Comments by maybeso

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on November 21 at 8:02 a.m.

We have to waste 10 acre feet a day on fish? How do they know these are the special Southern California variety, did they ask them for their ID or do expensive genetic testing? Steelhead are fish of a 1000 miles, isn't it possible they could be from NCal? It's a drought, and it could be a 10 year drought as I've heard the State say. Backcountry creeks (yes- the ones above dams) are drying up, that is part of nature. Historically, long stretches of the Santa Ynez River go dry. And so we are creating habitat that would not normally exist for fish which we don't really know if they are of the endangered type. Crazy! Here's a better idea, one that actually increases the population of steelhead and saves water: capture the remaining fish and breed the SCal variety in the Fillmore fish hatchery (alongside the SClara River). If they are so endangered, really help them out.

On Cost Creep Lurks Over Desal Plant

Posted on November 20 at 4:38 p.m.

The Forest has many user groups, and trails are not just for hikers or horses. Dr. Dan you need to look at a map and look at all the trails currently in the wilderness (100s!), which mtn. bikers can not ride on- and no one is suggesting they be allowed to ride on any trails in the wilderness. But ever heard of sharing? Obviously they can ride down the Scruz trail and even into Scruz and along some old old unmaintained fire roads because that is not wilderness. And guess who the biggest volunteers are when it comes to trail maintenance on the face of Little Pine (which has always needed major maintenance no matter who uses it)? The mtn. bikers by far. The Forest has to serve all user groups, so quite being so selfish. We don't need any more wilderness here in the LP, the current status quo is a finely tuned balance evolved over many many years. We all need to share and have fun recreating and not put up with lobbyists trying to micromanage public land.

On No Extra Wilderness for Los Padres

Posted on November 20 at 10:08 a.m.

Forest Watch needs to give it up! I am tired of litigious lobbyists constantly trying to bully their way into managing our forests and pushing their narrow-minded agenda on everyone else. Go pick up some micro-trash and have another art show.

On No Extra Wilderness for Los Padres

Posted on August 24 at 12:17 p.m.

Has anyone checked their most recent property tax bill if they live in SB County? Mine says I already spend about $65 twice a year for 9621 SBCC Bond 2008, so ~$130/year. SBCC needs to hit up the State… not us locals. I am not voting for this at all and while I love SBCC, it's time for them to come back down to earth and scale-back their ego.

On City College Needs Measure S

Posted on October 11 at 9:29 p.m.

Looks like Forest Watch is on the hunt again and sending out the press releases, check the story in the Ventura County Star at

The comments are good too. Come to think of it, doesn't comment #2 here sound just like Mr. Jeff K ?

On Fracking Near the Forest

Posted on March 30 at 10:34 a.m.

It had appeared that ForestWatch had filed for several extensions over the last year so now maybe they could re-define the word timely. Questions to seek information are not accusations and many would like the info and answers to the other questions.

On Fuel Break Squabble

Posted on March 29 at 6:45 p.m.

Cute if only their owners would be more dialed in with picking up their dog's waste!

On The Dogs of Rincon

Posted on March 29 at 6:22 p.m.

Oh Forest Watch, someone needs to start watching you. How many notice of intents to sue have you served the Forest Service since your existence? How many lawsuits have you filed against them? How many FOIA's (freedom of information act) requests have you sent them? How many emails and daily phone calls have you plagued them with? How much money have you made off them with legal fee reimbursement? It seems like you are in the business of harassment and eco litigation and if you're always running around like chicken little crying the sky is falling the sky is falling, hyping these big "threats" all the time, guess you wouldn't have anything to protect or sue, would you? You demand transparency, yet you yourself fail: where is your latest financial report? it appears you are 3 years overdue. Where is your non-profit status 501c tax return— aren't you a little late for 2010? Can you provide us taxpaying citizens this information or are you just going to use our money to keep suing? With all the chaparral we have around here, causing the loss of some bird life along Camino Cielo once in awhile is not going to cause the sky to fall. Maybe that law and it's ridiculous time constraint is what needs a reality check. Get a life...

On Fuel Break Squabble

Posted on March 25 at 5:18 p.m.

“One thing we are noticing is that as UCSB builds more housing … it allows more City College students to move to I.V.,” he said.

Maybe UCSB shouldn't be building so much housing?
And like other UCs, they should initiate the no cars on campus program for their freshmen class. UCSB and SBCC are major developers in our community, and at what point do they reach their limits for growth? Everything has a limit.

On Bigger Is Sometimes Better

Posted on February 29 at 9:28 p.m.

This bill is a sorry attempt to appease too many user groups, which is just not possible. I personally don't care that United H20 gets their land swap down in Ventura County, it makes sense. More wilderness? hmmm... why bother? our LP Forest is already half wilderness designation as it is and what remains is so over-protected and so over-regulated due to endangered species habitat that any remaining threats are virtually nil, nothing, nada. BUT— what doesn't make sense AT ALL is what pertains here in our own SB Backcountry... in particular the opening up to orv users the long-time favorite of multiple generations of boy and girl scout troops, horsepackers, Sierra clubbers and backpackers from all over ... the famous gate-way trail to the wilderness right in our own neck of the woods, the beloved camping destination of the popular Santa Cruz Trail that starts out of Upper Oso. This intensely valued hiking trail and destination is highly revered by these user-groups from all over California and the world and now it is threatened with nearby orv use. Hell, they would even share the same backcountry campground destinations, is that a pleasant wilderness experience? So possibly now— due to a misdirected congressman looking to leave some type of legacy before retirement—and at the stroke of a stupid pen, our only wilderness trails and valued wilderness camping destinations behind Little Pine Mountain would be destroyed forever with the associated noise and abuse of orv users from all over who knows where, right in our own Los Padres Santa Barbara Ranger District. This does not make sense at all! One does not destroy wilderness recreation of many user groups for one constantly abusive motorized group. Facts are facts and as history over time has shown, the orv user group has already repeatably abused the nearby fire breaks that are proposed to be re-opened (see page 21, item # 1 on the proposal and any others in SB) and have illegally gone off into the wild blue yonder. That is why the Forest Service had to close those routes many years ago in the first place!!!! Not only are there threatened and endangered species in these areas, true wilderness is right along side these steep and dangerous fire breaks with no available patrol, rescue or enforcement from the Forest Service (think remoteness next to pure wilderness with lack of funds and maintenance). Not a good mix with such a proven track record of abuse by this group. So if these particular items dealing with expanded orv use in our Santa Barbara areas are not removed from this bill, none of us that care about wilderness should support this bill. Take our SB wilderness destinations out of this bill, or fail it all.

On Protecting Los Padres Wilderness — and Dirt Bikes?

Page 1 of 2 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: