Conflict of Interest Complaint Sparks Concerns Over Trinity River Restoration Program Management
Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
Please note that it has come to our attention that one of the people who we were told signed the letter, did not do so. We’ve removed that person’s name. All other names have been confirmed.
[A letter sent to the Department of the Interior and shared with Redheaded Blackbelt]
To Whom It May Concern:We write to you as landowners, business owners and residents of Trinity County, California. We enthusiastically support funding restoration programs for the Trinity River’s salmon and steelhead runs. Trinity River salmonids are central to the economy, history – indeed, culture – of Trinity County.
We do not, however, support the so-called restoration efforts currently promulgated by the Trinity Management Council (TMC) and administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).
We are the disenfranchised public in these procedures, and we have exhausted all administrative remedies. We are therefore forced to write to the Inspector General for both equity and efficacy in Trinity River salmonid restoration initiatives. The managing entities of this program – the Department of Interior (DOI), TMC and USBR – are the problem, not part of the solution. They have failed to respond to recommendations and make changes to the Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) that would allow it to achieve its avowed goals.
The 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision (2000 ROD) designated the TMC to act as a de facto Board of Directors for the TRRP. While the TMC is considered advisory to the Interior Secretary, it actually calls the shots for budgetary matters, science issues, and Trinity River annual flows. The Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG), a federal advisory committee established in the 2000 ROD, was dissolved in 2017. This completely eliminated public involvement, with no recourse provided for policy reform. The TRRP and TMC appear wholly disinterested in public participation and have purposefully limited input.
The TMC’s lack of conflict-of-interest policies has resulted in a complete loss of public confidence and the wasteful and unreasonable expenditure of public funds intended for river restoration. Federal, state, local, and tribal members of the TMC vote on an annual budget (with periodic adjustments); this provides funding for their salaries, their tribes, and their agencies. In most cases, the funds (sometimes millions of dollars) are provided under no-bid contracts or grants that have little or no apparent oversight from the funding agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
The conflict of interest inherent in this arrangement is both obvious and shameful. The public has not been well-served by this lack of oversight and accountability and the likely violations of federal and state law. To date, more than $300 million in public funds have been spent under the TRRP. Meanwhile, the fishery has declined precipitously during the 23 years that have passed since the 2000 Trinity Record of Decisioni was signed.
The public perception of the TRRP is abysmal. It is viewed as a total failure, harmful, and a “make work” program for TMC member agencies and tribes with no legitimate opportunity for public involvement. An example of the utter failure of the TRRP is the complete closure of the 2023 and 2024 commercial and recreational salmon fishing seasons, a decision that was driven in part by low returns of Trinity River Chinook salmon.
The graph below clearly demonstrates the total failure of the TRRP to restore Trinity River Fall Chinook:
Source: CDFW Klamath Basin Megatable 2022.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122850&inline
The conflicts of interest cited above undercut proper implementation of Adaptive Management as required in the 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision and hinders restoration of the Trinity River’s fisheries.
The failure to implement Adaptive Management is due directly to these conflicts of interest and lack of public involvement. Moreover, several reports commissioned by USBR have identified TRRP’s poor performance and the existing conflicts of interest; they are hardly a recent revelation. But despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on these reports, DOI and USBR have done nothing to rectify these conflicts of interest. These reports include a “TRRP Refinements” report by Headwaters (2018)ii, the “Trinity River Situation Assessment” by CDR Associates (2008)iii and the “Trinity River Restoration Program Evaluation Final Report” by the Trinity Management Council Subcommittee (2004)iv. Additionally, the TMC has ignored the Science Advisory Board (SAB) on numerous occasions.
In short, the TMC has ignored internal and external programmatic review, scientific review and public sentiment and comment while purposefully flaunting state and federal law.
Some of the recommendations and findings from the reports follow:
CDR Situation Assessment, 2008 recommendations, page 25:
“Addressing perceived or actual conflicts of interest of TMC members; especially if they are involved in making decisions on TRRP budgetary issues that may result in direct financial benefit for their respective organizations.”
Page 26:
“Eliminate any perceived or actual conflict of interest a TMC Chair might have by broadening the pool of possible Chair candidates. Chairs could be selected from TMC members who are not likely to have specific programmatic or financial interests in the outcome of TMC decisions. At points where the TMC is deliberating a point in which the
Chair has a vested programmatic or financial interest, the TMC Chair could recuse himself/herself or rotate out of the role of Chair while a specific issue is discussed.”
Page 27:
If the TMC applies some of the procedural options above and finds that they do not result in a more functional TMC, more serious structural changes may have to be considered by either the TMC or the DOI. Some options that may need to be considered include:
- Require a TMC member with a specific programmatic or financial interest in the outcome of a decision by that body to recuse themselves from voting on that issue.
