+menu-


  • Category Archives Save Family Farming
  • Trump Jr Human Toll Issues – WA DC Edicts

    Donald Trump Jr has been informed of the issues.

    Toni Webb’s  issues are…  THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

    ————————————————————

    February 13, 2016

    Toni Webb meets with Donald Trump Jr to discuss Timber Issues and Land Ownership.

    Donald Trump Jr with Toni Web

    The bottom line from Toni…

    We would appreciate the support of Presidential Candidate Donald Trump for the transfer of our lands from federal mismanagement. We need your help to prevent further loss and to reverse the losses that have plunged our county into poverty. Whichever candidate emerges from the Presidential race, we will be looking to support the candidate who will be in favor of transferring the control of public lands to the states. If you want to Make America Great Again, start with Josephine County and help us help ourselves.

    ——————————————————

    The bottom line from Pearl Rains Hewett

    If you want to Make America Great Again

    VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP

    ———————————————————————

    From Toni…

    TO: Presidential Candidate Donald Trump & Donald Trump, Jr.

    Gentlemen:

    Thank you for reaching out to the American Lands Council to learn more about our position on the necessity of federal land transfer to the States and the divesting of that land. I have come from Josephine County, Oregon, to attend this meeting with Donald Trump Jr.

    text continues below..

    ———————————————————————

    I sent this email June 11, 2016

    Dear Toni,

    February 26, 2016 Toni Webb’s  story is here… OREGON CANDIDATE EXPOSES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

    BLM Bureau of Land Mismanagement

    Posted on February 29, 2016 9:33 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Word gets around in cyberspace

    THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY (WA DC Edicts) FEDERAL CONTROL, THREE COUNTIES,  THREE STATE, SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF –  CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON And JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

    Liz and I both saw this … As the history of our three counties in three different states. Washington State, Oregon and Calif. Liz Bowen is from Siskiyou County, Calif. Pie N Politics Pearl Rains Hewett is from Clallam County WA

    The Human Toll of WA DC Edicts 2012-2016

    ————————————————————————–

    Toni’s  text continued…

    Because of federal land-taking, we now have a broken county with a median household income less than the State of Mississippi. My father owned a sawmill here in the 1940’s; anyone who wanted to work could easily find a job. In the 1960’s, Josephine County had 53 sawmills; the revenue for Public Safety was around $18 million per year. Josephine County, Oregon, has relied on the use of our natural resources for Public Safety, Education, and necessary Public Projects. We now live under the constant threat of having to close the jail; and this July we will receive our last congressional subsidy of $4.3 million. Use of our resources has declined to the point that we are now an impoverished county largely dependent on welfare and government social services.

    Yesterday—the last remaining sawmill in our county closed indefinitely because they could not get enough logs to fill orders. We’ve gone from 19 sheriff’s patrols to a budget for only three patrols by this summer. Our County government laid off 127 people in 2012; 90 of those people were in the Sheriff’s Department.

    All promises from the Federal government to Josephine County have been broken. The government has not honored its commitment in the 1937 O&C Act, and the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have reduced the timber harvests for two decades.

    The BLM and Forest Service close vital roads throughout the county, so that we can’t put out forest fires. Those agencies then refuse to let us log the burnt areas and derive some income from the catastrophe. Management of our lands by Washington, DC, has proved to be a disaster to our county, both in terms of revenue for necessary services and in terms of modern forest management practices for sustainability.

    The EPA runs roughshod over our private and public lands; overly-zealous environmental activists derive much of their income from government grants. Environmental groups consistently portray logging as environmentally-destructive “clear-cutting”, when in fact, timber companies in Oregon are well-known for responsible, sustainable forest management.

    With this loss of use of our land to generate revenue and provide jobs come many of the predictable social problems, as indicated on the following page: drug abuse, health problems, rise in student dropout rate, children living in poverty, increased homelessness, and reliance on welfare subsidies. This is the result of not having control and benefit of our county land.

     Poverty in Josephine County has reached the point that we cannot pass a property tax levy to fund public safety. Having bare bones public safety negatively impacts our ability to retain and attract businesses and qualified workers.

    We would appreciate the support of Presidential Candidate Donald Trump for the transfer of our lands from federal mismanagement. We need your help to prevent further loss and to reverse the losses that have plunged our county into poverty. Whichever candidate emerges from the Presidential race, we will be looking to support the candidate who will be in favor of transferring the control of public lands to the states. If you want to Make America Great Again, start with Josephine County and help us help ourselves.

    Thank you and Best Wishes,
    Toni Webb

    Josephine County, Oregon, population: 84,000   Area: 1,642 sq. miles

    68% of Public Land is controlled by the Federal Government

    • Out-migration of younger population, who cannot find work.
    • Influx of seniors, largely from out-of-state, attracted by the low property tax ($.58 per thousand in the county, outside the City of Grants Pass).
    • 24% of the county population is over 65 years old.
    • 30% of children in Josephine County live in poverty; 20% of adults 18-64 live below the poverty line.
    • 65% of the children eligible for free/reduced cost lunches.
    • Increased homelessness and reliance on welfare subsidies.

    Drug abuse – #1 in Oregon for Rx drug abuse (seniors selling Opioids to supplement income). Rampant heroin, methamphetamine drug use. Approximately 125 babies born each year at hospital with drug addiction. read more…

    High school dropouts – 30-36% dropout rate throughout county. Misuse of funds allocated to school district. Dropout rate has not changed in 30 years. read more…

    Unemployment – 11%, estimated to be 20% in 18-30 age group. Rise in young people working part-time and growing marijuana. Largest % employers: schools, health care, and social assistance. read more…

    County Health Ranking: 29th out of 33 counties in Oregon. High level of obesity-44% of adult population has chronic high blood cholesterol. 23% of children, grades 1-3, have rampant tooth decay; 62% of lower income children have at least one cavity.

    Along with those who have become acutely aware, I agree that we cannot wait any longer for an outside entity to create local jobs and meaningful careers. We have created the nonprofit Josephine County Economic Development Alliance.

    ——————————————————————–

    Along with those who have become acutely aware,

    June 11, 2016 Word gets around in cyberspace

    New post on Pie N Politics

     

    Human toll of Washington D.C. edicts — especially Siskiyou Co.

    by Liz Bowen

    PNP comment: The below info was recently brought to our attention by Pearl Hewett in Clallam County, Washington, who stated her county has the same problems as Siskiyou in California and Josephine Co. in Oregon. Below is the link to Pearl’s webpage connecting the dots. Also, a BIG thank you to our local KARE Assoc. for putting these facts together. They have followed and documented the destruction to the environment by the Greenies and government for more than 25 years! — Editor Liz Bowen

    http://www.behindmyback.org/2016/06/10/the-human-toll-of-wa-dc-edicts-2012-2016/

     From KARE, Klamath Alliance for Resources and Environment in Siskiyou County, CA.

    The Human Toll in Siskiyou County

    Siskiyou County has been hard hit by the environmental movement during the past twenty years. Time and again, we are promised that tourism will rise and offset any damage to our resource driven economy, and yet those dollars refuse to materialize. For 20 years, timber has been excluded from our national forests (see this shocking graph) which consume nearly two thirds of our entire county. Mining has been all but eliminated, agriculture (the largest remaining industry in this county) and now KS Wild has the temerity to claim that our county will be better off with another 200,000 acres (of 600,000 total) of timberland locked up in some “climate refuge?” Next time somebody trots out that line, give them some of these demographic statistics:

    Unemployment, July 2011

    (State wide data by county: PDF file)

    California: 12.4%

    Siskiyou Co: 16.6%

    Shasta Co: 15.0%

    Modoc Co: 13.9%

    Humboldt Co: 11.9%

    LA Co: 13.3%

    Sacramento Co: 12.9%

    San Franscsco Co: 9.0%

    Siskiyou County 2010 Snapshot

    (PDF file)

    Population: around 48,000

    The median age of the population is 43

    36% of the population is employed

    Unemployment is 18.5%

    Median Household Income $35,692 ($59,928 for CA)

    28% of households have children under 18 (46% USA)

    18% of the population lives below the poverty line (13% CA)

    27% of children live below the poverty line (18.5% CA)

    18% of the population is eligible for food stamps

    22% are eligible for Medi-Cal programs (18% CA)

    Substantiation of Child Abuse and Neglect 31.7 per 1,000 ( 9/1,000 for CA)

    Siskiyou Co. has higher rates of all violent crime (aggravated assaults, forcible rape and robbery) except homicide than Los Angeles Co. 11% of Seniors aged 60 and above have been abused.

    Methamphetamine accounts for 44% of substance abuse treatment admissions. Roughly 11.9 percent of adolescents under 18 reported binge drinking over the past month (CA 6.6 percent.)

    Of youth between age 10-17 admitted for treatment, 72% were for marijuana, 17% methamphetamine, and 11% alcohol. 83% were male. This age group also accounts for 13% of drug-related arrests.

    Individuals between 25 and 34 years account for 25 percent of admissions to alcohol and drug treatment. This age group also accounts for 22 percent of drug related arrests

    Individuals between 35 and 44 years accounts for 27 percent of alcohol-related arrests

    Twenty Year Trends

    (PDF file)

    Demographic Trends — Age distribution: The census indicates that between 1990 and 2008, Siskiyou County experienced a 25% loss in the population of children under the age of 18. The County saw a 45% increase in the population age 45-64 and an 18% increase of those age 65 and older. This shows that our population is aging dramatically, and younger family wage earners are migrating elsewhere.

    Income Trends; The BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) indicates that in 1987, the average wage for jobs in Siskiyou County were 73% of the California average. There was a steady decline down to as low as 57% in the year 2000, then the percentage stabilized at 61 % with an increase to 63% in 2008. This shows that our wages are depressed, not keeping pace with inflation and the rest of the state.

    Unemployment — The EDD statistics indicate that from 1990-2009, the highest rates of unemployment occurred in individual months in 1991-1993 (19.3-21.1%.) The average rate of unemployment for 1991 was 13.2, for 1992 — 15.8 and for 1993 -15.6. This high rate likely reflects the closure of the four timber mills in Siskiyou County between 1989-1999. The rate of unemployment then very gradually decreased each year until it plateaued around 2001 -2007 at 8-9.5% It climbed to an average of 10.2% in 2008 and was at 15.8% average in 2009.

    Median Household Income The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, the median household income of Siskiyou County residents was $22,077. This was 66% of the California median, (down $11,000 from the CA median.) In 2008, the Siskiyou County median was $36,823. It had decreased to 60% of the California median, (down $24,000 from the CA median household income.) Siskiyou County ranks 51 out of 58 California Counties in median income.

    Poverty Rates — The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, 14.4% of Siskiyou County residents lived below the poverty line. This was 1.7% higher than the poverty rate for California in general. In 1989, 23.5% of children under 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This was 2.2% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 16.4% of all residents in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 3.1% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 25.4% of children under the age of 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. That is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 6.9% greater than the California rate.

    Summary Comment: Siskiyou County is an aging county. A large percentage of children in the county live in poverty and this is getting worse. Average wages are poor compared to the rest of California and getting worse. The household median income in the County has historically lagged far behind that of California and is getting worse. Unemployment has always been substantially higher than California in general. After stabilizing from high employment in the aftermath of mill closures and Forest Service layoffs, unemployment has substantially increased in the past two years and is climbing. It is currently 15.6% (May 2010.) The well-being of a substantial number of Siskiyou County residents is depressed and trending downward.

    Liz Bowen | June 11, 2016 at 8:38 am | Categories: Agenda 21 & Sustainable, Agriculture, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6HU

    The bottom line

    From Pearl Rains Hewett Trump campaign chair for Clallam County

    If you want to Make America Great Again

    VOTE YES FOR DONALD J. TRUMP


  • What’s Upstream? in Olympia and Bellingham

    EPA: What’s Upstream is a misuse of federal funds …

    www.capitalpress.com/…/epawhatsupstream-is-a-misuse-of…
    Capital Press

    3 days ago – In a turnaround, the Environmental Protection Agency says a media campaign to link farmers with water pollution has been a misuse of EPA …In a turnaround, the Environmental Protection Agency says a media campaign to link farmers with water pollution has been a misuse of EPA funds.

    Don Jenkins Capital Press Published on April 5, 2016 11:31AM

    Last changed on April 5, 2016 6:12PM

    Photo courtesy of Save Family Farming
A billboard near Bellingham, Wash., promotes a campaign funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, calls the billboards a disturbing and malicious attack on farmers. On Tuesday, the EPA said it was withdrawing its support for the campaign.

    Photo courtesy of Save Family Farming A billboard near Bellingham, Wash., promotes a campaign funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, calls the billboards a disturbing and malicious attack on farmers. On Tuesday, the EPA said it was withdrawing its support for the campaign.

    The Environmental Protection Agency today reversed course and said EPA funds should not have been used to finance What’s Upstream, a media campaign to arouse public support in Washington state for stricter regulations on agriculture.The campaign, a collaboration between a tribe and environmental groups, raised the ire of farm groups and drew a rebuke Monday from Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan…….. (read full text on link))

    ——————————————————-

    EPA’s reversal on What’s Upstream rings hollow to ag groups

    www.capitalpress.com/…/epas-reversal-on-whatsupstream-ri…
    Capital Press
    3 days ago – The Environmental Protection Agency says grant recipients misused federal funds in waging media campaign against farmers, but agriculture …
    The Environmental Protection Agency says grant recipients misused federal funds in waging media campaign against farmers, but agriculture groups say the agency needs to explain why the grant was awarded in the first place.
    Don Jenkins Capital Press Published on April 5, 2016 6:16PM

    Last changed on April 6, 2016 10:55AM

    Don Jenkins/Capital PressA billboard in Olympia advertises a website that advocates for stricter regulations on farmers. A tribe and environmental groups put up this billboard and one in Bellingham with a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The billboard fails to dislcose the funding source, as required by the terms of the grant.

    Don Jenkins/Capital Press A billboard in Olympia advertises a website that advocates for stricter regulations on farmers. A tribe and environmental groups put up this billboard and one in Bellingham with a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The billboard fails to disclose the funding source, as required by the terms of the grant.

     

    The Environmental Protection Agency reversed course Tuesday and said EPA funds should not have been used to finance What’s Upstream, a media campaign to arouse public support in Washington state for stricter regulations on agriculture.The change in position pleased farm advocates, but also left them asking why EPA allowed the campaign in the first place.

    “It’s nice EPA recognized what seems obvious,” said Washington State Dairy Federation policy director Jay Gordon. “But who … decided this was acceptable for federal funding?”

    What’s Upstream, a partnership between the Swinomish Indian tribe in northwestern Washington and environmental groups,

    has been funded with nearly $600,000 in EPA grants.

    The tribe used some of the money to hire a public relations firm, Strategies 360, and kept EPA informed as the firm crafted a campaign to influence a “malleable” public.

    Until Tuesday, the EPA had refrained from commenting on the campaign’s substance other than to say it did not violate prohibitions on using federal funds to lobby, even though What’s Upstream sought to organize a letter-writing campaign to state lawmakers.

    In a statement, the EPA took to task the grant’s original recipient, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and the Swinomish tribe.

    The commission, a consortium of 20 tribes, “sub-awarded” the money to the tribe.

    “The consortium made a sub-award for a campaign which should not be using EPA funds. We are in the process of correcting that,” an EPA spokesman said in a written statement.

    Efforts to reach the commission and tribe were unsuccessful.

    Two U.S. senators Tuesday sent a letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. requesting an investigation into how the grant funds were used.

    “We are troubled to learn that EPA’s financial assistance appears to improperly fund an advocacy campaign in Washington state that unfairly targets and demonizes farmers and ranchers,” wrote Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, both Republicans.

    Roberts, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Inhofe, who chairs the Environment Committee, zeroed in on whether the letter-writing campaign amounted to illegally funded lobbying and political activities.

    “The fact that the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission campaign website fully or partially funded by the EPA enables the public to use a script criticizing agricultural producers in an effort to influence lawmakers deserves immediate legal scrutiny,” the senators wrote.

    An Inspector General spokesman Tuesday said the agency doesn’t confirm or deny the existence of any ongoing investigation.

    IG investigators have already had a preliminary telephone conference call with farm groups, though it’s unclear whether the office will conduct a full investigation.

    “Based on our conversations with the people from the inspector general’s office, we think it is a pretty significant issue for the EPA,” said Save Family Farming director Gerald Baron, who participated in the call.

    Save Family Farming, based in northwestern Washington, was recently formed to respond to critics of farming practices.

    Baron said EPA should be held accountable.

    “I think it’s dishonest for them to try to put the responsibility for this on the grantee,” he said. “The record shows they were very closely involved in the content.”

    The tribe submitted regular reports to EPA over several years as Strategies 360 polled voters and met with focus groups. The polling found that voters were largely unconcerned about water pollution and held farmers in high regard, though the public relations firm reported that opinions could be changed with the right message.

    EPA distanced itself from the campaign one day after Roberts rebuked EPA for funding it.

    “The tone and content of this outside campaign does not represent the views of the EPA,” the EPA spokesman said.

    In a statement issued Monday, Roberts directed his ire at What’s Upstream billboards put up in Olympia and Bellingham, Wash., calling them “disturbing” and “malicious.”

    The billboards, which advertise the campaign’s website, picture dairy cows standing in a stream. The words say: “Unregulated agriculture is putting our waterways at risk.”

    The billboards do not disclose that they were funded by the EPA, a standard requirement for all EPA-funded materials.

    Gordon, himself a dairy farmer in Western Washington, said he was especially pained to see the billboard on a busy street in Olympia.

    “Seeing that right in the middle of Olympia, knowing it was paid for by taxpayer dollars, that was the one that hit me the hardest,” he said. “When you see it, you just go, ‘It’s just not fair.’”

    The environmental groups involved in What’s Upstream defend the campaign as public education, a permissible use of the EPA grant.

    “I still contend its use was for public education and was not a misuse of funds,” said Trish Rolfe, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy. “It (whatsupstream.com) is an educational website. It doesn’t lobby for or against a particular piece of legislation.”

    The EPA did not elaborate on what its next step will be.

    The agency should act quickly, Baron said.

    —————————————————————

    Two billboards that violate federal rules governing EPA funding, which appear to lobby for …

    By Rich Keller, Editor, Ag Professional

    Two billboards that violate federal rules governing EPA funding, which appear to lobby for new state legislation to limit farmers activities that environmental groups claim pollute waterways, has caused quite a stir in Washington state and Washington, D.C.

    A coalition of environmental groups in Washington state put up two billboards with the same photo and headline promote “What’s Upstream,” a campaign developed by a public relations firm to link agriculture with water pollution. It appears that a large amount of the money for the campaign and billboards are being financed by an EPA grant to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and controlled by the Swinomish Indian tribe.

    According to regulations, the billboards should mention financial support from the EPA, but they don’t, and EPA officials have agreed it was a mistake. The second concern is that money is being used for political lobbying, which is also contrary to use of federal grant funds. Of course, the EPA says the What’s Upstream campaign isn’t strictly political lobbying. Third, farmers and legislators from agricultural districts see the EPA aligning itself with anti-agriculture forces of environmental activists, and this isn’t appropriate for an agency that should be unbiased before evaluating specific regulations.

    The billboards show three cows standing in a stream with the headline: “Unregulated agriculture is putting our waterways at risk.” The environmental groups along with the Indian tribe—Puget Soundkeeper, Western Environmental Law Center and Center for Environmental Law and Policy—say the What’s Upstream is simply of educational nature.

    This whole situation about the billboards and the EPA handing out of grant money was first uncovered by Capital Press, but this has grown into more than a state issue.

    The chairmen of two Senate committees are calling for an investigation into billboards in Washington state that blame agriculture for polluting waterways because they apparently were funded by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Agriculture Committee are requesting an audit and investigation of the EPA grant.

    Sen. Roberts released a statement regarding the anti-agriculture billboard. “This disturbing billboard is a bold example of exactly what America’s farmers and ranchers complain about all the time: the EPA has an agenda antagonistic to producers. Whether it’s overly burdensome and costly regulations or something as obvious as this malicious billboard, the EPA has much to answer for in maligning those that grow the food and fiber to feed the world. Our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land and want to see our natural resources protected as much as any other American.

    “While there are legal concerns with the lack of disclosure of EPA’s involvement, the billboard is another example of EPA’s improper practice of encouraging the lobbying of legislators. How and why the EPA has allowed taxpayer dollars to be used to attack any industry, including our vital agriculture producers, demands answers.”