7 Comments Add your own

• 1. Peter Bray  |  October 8th, 2007 at 10:18 am

  Please remember to vote YES ON MEASURE 49!

• 2. Darryl Oliver  |  October 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  It is more important to get Measure 37 reform right, than to get it right now. I will vote No on Measure 49. The arguments in favor go on about the unfair and undesirable results of Measure 37, and I will agree it is horribly flawed legislation. We should hold our elected officials accountable for a reasonable solution and not one that opens as many holes as it closes. We need law that addresses all the problems of Measure 37 and not just those the lobbies have approved. I urge voters to read the text of Measure 49 itself. Make a list of what it covers that we need, what it adds that does not make sense, and what it does not cover.

• 3. jimbo  |  October 14th, 2007 at 9:30 pm

  It is more important to get Measure 37 reform right, than to get it right now.

  The most important thing is to put the brakes on M37–right now! Simple.As.That.

• 4. Evan  |  October 15th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  I agree with Jimbo. Darryl, I empathize with your desire. But the Legislature is very tired of working on this issue and will be even more scared of doing anything if the voters turn down Measure 49.

  So, yes, if you want the best long-term fix to 37, the best thing to do is pass Measure 49, so legislators understand that changing the details is ok with Oregon voters, and that we won’t revolt and throw them out of office if they even think about changing Measure 37.

  Further reform is likelier to happen if we reform measure 37 now than if we say no to reform.

• 5. Darryl Oliver  |  October 15th, 2007 at 10:12 pm

  Evan, we as voters have only a few means of influence in government. We can engage our elected officials in discussion, we can elect challengers to office if we believe they will represent us better, and we can vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on initiatives. I am not convinced voting ‘Yes’ on Measure 49 is going to convey the message I wish to send. If the Legislature is already tired of working on this issue, they might not have much incentive left to get it right. Moreover, Measure 49 does not simply leave a few details to patch up. It substantially changes the scope and power of Measure 37 in ways that are not called for by the failures of that initiative. The point of Measure 37 was to limit the risks of property ownership due to new land use restrictions. Its failure is in the lack of specific regulation on the processing and settling of claims, and DLCD has failed to execute well in the absence of specific regulation. Measure 49 provides very specific terms and procedures, however these exclude far too many potential claimants from just compensation. It offers one solution to many claimants: build a few houses, if your land meets all the criteria. For example, the claimant can only build as many houses as were allowed on the property prior to the new restriction; and in some cases the claimant can only build houses if an assessor determines residential use was the ‘highest and best’ use of the property prior to the new restriction. No houses, no compensation. Even if a few houses are allowed– up to 20 per claimant, across the state, regardless of total land impacted– no guarantee this is just compensation. And one final thought if you are concerned about the farmlands, forests, streams, etc: is it really better to build houses on the land than to pay the property owner outright for the value lost in preserving it? I have more to say about the Sections covering new claims but for now, I remain very determined not to give the Legislature the benefit of the doubt whether they are tired, scared, or even psychic.

• 6. Evan  |  October 17th, 2007 at 8:59 am

  I don’t know if you testified at any of the hearings, Darryl, or heard the testimony. This is an extremely contentious issue and the Republicans strategically decided that it should be a party-line issue, reining in those who thought about creating the right compromise.

  I think that 20 houses — more than a few — is just compensation for any losses people have had. In fact, most people haven’t had losses — they have been living on farm and forest land tax deferrals which have cost the state billions of dollars over the years.

  And as far as paying people for their rights so houses aren’t built, 1000 Friends and others have already introduced initiatives, which may become bills, for Land Stewardship Conservation Easements.

  Voting “yes” and “no” are both signals, and it is impossible to convey any sort of complex message like the one above by doing either (which is why I hate ballot measures overall). But this is about the MetaMessage: Do you think we should revise Measure 37 or leave it alone? If we should revise it, vote YES on 49.

• 7. Ed Johnston  |  October 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

  “REAL “PETITION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS IN THE OREGON OCEAN,NO USER FEE”

  PLEASE PASS ON

  PETITION TO PROTECT Americans “RIGHTS”, To use THE
  OREGON COAST FREE,Without user FEE’s

  PETITION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ON THE OREGON COAST

  Some of us support the idea of marine reserves; some
  do not. We all want to keep the Oregon coast, ocean
  seafloor and Oregon beaches available to all
  Oregonians. Hasn’t this all be debated once before. So
  why are we to debate this again? This has to stop now!
  So we oppose the creation of marine reserves which
  sets aside even more coast, ocean seafloor and beaches
  that, under federal law, much already very much like
  marine reserves. In 2006, through Amendment 19, NO AA
  Fisheries and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
  protected huge chunks of marine waters and seafloor
  off the West Coast as Essential Fish Habitat (EFF).
  There is EFF for ground fish, salmon, migratory
  species and for other food resources. For ground fish,
  it is from the high tide line to the 3,500 meter line.

  Habitat areas of particular concern include reefs,
  kelp, estuaries, sea mounts and undersea canyons. In
  these previously established (2006) areas, regulators
  may close off some or all fishing.

  This is essential fish habitat that provides needed
  food resources (lets not forget when Katrina destroyed
  Louisiana, National Guards against their will were
  required to arrest people for no more than catching
  fish to feed themselves, according to media reports).

  What exactly are the proposed new marine reserves
  protecting? Financing a study of the existing areas
  would show what works, what doesn’t and what
  corrections are needed. To close these areas to
  fishing without clear knowledge of what has worked
  seems harmful. What information and studies justify
  closing these areas for fishing and showing people
  have done more harm then what is being proposed. For
  that matter what harm have people done in fishing and
  enjoying their beaches? Don’t these same people clean
  the beaches annually and actively participate in
  seeing to it they are kept from pollutants, filth, and
  chemical endangerment.

  Certainly without an independent study closing further
  areas to fishing and human presence simply isn’t
  justified. Worse, yet, all this may be a preview of a
  coming federal and/or state effort to zone and
  privatize, resulting in closing off much of our
  publicly owned ocean. As the proposed Senate and House
  Bills as well as the media have already shown,
  detailed areas will be set aside for undersea frozen
  methane research and development (will this have any
  effect on global warming or cause additional loss of
  water); some areas are to be for huge fish farms (how
  will the additives given to fish in these farms affect
  our food supply or us); developing reserves for oil
  and gas is of less importance than seeing to the
  development of other energy sources and until they
  exist having oil companies plants open and able to
  process. An Honor the 1846 Treaty and thier OTHA”S.
  .
  In time, all public access to fish whether
  commercially, for subsistence and even for pleasure
  will be lost. Families won’t be able to take their
  families to picnic, play volleyball in the sand, to
  walk hand-in-hand on the beach anywhere on the Oregon
  coast.
  Losing our public right to access and enjoyment of our
  beaches sets a precedent that will surely be followed
  in other areas now available to the public. A legacy
  entrusted to us and for which we’ve paid taxes to
  sustain for generations will be lost.

  Hon. Tom McCall proposed this without including his
  constituents, the public - with no debate, no
  discussion of the larger picture. We oppose having
  this Bill which benefits many large corporations and
  businesses at the expense of the tax paying public. We
  sign
  below to keep Oregon Shores in as Oregon’s Territory
  and Keeping the vision of Former Gov. Tom McCall, Not
  to divide our community’s and public’s access to the
  beaches and our ocean’s coast.ODFW is Employee of the
  General Public ,And IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION,
  Not to privatized any more Public lands
  WITH NO USER FEE”S

  Sign: PRINT Name:
  Date

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  ——————————————————————————–

  Mail to

  your Oregon Senator and House

  900 Court Street
  NE, Salem, Oregon 97301

  and local County, City Representatives in your local
  area,

  and local newspapers.

  Some links
  http://oregontrackers.com/OregonTreaty_of_1846.html

  http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html

  http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/ocapream.html

  http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0900.dir/sb0942.intro.html

  http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0803.intro.html

  http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0804.intro.html

  http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=1299&ParentMenuId=194
  http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/admacts.html

  http://oregontrackers.com/Evolution_of_ODFW.htmlhttp:

  .http://fishwildliferights.blogspot.com/

  ODFW concerns

  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Concerns

  Let’s not forget the Oregon Department of Fish and
  Wildlife LIED to all of us in 2004. The cost was loss
  of local jobs, lost tax revenue from local business in
  counties and cities businesses closed and family
  incomes were destroyed causing a welfare burden to the
  middle class and working poor; including public and
  private employees. This proposal affects all of us in
  one form or another.

  In the 2005 Senate hearings I testified to our natural
  inherent. Former Representative Jeff Kropf stated that
  they (ODFW) are not off the hook for damages they
  (ODFW) caused to the taxpayer’s.

  ODFW “Recreational” Ground Fish Management Issues and
  Closure

  As an eighth generation American born I personally
  feel it is our Constitutional right to feed ourselves
  and not be dependent upon handouts, I’m a sustenance
  fisherman from necessity, though commercial and
  pleasure fishermen will also be affected.

  Below are links to pertinent information you need to
  form your opinion,

  Status

  The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) has
  closed the sport fishery for major ground fish species
  in all saltwater areas (including fishing from shore,
  in estuaries and the ocean) effective Friday,
  September 3, 2004. This closure includes all rock
  fishes, ling cod and green ling. OFWC closed the
  carbon sport harvest August 18 because the harvest cap
  was claimed to be reached. Carbon have good survival
  rates when released (because they do not have air
  bladders), which allowed the Commission to impose
  non-retention for carbon without affecting other
  fisheries.

  When a rock fish species attains its harvest target,
  however, non-retention is not an option. Most rock
  fish will suffer embolisms (because they have air
  bladders), and will not survive landing and release.
  Therefore, when the black rock fish cap was reached, a
  full closure was necessary because most black rock
  fish caught inadvertently with other ground fish
  species would not survive. Federal and state harvest
  management harvest limits are set for both commercial
  and also by selected recreational fisheries. Harvest
  caps result from the formal federal stock assessment
  of each species.

  The Oregon sport ground fish fishery has operated
  under federally imposed impact limits for several
  species designated by the agency(CLAIMED) to be
  “OVER-FISHED”during recent years. This includes ling
  cod, canaryand yellow eye rock fish.

  Harvest caps for these species are developed through
  the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The
  Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) adopt these
  caps for state waters (three miles from shore) and may
  impose more restrictive (but not less restrictive)
  conditions.

  OFWC also sets management measures for near-shore
  species and sets harvest caps for these species, which
  include carbon, green ling, “other near shore rock
  fish,” and black rock fish and blue rock fish
  combined.

  The Harvest Targets for 2004 (ODFW Claimed) allocated
  76% for black rock fish in Oregon recreational and 24%
  commercial.(But the truth is Commercial fishing has
  more than 50% as stated at 2005 hearing on Senate Bill
  805 regarding Public Resources without Public
  Compensation)

  The 2004 Oregon recreational targets for these species
  are as follows. (The harvest as of August 22, 2004, is
  in bold.) black rockfish (342 metric tons/322 mt),
  canary rockfish (6.8 mt/3.0 mt), yelloweye (3.2 mt/2.1
  mt), lingcod (110 mt/108 mt), cabezon (15.8 mt/ 17.2
  mt closed 8-18-04), greenling (5.2 mt/4.3 mt) and
  other nearshore rockfish (11.4 mt/6.5 mt).

  Plus LETS NOT FORGET WE the public still had 80 mt to
  go,(2004)

  ODFW omitted that they closed it down when it didn’t
  need to be (Thank you Miss Burke for your honesty).
  But as the former director Lindsey Ball stated, they
  went for federal funds. So you understand Mr. Ball is
  an Honorable MAN in my opinion he plays it by the
  book.

  Recent history of recreational harvest management

  2003 California exceeded the entire West Coast harvest
  of lingcod and canary rockfish in its sport and
  commercial fishery. This caused a late season closure
  for lingcod and an offshore closure to protect canary
  rockfish COASTWIDE.

  All three states were subject to this federal closure
  in November.

  Oregon and Washington sport and subsidence anglers
  were strongly opposed to another state driving
  closures coast wide.

  Approximately 94 percent of the Oregon sport allowable
  black rock fish take of 345 metric tons was harvested.
  While this was extremely close to the limit, factors
  such as weather and a healthy salmon fishery prevented
  an early closure. We lost over 40 mt(down from 382
  prior of 2004) harvest rate in roughly three years.