- Enlarge the number of voting members on the TMC to provide for a representation of a broader number of interests, and to increase the number of disinterested parties who could vote on programmatic or financial issues where other TMC members have a direct interest.
This could involve adding some other government entities (the Bureau of Land Management, the Natural Resource Management Agency, or Humboldt County) or some members of TAMWG. If members of TAMWG were added to the TMC, consideration should be given to dissolving TAMWG, as its functions would probably be duplicative to the newly constituted TMC.
The 2018 Headwaters Report included findings that speak directly to these troubling issues:
Page 9:
“Q: How does the TRRP handle the issue of “conflict of interest”? A: This was a significant concern noted by nearly all interviewees. Interviewees stated that TMC members are voting on budgets that benefit their agencies/entities in staffing, construction projects, and monitoring and see this as a significant conflict of interest. The concept of base funding (mentioned above) was noted as one possible remedy, but there was significant concern raised by multiple interviewees that this conflict of interest in the budget, how money is allocated to projects, and how decisions are made about this allocation is a potential fatal flaw for the TRRP.”
“Q: Has the TRRP ever been audited?
A: A significant number of interviewees believed that an audit of the TRRP should be done to account for how the money has been spent and the results of those expenditures. It was apparent this issue was raised not in the sense of financial malfeasance, but rather as means to increase transparency about TRRP spending and associated results. Several interviewees stated that nobody at the state or federal level is asking the TRRP to show results against goals or milestones, or to account for how federal dollars have been spent over many years. Many interviewees wanted more transparency regarding the amount of funds that go to agency/entity salaries versus how much TRRP funding goes to restoration construction projects, overall implementation, and program science.”
Page 8:
“Q: How well does the Trinity Management Council (TMC) function?” “Several interviewees noted that the TMC seems to make technical decisions on TRRP implementation and evaluation based on the budget and not on program science.”
“The culture of the TMC is viewed as one that rewards “bad behavior” of its members.”
“The TMC was generally noted by interviewees as being resistant to change and unable/unwilling to implement the recommendations of previous TRRP reviews (TMC Subcommittee Report, CDR Situation Assessment, etc.).”
“Some interviewees believe the TMC should operate as a Board of Directors for the TRRP, but there is a sense that TMC partners are too conflicted to fulfill that role.”
“Several interviewees stated an observation that the TMC does not listen to the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) or consider their input important, and the TMC only gives the appearance of taking public comment and input.”
Page 10
“Q: What is the public perception of the TRRP?
A: There was a clear consensus among interviewees that the public perception of the TRRP is poor.”
“Q: What is the TRRP’s view of adaptive management?
A: …TRRP science is viewed by many as being a lower priority in the budget than construction projects. Many interviewees described science (or adaptive management) as receiving what is left over in the budget after construction projects are funded.
…Generally, there was agreement among the interviewees that the TRRP is not operating under an agreed-to Adaptive Management Plan.”
Page 12
“Decision-making not shared – While the TMC is the decision-making body for the TRRP and its membership does include a variety of Tribal, federal, state, and local partners, questions remain about relative balance between TMC members and the influence each entity has on TRRP decisions. The TAMWG serves as a sounding board for stakeholders, but that group does not have a vote at the TMC level, so those stakeholders are not really part of the decision-making process. It is not clear why the stakeholder group is labeled an “Adaptive Management Working Group” since adaptive management needs to be part of the overall structure of the TRRP and stakeholders need to be part of TRRP decision-making. …Additionally, the TAMWG has now been rendered “administratively inactive” by the Department of Interior thus completely isolating stakeholder input from the functions of the TRRP and propagating further divisions among TRRP interests.”
Decision-making process – “There is significant internal concern within the TRRP about issues of “conflict of interest”, how TRRP money is distributed to Program projects and to Program entities, and how this all influences TRRP decision-making and progress. TMC decisions are formalized via voting through a super-majority process that requires six out of eight votes to move something forward, often leaving one or two entities (often the same entities time and time again) disaffected with the decisions made by the TMC and forcing them to take actions outside of the regular TRRP process. This perpetuates feelings of mistrust and suspicion about what decisions are made and why.”
Page 13
“Role of ED and ED Office – …It is difficult for the ED and Program staff to play an “honest broker” role implementing the TRRP and delivering information to the TMC for decision-making when those individuals are all employees of agencies and entities that sit at the decision-making table as members of the TMC – this is a problem in nearly all large-scale river restoration/adaptive management programs across the U.S., housed both in Reclamation and in the Corps of Engineers.”
The 2007 “Trinity River Situation Assessment” by CDR Associates contained the following related finding:
Page 21
“While functioning well internally, TAMWG may be somewhat duplicative of the advisory role prescribed to the TMC. While composed of somewhat different members and stakeholders than those of the TMC, some of whom are also government agencies, it primarily represents non-governmental interests. The creation of two advisory committees, the TMC and TAMWG appears to have been an effort to create a more manageable “decision making body.” However, the result may be a duplication of roles and the creation two advisory bodies.”
Recommendations Page 25
“Addressing perceived or actual conflicts of interest of TMC members; especially if they are involved in making decisions on TRRP budgetary issues that may result in direct financial benefit for their respective organizations.”
Procedural Options Page 26
“Eliminate any perceived or actual conflict of interest a TMC Chair might have by broadening the pool of possible Chair candidates. Chairs could be selected from TMC members who are not likely to have specific programmatic or financial interests in the outcome of TMC decisions. At points where the TMC is deliberating a point in which theChair has a vested programmatic or financial interest, the TMC Chair could recuse himself/herself or rotate out of the role of Chair while a specific issue is discussed.”
“Allow the Chair to step out of his or her role and turn this function over to another TMC member, if the TMC is deliberating or deciding on an issue where the Chair either has strong views or a substantive or financial interest.”
Structural Options, Page 27
“If the TMC applies some of the procedural options above and finds that they do not result in a more functional TMC, more serious structural changes may have to be considered by either the TMC or the DOI. Some options that may need to be considered include:
- Require a TMC member with a specific programmatic or financial interest in the outcome of a decision by that body to recuse themselves from voting on that issue.
- Enlarge the number of voting members on the TMC to provide for a representation of a broader number of interests, and to increase the number of disinterested parties who could vote on programmatic or financial issues where other TMC members have a direct interest.
This could involve adding some other government entities (the Bureau of Land Management, the Natural Resource Management Agency, or Humboldt County) or some members of TAMWG. If members of TAMWG were added to the TMC, consideration should be given to dissolving TAMWG, as its functions would probably be duplicative to the newly constituted TMC.”
In its final 2017 letter to the TMC before its dissolution, the TAMWG summed up the TMC’s conflicts of interest and posited a sound solution:
“The self-dealing nature of the TMC whereby member entities can vote on their own funding and block motions to do otherwise because of supermajority voting rules is inherently corrupt. The TMC consistently rejects many of the TAMWG’s recommendations and doesn’t even give the TAMWG Chair a vote on the TMC, leading to tremendous frustration by TAMWG members. The TAMWG favors dissolving the TAMWG and merging it with the TMC, similar to the old Trinity River Task Force. It is duplicative and wasteful for staff and other participants to have two different groups discussing the same issues.”
We are unaware of TRRP/TMC/USBR compliance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.112 for the Trinity River Restoration Program. 2 C.F.R. § 200.112 states “The Federal awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. The non-Federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy.”
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs Federal Conflicts of Interest Guide Sheet describes conflict of interest irregularities as either “conflict in fact” or “conflict in appearance”.v The TMC has both a “conflict in fact” and a “conflict in appearance.” The results of these conflicts include but are not limited to the following:
A. The public’s confidence in the integrity of the TRRP has been affected negatively.
B. The TMC has lost independence and objectivity in the eyes of the public.
C. Though required to do so by their federal grantee status, TMC members have failed to meet their responsibility for the decisions, approval, recommendations, or disapproval of the following people or groups:
- The organization in which they are serving as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee.
- Any person or organization with whom they are negotiating; has an arrangement concerning prospective employment; has a financial interest; or for other reason, is unable to conduct an unbiased transaction.
The budget and budget alterations are regularly voted on by TMC members who represent organizations that directly receive no-bid contracts or grants from the USBR. The conflicts of interest inherent in this process result in multiple negative outcomes, including:
- Inflated costs for projects that would cost significantly less on other river systems. An example: the downstream salmon smolt outmigrant rotary screw traps. If this project were put out to bid, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would be saved.
- TRRP has funded evaluations of some of their scientific monitoring projects by independent contractors and their Science Advisory Board but has not implemented some of their recommendations – such as rotary screw traps – because they would decrease the amount of project funding received by TMC member agencies.vi
- TRRP has revisited restoration sites at significant cost before implementing other projects, thus delaying the completion of all identified restoration sites, underfunding watershed restoration efforts, and substantially increasing the cost to the TRRP.
- TRRP has failed to properly implement restoration projects in an environmentally sound manner for the sole purpose of maximizing profits.An example is the TRRP’s herculean efforts to extirpate non-native brown trout in the Trinity River (because they eat young salmon and steelhead.) The Trinity River Hatchery also limits production of steelhead to minimize the “take” of threatened Coho salmon. The Trinity River Hatchery recently released several hundred spawned-out steelhead into Carrville Pond to avoid the “take” of Coho. These practices that speak to admirable goals to protect threatened Coho salmon but are completely inconsistent with other actions by the TRRP and its contractors/grantees.In 2023 the Yurok Corporation was under contract to the USBR to construct the Oregon Gulch Project; in the course of its work, it released hundreds to thousands of non-native piscivorous catfish, sunfish and bass into the Trinity River by draining nearby ponds. By law, the Yurok Corporation
should have electro-fished or netted these invasive fish before draining the ponds to the river; but this essential procedure apparently would have diminished profits. Instead, the Yurok Corporation released harmful, invasive, and non-native fish into the Trinity River, with the TRRP claiming it wasn’t a problem because the fish would die the following winter.This skewed logic failed to acknowledge the pond-draining was an illegal action that violated state and federal law, and that it was exacerbated by the fact that it occurred prior to the fall release of young fish from the Trinity River Hatchery, many of which were undoubtedly consumed by the exotic fish. Some of the native and hatchery fish consumed were certainly Coho salmon, a federally and state listed threatened species; thus, this act constituted an unpermitted” take” of a listed species. NOAA Fisheries and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, both TMC member agencies, turned a blind eye to this illegal and harmful act.
- Rodney Vigil, an employee of the Yurok Corporation, was fired for posting photos to Facebook of the non-native fishes’ release to the river. Not only does Mr. Vigil’s dismissal prove that the TRRP and the Yurok Corporation were aware their action violated the law, but it is clear that they had no intention of informing the public of the release of these non-native fish and were embarrassed by Mr. Vigil’s disclosure. The environmental documents prepared for the project completely failed to disclose this impact on the required state permit or federal take permit, nor did they cite appropriate mitigation measures.
- Catfish released into the Trinity River in August 2023. Photos: Rodney Vigil
- Another example is the release of hydraulic oil onto a Trinity River gravel bar by the Yurok Corporation. Rodney Vigil provided the photo below and gave this description:
- The TRRP’s grantees and contractors fail to abide by the law and the policies and directives of the TMC and the USBR because of their proclivity for profit over the proper and ethical pursuit of their mission. An example occurred in 2021. Though the scientific recommendation for Lewiston Hatchery is the addition of 0 – 500 cubic yards of spawning gravel during critically dry years, the TMC had not approved the placement of such gravel in 2021, which met extreme drought criteria. However, to maximize profits, the Yurok Corporation placed cubic yards of gravel in the river at the Hatchery – and it did so prior to approval of the TMC and without public notice. There were no negative ramifications for the contractor, who presumably was paid for the full 5,000 cubic yards, even though they did not have TMC approval. The river was unnecessarily disturbed and muddied in the process, and the benefit to salmon was “inconsequential” according to the TRRP’s own expert.
2021 Lewiston Hatchery Gravel Placement. Photo: Jerilyn Smith
- The TRRP’s propensity for profit over lawful activity is further exemplified by its failure to abide by traffic laws during the transport of gravel from the Oregon Gulch Project; this practice was a de facto money-saving policy, and has been described by Lonnie Boles in Facebook (see https://www.facebook.com/groups/524930456504164/permalink/614143330916209/ ). The link shows a video of a Yurok Corporation gravel truck failing to stop at State Highway 299, resulting in a very dangerous situation and what Mr. Boles described as a physical confrontation initiated by the truck driver when Boles complained about his unsafe driving.
- Public participation in the TRRP officially ended in November of 2017 when the Interior Department effectively disbanded the Federal Advisory Committee, the TAMWG. Previous recommendations from the TAMWG and consultants to include the public as a voting member of the TMC were consistently rejected. TMC members clearly enjoy their exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and have consistently opposed efforts to create a Federal Advisory Committee wherein the public, tribes and agencies work together for restoration per the procedures of the former Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force authorized by Public Law 98-541x. Following the dismantling of public participation in the TRRP, the TMC even voted to implement closed session meetings to deal with contract issues, thus keeping the members’ self-dealing and unpopular activities hidden from public scrutiny. An exemption from FACA should not preclude disclosure of actions approved during closed sessions, conflicts of interest, and recusal.
- Watershed Restoration activities were authorized by the Trinity ROD to the amount of $1.8 million/year in 1999 dollars. However, watershed funding has been limited to a maximum of $500,000/year by the TMC. These funds are currently administered by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation under a competitive bidding process. The competitive nature of the funding process doesn’t sit well with some TMC members who get no bid contracts and grants under the current system. This results in extremely limited funding for watershed restoration, as voted on by the TMC. Watershed restoration projects are not as large as main stem projects, and require a great deal of landowner cooperation, thereby limiting easy profits such as multi-million-dollar main stem “restoration” projects.
In summary, the TRRP and TMC are rife with violations of state and federal law, conflicts of interest, poor performance and lack of contractual control by federal contract managers. Because of these issues, the public– while enthusiastically supporting Trinity River restoration – has lost confidence in the ability of the TMC to effectively manage the TRRP. The public perception is that hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted with few if any benefits and documented harm to the river and its fish.
Potential Remedies
- Determine if USBR and TRRP participants have adhered to 2 C.F.R. § 200.112, i.e.: “The Federal awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards.” Have the non-Federal entities disclosed in writing any potential conflict of interest to the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable federal awarding agency policy? If so, request copies and make them publicly available. If not, why?
- Conduct a comprehensive review of the TRRP restoration projects (instream and watershed) by an independent panel led by a senior Department of Interior scientist who has no affiliation with TRRP activities.
- Conduct a thorough forensic audit of all funding spent by the TRRP, including compliance and deliverables with the USBR contracts/grants that have been made since the inception of the TRRP (~ 2001).
- Revisit and implement structural, management and conflict of interest recommendations from previous evaluations and reports. Include the “fixer” idea – someone within Interior to oversee and implement unbiased scientific program management and priorities to ensure the TMC follows adaptive management and avoids conflicts of interest. This option could include cessation of funding for mainstem projects and restricting funding for watershed restoration activities to the Fish and Wildlife Foundation until conflict-of-interest issues are resolved.
- Unilaterally impose conflict of interest Rules into the TMC bylaws. This option would also require Interior Secretary approval because the TMC is not capable of self-imposing conflict of interest rules.
- Eliminate the TMC and replace it with a Federal Advisory Committee consisting of the public, stakeholders, agencies, and Tribes. This alternative would require voting recusal from participants with potential conflicts of interest. This option would also require Interior Secretary approval and full compliance with the requirements of FACA.
A response is requested.
Sincerely,
Jerilyn Smith, Trinity River Coalition
Trinity River Watershed Alliance
Scott Stratton
North Coast Outfitters
Bruce McGregor
Nor Cal Fly Guides
[Name removed as they did not sign this]
Brian Clemens
Darren Victorine
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Somebody has to say this: The best solution for returning the historic runs of salmon and steelhead to the Trinity and Klamath Rivers is to remove the Trinity and Lewiston dams. The anadromous fish runs on the Trinity and Klamath rivers dropped precipitously after these dams were built in the early 1960s.
Absolutely.
When the klamath dams were breached, nonative fish went downstream also. Mismanagement abounds on all these projects.
Non-native fish go through the dams on both the Klamath and Trinity all the time. Bass, sunfish, and catfish are caught by the monitoring programs every year. The reason non-native species haven’t become established is neither system is particularly suitable for them unlike the pikeminnow in the Eel.
Government employee, family or friend trying to cover their collective butts.
Ahhhh yes, more anti-government conspiracy theories. Guess what, you just proved their point that they made below.
One can only hope that the Trinity and Lewiston Dams would come down but sadly that will never happen in our lifetime.
Those that have signed this letter, which is just a very small fraction of those that want to see change in the way these restoration and management practices are done and in doing so maybe we can start to rebuild the our local fisheries.
Someone with nothing better to do needs to start keeping track of how incredibly much you contradict yourself and waste everyone’s time. Maybe another list for how often everything you say makes zero sense, and is pure unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Get yourself a fact checker.
Agree 100%. Spot on.
Trrp releases high winter flows. While it might be hard to fathom, flows closer to what these fish evolved with are a good thing. The trinity has been high in winter for millions of years before dams. High flows take away winter fishery below dams costing local guides and businesses money. They big mad. File complaint accusing trrp of putting profits over ecosystem restoration and enhancing the fishery. Can’t make this stuff up. lol.
Nailed it!
This group is a small number of anti-government conspiracy theorists. Its telling that they can only get a few disgraced fishing guides to sign on. None of the other 100+ guides on the Trinity want anything to do with these crazies. In fact, they originally submitted this complaint with additional guides names without their authorization and rightly got called out for it.
Got to love calling the government out for fraud while doing it yourself.
I am the Author of this Letter and It is not that no other guides would sign these were handpicked and didn’t have a conflict that would interfere. It also doesn’t count the Community members that can email their endorsement to the IG office handling the gathering of information. Everything that is in this letter is true and backed by facts from 3 different reviews done over the course of 23yrs. The HVT member that was fired is also a fact and he was fired because it alerted CDFW of the release of non-native fish into the river along with the hydraulic fluid spill.
As for the ONE person who through a fit he never requested to approve the letter and is the only one who had a problem. It is sad that this person has decided to put money over the fishery but what do you expect when one of his BIG clients and who refers business to him has a son the works for TRRP.
What it boils down to is this, I have put more factual documented information than was needed and only those worried about what the fallout is going to be are the ones yelling the most and trying to discredit.
So let me get this straight, you were only able to get five fishing guides out of the 100+ that fish the Trinity to sign on to your letter. That itself is an indictment to the supposed “support” you have. You do not speak for the fishing community or the public.
Hell if I didn’t know better I would think this is James Lee who is employed by TRRP/BOR. Who else is going to use the word fraud or did you forget that you accused me of defrauding all the other signers and claims I could of never wrote this letter and called whoever it was a HACK!!!
If your not James Lee then your clearly a buddy of this program and will do anything to save your bacon. Either way it doesn’t matter the truth is and will come out, FACT!!!
Well I see you brought up the guide who’s name you decided to put on your letter without his permission. How many others are there? That’s known as fraud when you claim someone signed your letter when they never did. And worse yet, that same guide posted a response on your little FB group, and you promptly deleted it. That’s known as covering up fraud. But you’re correct, “the truth is and will come out, FACT!!!”.
I am done dealing with this bullshit and all the false accusations being made against myself when I did nothing wrong!!!
I have not committed fraud of any kind but I do know that you and others are making statements against me that are libelous.
Well, in order to prove libel, you have to prove them wrong. So I ask you, the following two questions, please yes or no answers, no spin. 1) Did you put a guides name in your letter without his consent? Again, yes or no answer please. 2) Did that guide post on your FB group an explanation how he wanted no part of this letter and did not consent to his name being on it, and then you promptly deleted it from your FB group? Again yes or no answers. You see I already know the answers to those questions, so this will indicate a lot to me.
Well Rob and Chris laskodi, can I call you by your real names, we dont use aliases here as we have nothing to hide. I see you are both teaming up now, so welcome to the big show.
So here are the facts.
1) First and foremost, we did get permission from the guide to be part of the cause and who also wanted to back us 100%. I have proof in texts if you’d like to see it. Unfortunately something happened after that, who knows, or do we, hmmm bribes/blackmail/extortion. YUP!!!
2) Look who’s throwing the personal attacks and insults now, “disgraced guides” funny how the tables have turned, but you continue with the insults, it’s all good we are all used to it by you and your trrp crew. Sad part is these insults that you all continue to comment with are ones that none of you would ever say to us face to face
3) There are 100+ guides that guide the Trinity? Not true Chris, stop posting lies. You and your dad should know bring Trinity river experts there are only 100 permits that are given out each year on the T and some of those permits go to other “river businesses” outside of fishing guides. If I had to guess, I’d say 60 of those permits are guides that guide the trinity yearly/regularly, there are some that dont. Surprised you’s didnt fact check that first,
5) We do speak for the people of this county, the ones that are to afraid to speak up due to TRRPs behavior, we have plenty of individuals in Trinity County that are backing us 100% of the way, so guess we speak for the majority. We have 3 guides on the list that have fished and guided this river longer than Chris has been alive. Can get more if youd like. Lets talk about that “guide” shall we. He was a big name on the list and a local 30yr guide that unfortunately backed out cuz of you Rob. You decided to tell him you wont book him anymore or send clients his way cuz he’s fighting against trrp who your son works with. Guess you have to have the win, last laugh or have the “upperhand” somehow right? Definitely not the mature way to go about it, but thats on you. How about you try and beat us with facts and not by waving your money around and threatening guides by taking business away from them. I know what I’d say if that happened to me. Glad it’s never come to that.
6) Lets talk about LAW for a second shall we. Do you know what bribery/ blackmail/ extortion is? Threatening a guide by not booking with him anymore due to his beliefs or who they support is just that. Bribery in the US is typically prosecuted as a felony and is punishable by up to 4 years in jail or prison and a huge fine. Extortion/Blackmail can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. As a felony one could face up to 4yrs in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. So we can go there if you’d like. We can talk about how one of your own decided to try and sway this year’s election by using slander and defamation of character to one of the BOS and is the elected chair on the TMC who only wants what’s best for the river and the community. The same person who with the help of another tribe (not Yurok) voted down your WFV in 2023 but he was eventually forced to vote yes, unfortunately, and the county suffered financially for a .001% increase in fish size. Come 2024 with the help of others your 2024 WFV was voted down once again. Glad it didnt happen cuz the tribs were pumping and any more water going down would have made the river 100% unfishable for the second winter in a row. So do you really want to get into legal semantics now?
7) At this point both on social media and on here, the only issue you and your trrp crew have out of thes letter on us is that we had someone who was down for the cause, agrees to being part of the cause, who then was bribed by losing trips and income and he backed out. What we have seen time and time again is you will exploit one situation till there’s nothing left and make it into a huge deal just to make you all look good and discredit everything we’ve been doing. I know how the conversation went, you can believe what you want. We have it in texts.
Here’s what we see, TRC and TRWA are moving in a forward direction, we have a lot of people backing us and have a full head of steam. This scares all of you and I get it. This so-called restoration has gone on long enough with no outside checks and balances, only internally. After 23yrs worth of work and over 300 million spent on the Trinity theres nothing to show for it. We have seen a program that cant meet the requirements in 2000 ROD, and one of the most important key factors of the 2000 ROD is river temps and TRRP can’t even meet those requirements. TRRP refuses to work with the public or work with individuals who’ve been on the T for 30 40 50yrs who would be a great asset to work with due to their intimate knowledge of the Trinity River. But those folks want nothing to do with TRRP due to their antics and disrespect and the “We have no degrees” statements that have been made over the years repeatedly. What more is there to prove? I wanted at one point to work with you guys and MTGA, but that fell flat on its face several years back and no way to change that now. TRRP wants nothing to do with the public, public comments and concerns or the well-being of Trinity county.
Here’s what I find funny. Here we’ve got one of the biggest names in the Nor Cal guiding industry and that right there threatens you cuz of who he is and who he knows, “EVERYONE”. You cant have this person on our side, one that knows this river better than anyone we know, god forbid he fights against you, your son and trrp. Cant have that happen right. So what do you do? You go as low as someone could and threaten him by taking business away cuz of who he sides with. Pretty sad, definitely shows off ones character. You’d think if this letter was all a lie or something other than the truth, that you’d be fighting us on that. But you dont and cant, cuz its all true. Right now its all about us supposedly defrauding a guide and put his name on the letter without his consent. Would you like to see the texts.
One last word before I roll out, Chris. Just remember what our conversations were when you first started working with/for trrp. I’m guessing 10yrs or so ago, I could be wrong, don’t exploit it. Hopefully you can remember those conversations, what you told me you could/couldnt and would do. Mind you this was a few years ago, you may not remember but I do, like it was yesterday.
Okay folks, I’ve been busy and not paying attention. And I don’t have the time to give these the attention they need. But you all appear to be coming close if not going over to breaking the rules. If you know each other, talk to each other by email or by lawyer. But no more on this website.
Can you please post my public announcement that I did not approve this letter as it has my name on it and the letter on this site is misrepresenting me.
your email does not misrepresent you, fact!!
So what happen why is this still up when to stated in an email to day while I was at work that you were removing it if I didn’t respond by noon?
Mario Guel told you that if he said he didn’t then that should be enough for you. Then you proceeded to assume it to be fact without making any real effort and instead jumped on the band wagon.
Kym Kemp10:21 AM (11 hours ago)
to Mario, Taco, [email protected], Megan, Jerilyn
Mario, Thank you for bringing this to my attention. We’re removing your name.
Jerilyn, Mario sent me the emails between you two. We’re removing his name. Please confirm with every other signee that they are willingly on that letter by noon today or we will remove that letter. It is very serious to add someone’s signature to a letter. Not only was this displayed publicly but you also sent this to a state agency. You need to deal with letting them know.
Have you read who this letter was addressed to? It was not a STATE agency. In the emails provided to you did Mario Guel state that prior approval was requested before he signed on, NO!!
If you or anyone else even read this complaint and fact checked the documentation involved it would be hard to find my personal opinion anywhere. I wrote a factual complaint not a personal bashing.
Now it is time for you to follow through with your statement to me and I suggest you check your emails ASAP!!!!
Well out of respect for Kym, I’m not going to go tit-for-tat with your personal attacks, Brian. Imagine that, Mario just set the record straight also below. Funny, I don’t even know him!
This is the truth behind much of this. A small portion of the guides on the river are placing their personal profits ahead of science and restoration efforts. Higher water in the winter means less days to sell trips.
I’ve heard from at least one person on this signature list that their vision of “restoration” is simply increased hatchery production.
If the guide community actually cared about this river, you would see a grass roots effort to reduce the number of permits sold by BLM, and/or a reduction of allowable days to guide on the river (such as Thursday through Saturday only).
