Page 2 of 3
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?
Posted on January 25 at 7:39 a.m.
Steelhead are not salmon, they are the ocean going form of rainbow trout. They are in the Salmonid family along with salmon, but of their own distinct species. Genetics is a complex and interesting science. But all these "tails of glory" (oops no pun intended!) about the good 'ol days of catching thousands of steelhead in local rivers like the Santa Ynez, lead me to believe that like it or not... us people are always enhancing things to our benefit. So the real question remains— taking the artificial enhancement of a population out of the equation, i.e. stocking— what are the best estimates of what true wild populations were here locally before we messed with them all?
On Ghost Salmon
Posted on December 19 at 10:27 a.m.
Hey maybeso is not Ken!So if the zoning is AG 360, will they try to change it?
On Cojo-Jalama Ranch's Canadian Connection
Posted on December 18 at 5:36 p.m.
Well, the Bixbys had to sell because too many heirs lost their connection to the land and money talks. I confess I fantasized about buying the land if I had won the lottery and what I would do with it all... create a low key but high end dude ranch with small rustic cabins scattered about that folks could ride out to and spend a few nights playing cowboy/cowgirl, have a central ranch house for base operations, raise quality organic beef, charge an arm and leg to guests for the right to walk out of your rustic beach cabin and surf, try some dry farming, use wind and solar energy, and lobby the government to give me a break for keeping it pretty much "undeveloped" and a working/profitable ranch. Yeah, call me a dreamer.
Posted on December 7 at 5 p.m.
Great- all the out-of-state and out-of-country students will probably snap it up first. So much for a california public institution supported by california taxpayers.
On Attention Engineering Undergraduates!
Posted on December 4 at 4:43 p.m.
"Tis the season to be holly, oops I mean jolly!
On Holidays at the Ah-wine-ee
Posted on November 21 at 3:55 p.m.
disgusting parasitic attorneys- down with them!
On Clark Estate Art Museum in Question
Posted on November 18 at 5:58 p.m.
Don't you mean the so-called endangered Southern California Steelhead? Are all scientists in agreement that the genetic studies really confirm there is a difference? Why not start with seasonal limitations like rivers to the north of us have? If steelhead actually come up a river from the sea, it is usually during higher water flows which typically occur between Dec. and March to spawn. It's not like many people can even get back to the remote Sisquoc or Sespe just to fish during those winter months, it's practically impossible so there is no "fishing pressure". And how do you know it wouldn't be fish from the north that came up our rivers? Also, many other rivers just around the bend allow catch and release during the off seasons between April and November, hence it protects the spawners during the winter.But to begin with, I hope the genetic studies are solid. A wise old F & Game biologist once told me that these fish know no boundaries, that they call them "Fish of a 1000 miles" for a good reason. Also "ghost fish", here today, gone tomorrow.I hear folks did some genetic studies, but were they detailed enough with large sample sizes from both northern and southern rivers? In addition it is now common knowledge that our rivers like the Santa Maria (which the Sisquoc feeds into) and the Santa Ynez—even the Ventura River—were widely planted with hatchery raised steelhead and trout from Washington state hatcheries back during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, to enhance the local fisheries for sport fishing. So the question must be asked: what really was the historical population of these rivers and was it artificially enhanced? For those genetic studies were hatchery raised stock from Washington also included? Doesn't it seem kinda odd to think that there is a magic line drawn across the state and that fish from north of Pt. Arguello don't mix with fish from the south or come up our rivers? Genetics is complicated no doubt. There are so many other pressing issues these days, I can't see my tax dollars supporting this. And for the record, I know where there are some fat fat resident rainbows that are in the 18" + range way behind natural migration barriers (so obviously planted) and I plan to catch and release them no matter what.
On Bye-Bye to Backcountry Fishing?