Polar
Bears
Good thing we don’t have polar bears in the valley, but
there are some in the United States, in Alaska. I read this morning in the
California Cattleman’s Association bulletin that “The legal action sought by the
Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
Greenpeace would require the federal government to list the polar bear as
threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act and develop a recovery plan
to protect polar bear habitat. The environmental groups claim the polar bear
habitat is melting due to human induced global warming.” In actual fact, the
current population is estimated at 22,000 to 25,000, which is double what it
was in the 1960’s. This is due to bans and restrictions on hunting. Therefore
we have a prediction based on another prediction, namely, the feeling by United
States Geological Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that
the bears will be extinct by 2050 because global warming will destroy the
arctic ice. And where would the science be?
So what does this have to do with you and me? The short
answer is that this effort, if successful, sets a very dangerous precedent in
that it would be the first time that loss or change in habitat is due to
climate change. This is huge, which I am sure has not escaped the attention of
the aforementioned groups and others who have, in recent years, lost
considerable financial support from the public because they have been exposed
as fear-mongers whose claims often are based on false or misleading
information. The theoretical fact that mankind causes global warming is not
universally accepted by the scientific community, and
that information is something only recently being revealed. There is
considerable evidence to show that, prior to the existence of anything that
would cause such an impact, these periodic fluctuations of temperatures
occurred with even more extremes than today.
The longer answer to this question will require
considerably more scientific exploration and more attention to fact. It is
clear that ad campaigns about the fuzzy, lovable-looking polar bears that
actually are neither fuzzy nor lovable in the friendly sense are more appealing
for gathering funds than spiders or cave bugs. So it behooves us to consider
carefully whether we want to support with our tax dollars these sorts of
questionable efforts. It is, after all, the litigations brought by these types
of organizations all over the country against our public agencies that spends
the lion’s share of their tax-derived budget, rendering them unable to perform
the functions they are mandated to perform. Think about it.
Wrong
Recommendations
Doesn’t anybody in charge or writing legislation know
anything about rural America? It appears that they don’t from my further
reading of the latest issue of the California Cattleman’s Bulletin. An item
reports on efforts of officials and ranchers in a Northern California county
trying to formulate ways to help the ranchers live and work with new water quality
regulations. Once again, it appears that the burden for keeping wildlife and
water safe has been put on the backs of ranchers and farmers, with nothing but
some of their own tax dollars being offered as compensation.
Why does urban America think this is fair? Has no one ever
considered that the reason that most wildlife lives alongside ranchers and
farmers is because those are the only places left to them? Does it occur to you
that these are the people who have been providing food, shelter and water to
these creatures for generations, all without help from legislators or urban
America, not asking for any help?
One of the common recommendations to keep water clean is
to fence it off from livestock. Wrong! Where exactly do you think the wildlife
gets its water? Gee, could it be those streams and creeks that now will be
inaccessible to them too when fenced? Not everyone places water troughs around
for the wildlife, as San Lucas Ranch does, and keeps them full of water
year-round, even when cattle are not present, precisely because the creeks
almost always go dry sometime during the year. In dry spells, those creeks may
not run for more than a year, and that would either kill wildlife or cause them
to move elsewhere until water supplies improved. Our method keeps them there
always, or at least until something else causes them to move, such as hunting,
which we have never allowed since 1926.
Santa Barbara County also has been persuaded by the more
radical element to include recommendations in planning documents requiring huge
setbacks from creeks and rivers and fencing for riparian areas. This is an
incredibly stupid policy, as the reason for it is
totally unsubstantiated, namely water quality. Where is the data to support a
policy like this and has anyone considered the implications? The data I have
seen does not support such draconian policies, and I suspect this has more to
do with land control by the professional environmental community than water
quality. In fact, these are the same people who are trying to create a
“wildlife corridor” from Canada to Mexico going right through our valley.
Please reference the “Wildlands Project” at
www.conceptioncoast.org if you think I’m making this up. The development of a
wildlife corridor is based on the elimination of any human activity within that
corridor so the animals may move about freely without any interaction with
people. These people would also like to introduce large carnivores (eat meat,
like you) into this corridor: never mind that currently you may live there. You
need to familiarize yourself with some of the more radical concepts floating
around that are creeping toward policy without the public’s input or even
awareness.
SB
18
I have mentioned this piece of legislation before but I
thought you might be interested in further information, as I believe it is
important for you to know that a “foreign” government is demanding to be
allowed to make conditions and deny projects in Santa Barbara County, right
here in the valley, which are potentially threatening your private property
rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the United States.
I am curious as to how the $986,500 in donations from
tribal interests since 2000 to then Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton,
sponsor of SB 18, impacted his decisions. This is of particular interest
because there was really no regulation on this sort of influence until 2006,
when the California Supreme Court decides that tribal contributions must be
reported like any other contributions. It is not clear whether there also are
adequate provisions for verification of these contributions.
The person who drafted this legislation for Burton was his
aide, Alison Harvey, who is now employed as Executive Director of the
California Tribal Business Alliance. Is this a conflict of interest? How did
the switch from being paid taxpayer funds to represent the public to
representing a clearly special interest group happen?
On our local front, in a letter dated February 20, 2008
from Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta to Mrs. Dianne
Black, County of Santa Barbara, Planning and Development, there is a “demand”
for SB 18 government-to-government consultations on a Los Olivos
project called the Stage Stop Plaza. This demand is based on the potential of
artifacts, which two different archeological surveys on different parts of the
property did not reveal. One of the reasons for granting this “consultation” is
because the surveys are ten years old, as if, suddenly in the intervening
years, artifacts would magically appear. Another reason cited was the presence
of the stagecoach route that theoretically followed traditional Chumash trails.
Those would cover a good deal of the valley, as there have been many routes
through the valley over the years.
This is not the first time that demands have been made of
the County regarding projects in the valley, including a lot line adjustment
that the Planning Commission termed harassment of the applicant. It has been
announced on a talk show that new sites for artifacts are determined to exist
every single day by this same individual who would have the final say on any
project you might have.
In actual fact, SB 18 mandates that local governments must
notify and request (not demand) consultation with local tribes ONLY when
projects require general plan amendments, not every little project. Seems like our county government has forgotten who they are
supposed to represent and has allowed this to be handled in a totally backwards
fashion. In my opinion, they do not have the right to hand over my
private property rights, or yours, to someone else, no matter who they are.
I personally know of many property owners who are aware of
artifacts on their properties who take great pride in making sure that those
sites are undisturbed by anyone, including supposed descendants.
It seems to me that this legislation, while hopefully put
together with honorable intentions, is too vague in direction to be useful and
is very susceptible to abuse, which we are beginning to see in our own
backyards. I sincerely hope that we all become aware of this effort to usurp
our constitutionally guaranteed private property rights.
Our homes, farms and ranches are the bedrock of our
society, the source of our values, and part of our identities. Let us be
vigilant in the face of those who would take that away from all of us.