies they promise, it is your money they promise it with. Mmmmm, what a racket, if they weren't making the laws - well let's just leave it at that!


There are by far and away to many facets to this "Wilderness Bill" issue to cover it all here. Besides my personal opinion just keeps getting in the way.

After all is said and done - suffice it to say, that Rep. Pombo's Resource Committee, at the insistence of US Rep. Mike Thompson has just voted to spend hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to protect and re-regulate hundreds of thousands of already protected and regulated public lands. Not because the land is or ever was environmentally threatened, but only to serve the  "California Congressionals" who evidently derive joy in driving the public off public land and denying them their constitutional right to enjoy and pursue happiness through recreation in their heritage.


I have tried to attach all the related docs, pro and con, to this article along with hyperlinks to related web sites so you can review and decide for yourselves. I am always open to adding more and equally open to criticism of my opinion on this issue. All views respectfully presented will be honestly reported and published in subsequent editions of this site. This is and will always be the fundamental underlying purpose of our Grange web site.


In My Opinion: I agree / alt
“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.
Ed Salsedo sends this to "In My Opinion":

Posted By: SCRIBE
Date: Saturday, 24 June 2006, 3:06 p.m.

If you look at the Executive Order "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People" just issued by the President, strictly from the view of the recent Supreme Court eminent domain decision, it may appear on the surface to be ok.

Executive Order "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People", Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Section 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of: (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

In essence, this Executive Order allows "limiting taking of private property by the Federal Government in situations for which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public"; and "for the purpose of meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies".

Notice it doesn't limit itself to "real property"; it just speaks of "private property". Under common law, property is divided into: real property (immovable property) - interests in land and improvements thereto; and personal property - interests in anything other than real property. Personal property in turn is divided into tangible property (such as cars, clothing, animals) and intangible or abstract property (e.g. financial instruments such as stocks and bonds, etc.), which includes intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks).

The question is, does this one executive order do away with "private property rights", and allow the Federal Government to come in and take your: Car, Firearms, Ammunition, Food Stores, Money, and Precious Metals, any time it declares it necessary "for public use, for the purpose of benefiting the general public; and for the purpose of meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies"?

From: Ed Salsedo
Date: 06/27/06 14:08:09

Many thanks Ed for your submission.


Final Exam - Could You Pass It?

In My Opinion: Normally I wouldn't violate our E-News rules so blatantly. However, in the light of a recent news in our "local opinion rag", this letter to the editor from our fellow Grange member Randall Vance, was simply too choice to pass up. So I'll pass it on!

First to set the stage with the article submitted by AP (13 May 06) and picked up and printed by The Daily Triplicate on the front page. In and to the interests of our readers we can only do the same on our opinion page.

AP / Sacramento writes; "Judge suspends exit exam for seniors of 2006, those who have failed could be allowed to graduate, an Alameda County judge on Friday granted a preliminary injunction suspending California's high school exam for the class of 2006. ….

… 10 students claimed the exit exam discriminates against the poor and those learning English. …"

What ever happened to the 3Rs in our socio-economic fabric? So are we now to accept high school graduate students who can't read and / or write? How are they (the students) ever going to better their economic position when the CA school and justice system has so miserably failed them?

As for Judge Freedman - is this just justice? It seems the system is remiss in not giving our children a chance to return, repeat and reclaim their educational rights paid and secured for them by our hard earned tax monies. Obviously the issuance of empty certifications of achievement is neither the answer nor acceptable. The obvious issue here is not where one starts, how long it takes or the means used - but the accomplishment of completing it. If you don't believe it, study the life and times of our Abe Lincoln.

From: Randall Vance Date: 05/11/06 23:42:06

Final Exam-Could you pass it?

Actual 1895 Eighth Grade Final Exam;

Remember when our grandparents, great-grandparents, and such stated that

they only had an 8th grade education?

Well, check this out. - - -

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was

taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical

Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.


Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.

2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no Modifications.

3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.

4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of lie,

play and run

5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.

6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.

7. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you

understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hour s)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many

bushels of wheat will it hold?

3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at

50cts/bushel, deducting 1050lbs. for tare?

4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy

to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for


5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.

6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.

7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per


8 Find bank discount on $300 for! 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.

9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance

around which is 640 rods?

10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U. S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U. S. History is divided.

2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.

3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.

5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.

6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, P enn,

and Howe?

8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849,


Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,

etymology, syllabication?

2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?

3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, sub

vocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?

4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.

5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two

exceptions under each rule.

6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.

7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi,

dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup

8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name

the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,

rise, blood, fare, last.

9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, si te, sight, fane,

fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.

10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by

use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)

1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?

2. How do you acc! ount for the extremes of climate in Kansas?

3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?

4. Describe the mountains of North America.

5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,

Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall &Orinoco.

6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.

7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.

8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?

9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the

sources of rivers.

10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the


Also notice that the exam took five hours to complete.

Gives the saying "she/he only had an 8th grade education" a whole new

meaning, doesn't it? What happened to us? It is kind of humbling, isn't it ?

YES IT IS! Evidently history shows all  classes of Americans, in Middle America were far better served per tax dollar then, than the billions spent on CA's current vaunted educational system now. So much for the much sought after "California Dream"!

What inquiring minds want to know - is where today can we hire teachers who taught to and administered this kind of exam?

(Many many thanks - Randall.)

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter content here


To Check Local Gas Prices
(click pic & use zip)

Contact LEG
(click pic)

LEG E- News Front Page
(click pic)

Just click desired page below to go there: