The panel has done planning and advised state agencies on several ocean-related issues since it began in 1991.  It's made up of 15 people from a wide range of backgrounds appointed by the governor and eight natural resource agency directors.

Two years ago, the governor asked the council to give him a recommendation  on establishing marine reserves in the three-mile offshore area administered by the state.  The reserves would be protected form fishing and other activities that might harm natural resources.

In the same May e-mail ot Bailey, Griffith said:  "Nothing has to be done before Kitzhaber jams it up our (expletive deleted) with an executive order."

In a June 13 letter to Griffith, Kitzhaber made specific reference ot that statement, and noted that he's always been willing to appoint people to boards and commissions who bring a policy perspective different from his.  "However, your statement in the e-mail goes well beyond any policy disagreement and is not something I will tolerate from individuals I have appointed." Kitzhaber said.

Griffith said Friday the dismissal doesn't distress him because he had planned to quit the council anyway.  He said it's obvious that the group plans to make a final recommendation in favor of the reserves over the widespread objections of "true stakeholders" in the issue - fishermen and members of coastal communities.  There's no direct evidence that marine reserves off Oregon would do any good, he said.

Some scientists and environmental groups have touted the reserves as a way to help in the recovery of fisheries resources and provide baseline data for marine researchers.

Last month, the council produced a draft recommendation favoring the creation of a limited number of reserves in Oregon waters to test their effectiveness.  The panel recommended no specific sites.  Meetings held up and down the coast gathered public reaction, and the council is expected to make a final recommendation to the governor in August.

Griffith currently is the target of a recall campaign in Coos County, largely because of his leadership in bringing about a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.  The lawsuit faults the federal agency for doing an inadequate job of assessing the effect of critical habitat designation for the snowy plover, which is listed as a threatened shorebird.  The suit could lead to a court decision overturning the designation of the critical habitat along the entire West Coast. Source: 6/22/02 - The Register-Guard, By Larry Bacon.
Also See:  Coos County Lawsuit re: Snowy Plover

Officers of the Coos County Citizens for Representative Government filed the recall petition in the county clerk's office Tuesday. County Clerk Terri Turi expects to give written approval soon for the circulation of the petition, elections representative Dede Murphy, said Wednesday.

The petitions will need the signatures of 3,583 registered voters to put the recall measure on the ballot, probably in October. "I'm confident we can get the signatures," said Robert Renner of Charleston, the chief petitioner. Renner said the issue that most persuaded the group to seek to remove Griffith, a Republican, was the fact that he was the driving force in persuading the board of commissioners to file suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeking to have 210 miles of West Coast critical habitat for the federally listed snowy plover set aside because the agency failed to do an adequate assessment of the economic impact of the habitat designation.

The group isn't just made up of members of the environmental community, Renner said, but also includes a broad base of people who believe the lawsuit gives the county an "extremist"  image that could hurt the local economy by discouraging ecotourism and persuading people such as bird watchers to stay away. He said the group also will campaign against the other two commissioners, Nikki Whitty and Pete DeMain, in November. Witty and DeMain, both Democrats, face Republican opponents in the general election.

The citizen group has accused all three commissioners of making decisions that advance narrow special interests over those of the entire citizenry, and of repeatedly making decisions without sufficient public notice and with inadequate public input. Renner said the decision to initiate the recall against Griffith rather than wait until he's up for re-election was made because the issues are so important that something needs to be done now.

Griffith noted that the only reason listed on the recall petition is that he fails to represent the voters of the county. "But the majority of the voters put me in office," he said, "and I'm not doing anything I didn't campaign to do." He said if the group collects enough signatures to put his recall on the ballot it will cost the county $35,000 to $40,000 to hold the single-issue election.

He said he will fight the recall but wouldn't predict his chances of winning if the measure makes it to the ballot. "I never guess elections or jury outcomes," he said. Recall proponents will hold a public rally June 18 at 7 p.m. at The Barn in the Bandon city park to kick off circulation of the petitions.  Source:  June 13, 2002, The Register-Guard, by Larry Bacon.
Also See:  Coos County Lawsuit re: Snowy Plover

Organizers of the demonstrations oppose federally mandated fees required for parking at sites such as trail heads and beach access areas. The collections began after Congress passed a "demonstration fee" program in 1996. The fee was originally scheduled to last three years, but it remains in place.  People behind Saturday's events said they hope to get the message to Congress that federal land managers need adequate money to protect the land and meet the needs of recreational users without levying fees.

Robert Maris of Eugene, who helped organize the Florence protest, said it will be a peaceful event at which protesters will hand out literature and urge citizens to contact their congressional representatives about eliminating the fees. "We don't see any need for a fee system," Maris said. Organizers said the Eugene demonstration is expected to feature waving banners, music and an opportunity for people to write messages about the fee program on a giant card that will be delivered to federal authorities.

Protesters are especially concerned that President Bush has asked Congress to give federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, authority to permanently impose recreation fees.  Scott Silver, who heads up a Bend group called Wild Wilderness  and has helped organize Saturday's protest, said the fee program is fundamentally flawed. He argued that no amount of fine-tuning can make it acceptable to the American public. "People have a right to walk on public lands," he said.

Proponents of the fee system contend the fees help pay for needed development work at the most heavily used sites, and that public feedback indicates people are willing to pay the fees if the money is used to upgrade such sites. Some 80 percent of the money from user fees have benefitted the sites near where the fees were collected, officials said. "Where you pay is where the money goes," said Kimberley Bowen, the Forest Service's director of recreation for the Pacific Northwest Region. Northwest Forest Passes required for fee sites cost $5 per day or $30 per year. Bowen said this summer the pass will be required at fewer trailheads. Many of the less-developed and less-visited sites will require no fees, she said.  Source:  June 13, 2002, The Register-Guard, by Larry Bacon.