  (2004)
  With the support of the state’s sport fishing
  community, Oregon worked with the PFMC to support
  separate state stock fishery targets for the limiting
  species such as black rock fish, ling-cod, canary and
  yellow-eye. California imposed severe restrictions on
  its sport fishery. For federal and local jobs and
  money as well, California has closed its black
  rock-fish fishery in the north most of this summer
  through December.

  New for the 2004 Oregon sport fishery were offshore
  closures outside of 40-fathoms during the June through
  September period to reduce impacts on canary rockfish
  and yelloweye rockfish. This closure shifted fishing
  effort closer to shore where more reef black rockfish
  and lingcod harvest was likely. ODFW realized this had
  the potential to drive early closure-sin 2004, but
  scientific “models” did not have a way to predict
  exactly how the fishery would shift. A strong salmon
  year could have mitigated this shift, as occurred in
  2003. Public decision-making should be done by the
  general public only and represent the public’s
  opinion. Not by our public employees because that pose
  a conflict of interest.

  I attended many of the public meetings when ODFW held
  a series of coast wide public meetings beginning in
  March 2004 to discuss the 2004 fishery and options for
  2005-2006 fisheries. The options and findings were to
  be adopted under the federal PFMC process during 2004.

  During those meetings the public was informed that the
  result of the new offshore closures on angler behavior
  was unknown and that catch of black rockfish, the
  backbone of the sport groundfish fishery, could be
  escalated, which might result in fishery closures as
  early as September. Oregon’s sport monitoring program
  is extensive. One in every three sport anglers is
  interviewed at the landings, and ocean boat
  observation provides data on discards. Data sets are
  fact-checked and analyzed with a population model
  factoring in length, weight and by-catch estimates.
  This provides ODE with the ability to track the
  fishery monthly.

  Catch levels for black rock fish were evaluated
  monthly through July 2004 when the catch was
  approximately 242 of the 342 metric ton limit. With
  100 metric tons remaining, ODE staff projected the
  black rock fish fishery would sustain through Labor
  Day and into September based on the modeling.

  As summer continued, ODE staff made more frequent
  estimates. After the first week in August 2004, the
  sport catch was reviewed. Increased catch of black
  rock fish was relatively minor as weather had been an
  issue. During the next two weeks ocean conditions were
  much improved, catch rates increased and the average
  size of fish had increased. The poundage/catch impact
  for ground fish species is in metric tons, not numbers
  of fish, as with salmon.

  A review of catch through August 22 (by ODE) resulted
  in only 20 metric tons remaining of the sport black
  rock fish limit. It takes several days after the catch
  week for data from the field to be entered,
  error-checked, analyzed and catch-estimated, thus it
  was not until Friday, August 27, that this black rock
  fish catch numbers were established. The numbers made
  it clear that an early closure was necessary, but ODE
  staff was not sure if the fishery could be sustained
  through Labor Day weekend, which would greatly
  mitigate impacts of the closure. It was decided to use
  a manual call-in system to estimate the August 28-29
  weekend harvest so that staff could establish whether
  the fishery could remain open over Labor Day.

  An informal emergency meeting with sport anglers,
  charters, ports and community leaders and the Newport
  media was set for Monday, August 30, at 10 a.m. at the
  Marine Resources Program office in Newport. Others
  along the coast joined in the discussion through a
  conference call (approximately 40 individuals
  participated). By 10 a.m., staff had hand-analyzed the
  weekend sampling data, which showed that the harvest
  exceeded 12 metric tons (of the remaining 20 mt), with
  some ports still not reporting. It was clear that a
  closure before Labor Day would be necessary. Within 30
  minutes staff shared this information at the public
  meeting. A number of options were discussed for
  extending the fishery (hook and release in shallower
  water, for example) or opening up other sport fishing
  opportunities (salmon, halibut or yellow tail rock
  fish in the deeper closed area), but because of
  alleged enforcement concerns and the risk of
  additional mortality, most suggestions had to be ruled
  out and the black rock fish fishery had to be closed
  in order not to exceed newly federally adopted limits.

  Expanding sport halibut and salmon opportunities are
  still being pursued. Staff analyzed public options,
  briefed the department’s leadership and prepared a
  final position by 4 p.m. Monday, August 30. A news
  release was distributed by 5 p.m. At 7 p.m. a
  previously scheduled halibut management public meeting
  provided further opportunity to share this information
  and discuss public concerns. In November it was stated
  at a meeting held at the Embroidery in Newport that it
  was determined that the agency (ODE) did not have to
  close public fishing. But it was to late to open it up
  again. By whom? Employees at ODFW???????.

  Continuing sport-fishing opportunities
  This closure does not limit all marine recreational
  fishing opportunities. Anglers still may fish for
  salmon, tuna, flounder, sole, sand dabs, perch,
  herring, anchovy, striped bass and other offshore
  pelagic species.

  Commercial groundfish fishery
  Commercial harvest of these species also is being
  closely monitored. Projections are made on a biweekly
  basis using fish ticket landings. Black rockfish were
  projected to be harvested at a rate that would close
  that fishery early, so the bimonthly trip limits were
  severely reduced by an OFWC temporary rule in July.
  All commercial fisheries for near shore species
  currently are projected to be sustained to October 31
  through trip limit controls. “NO public fishing”

  What follows is a letter I wrote regarding this:

  October 30, 2004

  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
  Lindsay Ball, Director
  3406 Cherry Ave.
  Salem OR 97303

  Dear Mr. Ball:

  I am writing to present the recommendations of the
  Lincoln County PAC for the upcoming sport/charter
  groundfish season. A large number of ideas have been
  presented, and the job is to work through them to
  select the best or best combination.

  1. If we have to reduce the catch and/or effort in
  sport ground fishing, the best time to do it is during
  the winter. These months are the period when many
  groundfish species are giving birth to young, and
  therefore is the time they and their offspring are
  weakest and most need protection. Happily, this period
  is also the time when there is already very little
  groundfish fishing going on at the coast due to the
  weather conditions. It is true that, over the years,
  coastal businesses have struggled to bring business
  into the coast in the winter. But that business is
  still pretty small - far less than, say, the Labor Day
  weekend. And it is not only the tiny groundfish sport
  fishery that brings wintertime visitors. People come
  to Newport and the rest of the Oregon coast for the
  Seafood & Wine and similar festivals, and to enjoy
  watching stormy seas from safe hotel rooms overlooking
  the ocean. If we have to cut the groundfish charters,
  the dead of winter is better than the high point of
  summer or Labor Day - times when, many charter fishers
  say, a cut in catch levels could hurt them at least as
  much as a cut in winter sport catch. If we want to
  protect weak species:

  1. Closing the tiny winter season is probably the best
  way to do it.

  2. Also, many commercial fishers said that we should
  allow a higher commercial trip limit, so as to have
  fewer trips, while not changing total catch allowed.
  This will save on gas and other costs without cutting
  the revenues brought in. If we allow higher trip
  limits - or at least don’t cut them - in the summer,
  we can to some extent make up for winter losses to the
  broader coastal economy if we stop wintertime
  groundfish sport catch.

  3. It is a continuing scandal that we force fishers to
  throw back large quantities of fish that are dead or
  will, in many cases, die anyway - either because their
  air bladders burst or because they are otherwise
  injured or because they become weak and are easily
  eaten by predators. We should find ways to use these
  fish - other countries already commercially use many
  species we do not - instead of killing them and
  wasting them. For example, batfish can be used for cat
  food processing, instead of just thrown out. As it is
  now, lower dollar value fish get thrown back, like bat
  fish, so fishers can get the extra volume of higher
  value fish. If we had the fishers retain what they
  catch, they could still make money, spend less time
  out there (and less on gas and other costs) and not
  wreck species not now used as commercial catch.
  Here’s a way to make ecological sense at minimal
  economic cost.

  We need the Elected and Public Official (IN HONORING
  THEIR Oath’s), elected and Public employees,
  environmentalists and the fishers to work together for
  all our Americans children’s food resources future.
  These are ways to do so right.

  Sincerely,

  Ed Johnston

  ODFW Recreational Groundfish Management Issues and
  Closure

  http://www.dfw.state.or.us/public/NewsArc/2004news/sept/090104news.html

  http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Comm/schedule.htm

  We have seen the Oregon Department of Fish and
  Wildlife make serious mistakes (in my opinion), if not
  worse, in the past. The stunning Labor Day weekend
  closure of ground fishing in 2004 when there was no
  need for it in terms of the condition of the protected
  ground fish is certainly at the top of that list.
  ODFW’s destruction of hatchery salmon runs is another.
  The imposition of protections not only for fish that
  professional fishermen, sport and subsistence fishers,
  scientists and regulators believe are in trouble, but
  also fish whose condition is in dispute - and even on
  some species their own scientists say are not in
  trouble. In one amazing Case the individual fishermen
  reported having landed many more tons than ODFW had
  stated were brought in by all Oregon fishermen, is
  another example.

  Fishing for many people on the Oregon Coast, and
  elsewhere, is not a past time or hobby. It is a way of
  feeding their families, enabling them to make ends
  meet. For those it is a right to life (as in “life,
  liberty and happiness” in the Declaration of
  Independence, and “life, liberty or property” in the
  USA Constitution). It is also a tradition that helps
  define many of our cultures, our way of life. As a
  source of food, salmon and other marine fish are among
  the most nutritious and healthy around.
  Due to the factors mentioned on the petition, we in
  Oregon and many other coastal states will lose our
  rights to fish, as well as our rights to enjoy and use
  the ocean and the beaches.

  XXX
  Lets not forget that former Rep. Jeff Kropf and other
  members of the state legislature stated that the state
  and federal regulators are not off the hook for the
  damages that they caused to the taxpayer’s, citizens
  and residents of Oregon. Lets not forget the agency
  LIED to all of us in 2004,For Federal Grants as I was
  told at a ODFW meetings in 2005-2006. XXX

  As to ODFW’s “Recreational” ground fish management,”
  like so many other Oregonians, I want to know when we
  lost the Rights to feed ourselves. Was it when the
  agency attempted to take total control of Oregonians
  food resources? Or when they made all these mistakes
  in doing so? This is not “Recreational fishing.”
  Without fish, we do not eat right. This is the case
  for all classes of fishermen, and under both the
  constitution and the Declaration the fish belong to
  all of us. The government and private interests have
  only as much right as we allow. In my opinion,
  commercial BY-Catch should be deducted from the
  commercial industry only.
  Its true ODFW has stated that only 4% of those fishing
  are subsistence fisher persons. The 4% is so
  negligible as to have no real effect. Certainly not
  impinging upon their Constitutional right to feed them
  self should be upheld. As ODFW has stated in June and
  July 2006 meetings, it is federal MONEY that is more
  important to them then Oregonians’ Constitutional
  right to feed themselves. We certainly do not want to
  have our elected and pubic officials just sign away
  our Americana’s Constitutional rights. We need to work
  with the agencies not 501(c)(3)agencies should not
  allowed to have any authority over public land. Nor
  should they dictate how public lands should be used.

  But let us not forget to respect each other on this
  very important issue.

  For our family, friends, neighbors, elected and public
  employees. We have to remember Oregonians all equally
  share responsibility for our publicly owned coast and
  resources we are stewards of the land for all
  Americans to enjoy.

  This is my opinion. I believe it may well be yours
  after reading the information, citations and
  documentation contained within the web sites listed
  above. I am asking you to do your homework and make
  informed decisions, so you and your children retain
  Yours and thier Consitional Rights and access to
  fishing, beaches, seashore and the joy our beautiful
  Oregon coast provides.
  Also scientists can only give us a “Guesstimate” as
  they have stated, because there is no way we can ever
  know how many fish are in the oceans.

  “Everything that is really great and inspiring is
  created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” -
  Albert Einstein (1879-1959)

  Ed Johnston
  1540 N Nye St
  Toledo,Oregon 97391
  http://www.oregonrackers.com

  Lets not forget you will lose your constitutional and
  civil rights to use your beaches, and why some are
  willing to pay for for their born Americans “RIGHTS”
  of our FREEDOM of our American PUBLIC LANDS.

  Also you can Forget that our founding fathers gave us
  the Bible and The United States Consitution for our
  freedom.
  Blessed are the peacemakers.
  OR Good by to the Amirican DREAM of FREEDOM

  This Is My Opinoin

  Sincerly

  Ed Johnston
  541 336 1233

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed