Comments by OwenDell
Page 1 of 2 | Next
1 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on August 11 at 7:36 p.m.
Good coverage, but rarely is it mentioned that the chaparral and related ecosystems are fire-dependent. Fire cleanses, renews, cycles biomass, triggers seed germination, and in the long run is absolutely necessary for the health of the system. These fires are just part of the natural world doing its thing. A fire is no more a tragedy than rain, drought, wind, or any other natural event. Wildfires only become problematic when they threaten manmade structures and communities. It always pains me to see the natural world left out of the discussion. Might we at least acknowledge that we are not the only species on the planet?
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 18 at 12:13 a.m.
Let me put things in some perspective. The Botanic Garden is a publicly chartered non-profit institution. It is the right and obligation of the public to question the actions of those who run the Garden and to speak up when wrongdoing or mismanagement are either known or suspected. It is the obligation of Garden management to make public certain information as a matter of routine, something they are not doing at the present time in certain cases.
Many people who deeply love the Garden are very concerned about what is happening there, and are working hard to correct what we believe are serious deficiencies.
It is easy to hurl accusations from behind the anonymity of a user name. It is easy to jump to conclusions based on little or no real research or information. It is easy to let one's feelings take control when what is needed is rational inquiry.
I urge everyone who is interested in this matter to investigate for themselves what is going on. Don't believe me. Don't believe the others who feel the way I do. And don't believe the Botanic Garden management. Do your own homework. Think for yourselves. It is my belief that if you do so, you will be just as alarmed as many of us are.
It is your choice whether to truly look into this situation. I believe that time will prove that many if not all of the concerns I have expressed are legitimate. My goal, which is shared by many, many others, is to put our beloved Garden back on its proper footing, with the kind of excellent leadership it deserves.
I am open to any rational arguments from any side, provided they are backed by facts and not out of control emotion or insidious propaganda. I realize this is a very complex situation, and I understand that it's hard for the public to get a handle on what is really happening. I invite everyone who is passionate about the Garden to bring their best efforts to protecting it. Don't let anyone fool you. That is what this controversy is about.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 17 at 2:59 p.m.
As I understand it, the Charity Navigator rating is under suspicion, as are their financial reports. Don't be naive about the propaganda that is being dished out by Garden management. You are putting your faith in the wrong information. I should say, disinformation. Time will prove this to be so.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 15 at 6:54 p.m.
Dear Earthling,
Your facts, assuming they are true, do not refute my facts, which have been checked with Garden insiders. Why don't you check them too, after you check your spelling?
Owen
2 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on June 13 at 9:22 a.m.
Word has it that a grass roots group is forming to take action. Interested members of the public may get involved by emailing the striking volunteers at ss1411@cox.net or carolellen@msn.com. Thanks for your support.
Owen
Posted on April 24 at 12:23 p.m.
Recycled rubber mulch is NOT environmentally friendly. It leaches toxic heavy metals into the soil. Use recycled organic mulch from MarBorg or the County of Santa Barbara, or some other type of plant-based mulch.
Owen Dell
landscape architect
On Pet Poisons
Posted on February 12 at 5:40 a.m.
I invite the people of Santa Barbara to imagine what our town will look like when all the independent retailers of books and other goods have been driven out of business by our addiction to chain stores and to the internet. Who will occupy the storefronts? Where will we go for the quirky charm and unique merchandise that only independent merchants can offer? The term "Gucci Ghost Town" comes to mind.
It is we ourselves (and perhaps greedy landlords to some extent) who are to blame for the ongoing demise of independent businesses. Every time you shop at a chain store or at a corporate site on line, you speed a change in the structure of society and of our community. Our unhealthy ardor for having lots of cheap stuff has trumped our love for a healthy community, and our blindness to the consequences of our actions prevents us from perceiving, much less correcting, our behavior. We are in the grip of something that we cannot fully appreciate and seem to have little or no desire to do anything about. Already the stores are emptying out, and it is not at all far-fetched to imagine a State Street bereft of everything but the most vulgar of national retailers within just a couple of years.
Let us all consider returning, at least in part, to a time when we supported local businesses. The alternative is very nearly Orwellian in its promise of a community served only by large and indifferent corporate merchants. We have the power to choose a future we want. It is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that the well-being of the community lies.
Posted on February 8 at 1:40 p.m.
Gordo, you confuse taste and purity. As I understand it, our water, although it does taste pretty skunky, is quite healthful and safe. (If you doubt this, instead of the unscientific supposition you engage in, try looking at the water report that's available from your local water purveyor.) As for the taste, there are very effective carbon filters readily available for under $40 to make our water entirely pleasing to drink.
None of that has anything to do with the bottled water issue, nor does the quality of local water in any way justify hauling water from one place to another at a very high environmental price.
This is one of those situations where claims of "greenness" need to be looked at with a skeptical eye. I invite the promoter of this product to answer some of the remarks made in these comments.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 8 at 6:38 a.m.
I'd much rather give some money directly to rainforest protection, let Brazilians keep their water in Brazil where it belongs, drink local water, and save the environmental cost of shipping water. Studies have shown that bottled water costs 1,000 to 10,000 times more than local tap water. Therefore, we should all have plenty of disposable income simply by swearing off bottled water. Some of that income can go to supporting environmental protection, and some of it can stay in our pockets. Let our eager eco-entrepreneurs work on local issues rather than continuing the folly of shipping something as universal as water from one place to another in troublesome plastic containers.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on August 12 at 4:44 p.m.
Dr. Muller states in the Indy article referenced that, "...fire in chaparral is not a regular occurrence with a set periodicity." That is not the same as saying that fire does not play an important role in chaparral ecosystems but merely clarifies that the idea of a recurring 25-year or any other cycle is a myth. It may be that chaparral vegetation does not senesce at the rate we once thought it did, but that still doesn't make the role of fire a negative or unnecessary one. This is a very complex subject that is certainly open to new information based on good science. It is of course also the case that well-informed professionals often disagree (vehemently at times) about even the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Still, I don't think you will find a single well-informed botanist or ecologist, including Dr. Muller, who would say that fire is not a key element in the system.
But that's not what my comment was really driving at. The main point I wanted to make was that the original article is entirely anthropocentric and makes not one nod to wildness. It as if the only information that matters is how the "battle" is going and how many manmade things are at risk. I appreciate Ray Ford's coverage, but I would like to see him include the kind of ecological breadth that these very interesting comments have given it. Perhaps others will comment on that aspect of the discussion.
On La Brea Fire Tops 20,000 acres, Jumps Sierra Madre Ridge