The numbers of guides on this river is shocking every day from November through February. They all tout that this “failing river” still gives up 6-10 fish a day on average. Should we do the math on the number of encounters this equates to?
The issues plaguing this river are multi-faceted and everyone is going to have to give a little.
If people did more research you will find a money based motivator of personal greed behind this campaign of misinformation.
Agree 100%. Nailed it!
Hello,
I’d like it publicly known that I did not read or approve my name to be on the letter sent out in regard to the Trinity River Coalition and their opinion about the TRRP. I am taking no sides in this and in an internal email, I expressed that I was interested in learning more and that my stance is always for what is best for the Yurok and Hoopa and the fish in the river.
If anyone has any questions or comments about my character based off of comments in a post online or anything else, you can call me to schedule a face to face conversation at 408-838-6047.
Sincerely,
Mario Guel
Kym Kemp You need to take this post down like you said you were going to do in your shared email with Mario Guel and that I couldn’t respond to because I was at work. In your to me that also included Mario you asked if I had his permission and immediately he sent you an email stating “I told you I didn’t that should be good enough” and added communications that misrepresented the timeline of facts. It only took you 25mins and without even talking to me you made assumptions and demands telling me to confirm all signers by noon or you will be taking it down. You haven’t taken it down yet but you did one better and left it up striking the text and making a statement that you know longer had confidence that the alleged signers actually did so. Your effectively helped torpedo the importance of this for everyone that was involved and discrediting my name and character without the facts. I’m sure your familiar with the term “IMPLIED CONSENT” and the meaning of “SUBJECTIVE” also. When contact information was given and without stipulating only after approval then consent was implied. In the case of Mario he made statements that were subjective but never said he wanted to approve it first but rather “feel free to add me to the list” if it wasn’t against TRRP along with “anything to help the tribes and river” with his contact information included.
I really wish you would of just removed Mario Guel’s name and then spoke to me before publicly stating I may not have had consent of alleged signers and striking out the entire letter. Consent was implied when those that responded had included contact information as was requested if they were in support and wanted to be included but at no time did anyone stated only after approval.
Now I would like it if you did what you said and what I had requested of you back on April 24, 2024 and remove/delete this letter from this website. Your lack of fact checking and making of false statements has caused enough damage against my person and of those that did sign.
Thank you and I expect this to be deleted by noon on April 29, 2024 and I will not be submitting anything further to this local news provider in the future.
You have had ample opportunity to respond to accusations that you put Mario’s name on there without his permission. You have not reached back in the several days since I made the decision that the most straightforward way for readers of this site was not to take down the post and leave people wondering what happened but to strike it out, and explain the predicament you put us in.
To be clear, a strike through is a common way to delete something an online news site no longer has confidence in. It is done that way so it does not disappear the content and essentially ghost readers that something has been taken down. This provides clarity and honesty to those reading this. If you would like to provide evidence that Mario’s two emails he provided showing that he did not give consent is incorrect, please reach out to me via email.
Thank you for being clear and transparent Kym. And the guide I was referring to in my OP was not Mario, so there is at least one other individual that is alleged to sign the original letter who did not.
Just to be clear here, I received a text message from the guide (not Mario) I referenced above on Thursday, April 18 at 6:57 PM. This is a direct quote from the message, no creative cut and paste or spin. “They used my name on something that I did not say they could”. “They did this without my consent”.
Just to be clear here, I’ve received texts message from the same dated three months ago stating they wanted to be a part of this and an even gave an explanation of why. They didn’t have a problem until it was publicly known of his involvement and the backlash that came from it.
Now how about judging the merits of the letter instead of trying to draw attention away from, in the hopes that people will forget about it.
It seems like the author of the letter reached out to people asking if they would sign a letter that he proposed to write. But they were never shown the letter and never specifically approved it.
The author instead claims “implied consent” from those who replied and provided contact info. And because they never said “pending approval” he thinks he had clearance to sign their names to a letter they never saw.
Not surprisingly, when the poorly written, overly long, tendentious letter appeared some “signers” quickly disassociated themselves from it.
Moral of the story: If you want people to sign onto a letter, send them the actual letter and ask them to state that they agree to be a signer.
Not that it matters, but I’d say that you have deftly handled this difficult situation, that you have been unfortunately faced with, in an extraordinarily diplomatic and appropriate way.
Well played.
For those of you that claim I didn’t have anyone’s consent I am waiting for one other to confirm and have provided proof from the rest.
Kym Kemp proof is sitting in your mail box. Please correct as quickly as you decided I didn’t have consent from all, thank you.