Question about the Karuk II case, Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I th Options

[wheasonjr]

June 2009
Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I think this is a question we do need to be addressing with regards to the Karuk II case. This seems
to be a major part that we may need to defend in this dredging case. If anyone has heard of how
the below information is being addressed in the case I would be interested in knowing it.
Dear Dredging Miners and river prospectors:
If the Tribe wins this case (Karuk II), they can get a permanent injunction against the issuance
of suction dredge mining permits until DFG prepares a new EIR and promulgates new
regulations thereupon. So, I would like to know how we are going to keep the Tribe from
winning this case?
The Tribe named a number of new species, in addition to Coho Salmon, that have been listed
since 1994. They claim that this is all they need to show to win. I checked, there have been a
number of new listings since 1994. So, my questions here are is that all they need to show to get
the permanent injunction and what are we going to argue to counter that?
Yours,
Walter H. Eason, Jr.

[Coalbunny]

Walt, I feel they have as much right to the salmon as what they themselves use. I recall when I was in Happy Camp there was a handfull of indians fighting dredging, but they themselves did not use the same resources they claimed to use. Instead they were getting payment from some nutcase group out of Weaverville, and IIRC those were connected to another bunch of nutcases that were behind the anti-dredging legislation.

I know that Karuks have dredged before (IIRC a good portion was on the Forks of Salmon), and the only reason they are doing anything is because they are getting something from someone under the table. And I betcha a cup of coffee there's a connection between all of that and the Karuk casino projects.

IMNSHO.