Treehuggers International » Action

Blaming Wildfires On Environmentalists

tommy — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:41:35 +0000

Aggravated by drought, the legacy of timber-driven forest policies continues to affect the west.

A special guest column from Treehuggers International friend and fellow conservation colleague Rick Halsey, the director of the California Chaparral Institute and a member of the San Diego Regional Fire Safety Forum.

Rick is currently putting together a talk for the International Mediterranean Ecosystems (MEDECOS) conference in Los Angeles in September, and shares a response he wrote to Mike Rogers, a retired Forest Service supervisor, in response to an e-mail Mr. Rogers sent to Jack Cohen, at the Fire Sciences Laboratory in the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Rick was last on Treehuggers International during the midst of the Station Fire on September 27, 2009. An archived edition of this show is available above. Click HERE to see the page for this show.

Angry Man Blames Environmentalists for Wildfires (again)

By Rick Halsey

Another chapter in the endless parade of fire propaganda. In relation to the common extremist rant blaming wildfires on those who care about the environment, below is a note I wrote in response to a former Cleveland and Angeles National Forest Supervisor’s rage against environmentalists (along with immigrants, drug runners, and President Obama). In the past, Mike Rogers has also included what he considers to be liberal judges, the “Greenies,” and the so-called “Berkeley crowd” in his sights.

From: Mike Rogers
Sent: Sun, July 17, 2011 12:34:28 AM

Dear Jack,

I am absolutely disheartened when I see articles put out by Audubon quoting you and Jerry Williams, both of you whom I have the up most respect for writing about the Mega Fires like the recent Wallow Fire, that never acknowledge that we have had management of our national resources severely constrained by so called “environmentalists” over the last 40 years. This is never mentioned. There is a very distinct reason that these wildfires are now unmanageable and unconquerable and it is not all about climate change or fire suppression policies of the last 100 years. We are reaping the tragic results of 40 years of extreme bankrupt environmental policies that restrict management of any kind in favor of letting mother nature manage our National Forest resources. I have been monitoring the environmental rhetoric following on the heels of many well written and referenced articles that have come out after the Arizona and New Mexico wildfires that point to the increasing stand densities and fuel build ups due to the lack of any management and the total insanity of the current situation on the National Forests in the west. They, the environmentalists, continue to blast management of any kind and defend their “Hands Off Policies”, even though the the endangered species and their habitats they were adamant about saving have been completely destroyed by these recent stand replacement wildfires. The restrictions on Forest Management are bad enough, but what galls me even more is the FACT that many of these wildfires were started by illegal immigrants and drug runners diverting Federal Authorities by starting fires in one location so they could cross in another. This issue has been totally suppressed by the current Obama administration that is bent on pushing through an amnesty bill and does not want any bad publicity getting out to the nations voters. This is indeed a very sad state of affairs.

Unfortunately the mention of your and Jerry Williams names give these articles credibility that is totally misplaced.

Mike Rogers
Wildfire Protection Planner

- – - – - – - – - – - -

Mike,

I am not sure why you have descended into hyperbole and divisive rhetoric. Creating straw dogs to promote your view of the world and impugning the reputation of outstanding fire scientists like Jack Cohen are not rational choices.

As so many of us have pointed out to you before, there is no scientific evidence to support your claim that “environmentalists” are responsible for what you call “unmanageable and unconquerable” wildfires. Nor is there any scientific evidence to support your claim that endangered species have been “completely destroyed” by stand replacement fires.

The politics of hate and fear of the type you are unfortunately exhibiting in your e-mail only lead to divisiveness and alienation, not solutions. Please reconsider your approach.

Rick Halsey
Director
California Chaparral Institute
www.californiachaparral.org

- – - – - – - – - – - -

From: Mike Rogers
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:49 PM

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your response. However, you have totally misunderstood my e-mail message to Jack Cohen and Jerry Williams. I wanted them to know how their excellent work is being mis used to expresses a view that neither one of them agrees with or supports. I did not know if they had seen it. I too have been misquoted or have had statements used that were and are totally taken out of context and have appreciated others that have seen this and have taken the time to give me a heads up. I was in no way demeaning the fine reputation of Jack, a personal friend, whom I have worked with since 1977.

There are a number of us monitoring the aftermath of the wildfires in the southwest. Efforts are already underway to block any and all efforts to salvage any of the fire killed timber and create much needed jobs. These individuals and groups are the same ones that have blocked all forms of management that have led to stand densification and unacceptable fuel build ups, resulting in the current situation in the southwest. Those that preceded us handed us a well cared for natural renewable resource to pass on to the next generations, however, what we have been witnessing since the mid 1960′s and 70′s is the locking up of these resources in the name of preservation only to see them decimated since the mid 1990′s by destructive stand replacement wildfires that take the affected ecosystem back to zero and in the process destroy local economies and livelihoods. This has been going on for far too long and it is time to right the ship. If you disagree so be it.

Mike

- – - – - – - – - – - -

Mike,

Besides your choice of language, my disagreement over your perspective is focused on how you characterize the entire fire situation. From the e-mail you originally sent, you made no attempt to quantify what you were talking about. You have taken studies which have dealt specifically with the dry ponderosa pine forests of Arizona and New Mexico (which you didn’t explain), and incorrectly applied them across all the National Forests in the west.

Clearly you know lodgepole pine forests of the type in Yellowstone (and many other areas) have natural fire return intervals of upwards to 300 years and stand-replacing fires are the norm. There is no evidence fire suppression, environmentalists, or President Obama have had any impact on fuel build up in those ecosystems. Clearly you know the Fir-spruce forests in the Rocky Mountains also have fire return intervals of 300 years plus. Many of the Piñon-Juniper woodlands have fire return intervals in excess of 400 years. Then we have the wet Pacific Northwest; I’d be glad to provide the references for these numbers if you wish.

I know you adhere to the Baja California hypothesis to claim there is an unnatural fuel build up in California chaparral ecosystems. However, you should know by now the hypothesis has been rejected by the majority of fire scientists. Here is a review of the literature and an objective summary of the points leading to the rejection.

I cannot comment on your characterization of “locking up” resources other than to say that viewing forests from a forester, timber exploitation perspective is not necessarily applicable in the broad-based manner you are using. This is the same perspective that the USFS has used to justify:

- The wholesale spread of herbicides and animal poisons to “restore” burned forests in Northern California.

- The logging of the huge “wall of wood” which once existed within the Olympic National Forest. In fact, up until a few years ago the joint USFS/NPS visitor center informed visitors: “A mature stand of timber is largely stagnant. Some liken it to a desert. Decay and death of individual trees diminish what’s there. Nothing much happens until management begins.”

- Dragging huge chains between tractors to uproot old-growth junipers in the southwest to “improve” rangeland.

We obviously need lumber and there are definitely some forests which have unnatural fuel loads, but nowhere near what you are suggesting.

I’m not an economist, but if your intent is to create jobs, which you seem to continually champion, perhaps a better approach would be to encourage outdoor enjoyment industries. I suspect those would provide longer lasting and more satisfying careers than those based on uncertain government dollars which fund huge vegetation management projects and the firms which conduct them.

Best,

Rick

West of the Wallow Fire near Greer, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.

Herger Amendment Would Lift Off-Road Vehicle Restrictions In National Forests

tommy — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 03:40:49 +0000

The New Anti-Environmentalism

As the bad news from the new Congress continues to pile up, an extraordinary volume of anti-environmental legislation has managed to pass the House of Representatives, and is in the early stages of debate in the Senate.

Sadly, not all of this environmental ugliness has been fully explored or reported by major media outlets. Part of the reason for this is sheer volume; there’s just too much to sift through, part and parcel of a new and very dangerous assault on long-standing, functional environmental regulations. It is clear we are in the midst of a new era of anti-environmentalism which, so far, has yet to crest, and may only grow more aggravated should the Senate and White House pass hands in 2012.

We’ve included information at the end of this piece on what you can do to help.

Utah ORV users ignore a barrier intended to prevent non-motorized use.

An Executive Order

Several years ago, Dan Schroeder, the chair of the Ogden, Utah chapter of the Sierra Club, wrote

In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed an executive order directing the nation’s public lands be managed to “minimize damage” from motorized off-road vehicles. The President noted these machines were growing in popularity, and their use was “in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.”

The order stated federal agencies must manage off-road vehicle use so as to protect natural resources, promote the safety of all land users, and minimize conflicts among various uses. Open routes must be clearly signed and publicized; closures must be enforced; and effects of off-road vehicle must be monitored.

Unfortunately, all these years later, the implementation of Nixon’s wise executive order remains spotty at best, and if one California Congressman has his way, restrictions on off-road vehicle use in our National Forests will become a thing of the past.

The Great Unraveling Underway

We at Treehuggers International encourage, and expect, bi-partisan support and cooperation in our mission to preserve parks, wilderness, and special places, and have seen in recent weeks the ability of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to introduce and support wilderness legislation, like Rep. David Dreier’s current San Gabriel Mountains Wilderness Bill.

But the new GOP majority in the House has shown itself not only ready to do the bidding of the Koch Brothers by declawing the EPA, Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act to levels the Bush administration only dreamed of (which looks almost responsible by comparison), but are prepared to roll back long-standing environmental regulations across the board, even if it means limiting the ability of citizens or government scientists and professionals to voice their concerns about Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management policies. Even the most benign conservation issues have been turned into ideological battlegrounds.

Herger Amendment

While the dust-up over the end of the Bureau of Land Management’s “No New Wilderness” policy has garnered some attention in the form of a potential new “sagebrush rebellion” in the west, the particular case we’re focusing on is the late-night passage of the Herger Amendment on February 18th, as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2011. It has received almost no media or press attention at all.

Named for Representative Wally Herger, who has been been representing California’s 2nd District for nearly a quarter-century, this seemingly benign piece of legislative-speak attached to an otherwise crucial piece of defense legislation would “prohibit the use of funds for the Secretary of Agriculture to implement or enforce Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, relating to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, in any administrative unit of the National Forest System.”

Subpart B is the important component here. According to David Smith of the Siskiyou Daily News

Subpart B of the federal Travel Management Rule declares that motor vehicle travel outside of designated areas is prohibited, the enforcement of which would be subject to the defunding under Herger’s amendment.

In other words, the measure is intended to force the Forest Service to lift restrictions on off-road vehicle use in our National Forests. While the Herger Amendment may not be broad enough to undo the 1964 Wilderness Act’s exclusion of machine and motorized use in designated Wilderness areas, according to Alan Rowsome, the Conservation Funding Director at the Wilderness Society, the Herger Amendment

limits the Forest Service from regulating its road system, [thereby] opening up more of our pristene lands to off road vehicle use. Importantly though, 18 Republicans voted against this harmful amendment, showing that many members understand the need to protect our forests.

We’re concerned about the Herger Amendment not only because it is a gratuitous kiss to the growing off-road vehicle lobby, but because of the ability it will give off-road users to use and abuse National Forest trails and open space, while limiting the ability of Forest Service managers to limit their use to current levels. Even a tenderfoot as notorious as George Will was able to discern

Pristine wilderness is an acquired taste and is incompatible with the enjoyment of some popular tastes such as dirt bikes, snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles. But surely there is no shortage of space in America for persons whose play must involve internal-combustion engines.

The Herger Amendment is, in part, a power play by off-road vehicle enthusiasts to snatch up even more public land, however inappropriate or wild it may be, to indulge in their “sport,” a sport which has obvious and detrimental environmental consequences. It is also, in part, a reaction to the Interior Department bringing to an end the aforementioned Bureau of Land Management’s “No New Wilderness” policy, which reverses a 2003 Bush-era rule which called a halt to the BLM identifying and preserving wilderness-worthy locales and sites until they could be appropriately reported to Congress and acted upon in wilderness legislation.

In the center-right Frum Forum, columnist David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection noted

This type of Western Republican rant against wilderness has become all too predictable in recent years. These libertarian-minded lawmakers are heavily influenced by a radical property rights group, the American Land Rights Association (ALRA), which made national news in 2007 for its boycott of the Minneapolis airport in protest of then-Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) arrest for sex solicitation, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC), an off-road motorized recreation group.

A former field ranger with the Forest Service in Oregon, Hillery Johnson Scott remembered “I would come across user-made trails, mostly made out of laziness to get to a campsite or hunting blind. There would be multiple trails going to the same spot, all user-made. We would take entire crews out and try to cover them with brush and tree debris to discourage their use, but a week later they were all cleared away with fresh four-wheeler tracks. Even within the agency there were issues on how to deal with it, trails and multiple use folks vs. conservation folks. I’ve been known to ride a dirt bike or two, but user-made trails have become a pariah on vast recreational areas. This amendment would do so much more damage to an ongoing problem.”

Granted, it’s hard to deny someone the permission to use a dirtbike or off-road vehicle on an appropriately-graded road in a National Forest or BLM area. In remote areas like Alaska, off-road vehicles are often used for the utilitarian purposes they were originally designed for, to transport food and supplies or cover great distances on poor or primitive access routes, as opposed to being used as thrillcraft which can literally climb to the tops of mountains.

Destructive Recreation

While the 1964 Wilderness Act excludes motorized use in any designated Wilderness area, and the Forest Service and BLM often exclude off-road use from certain areas recommended or under consideration as wilderness or on popular hiking and equestrian trails in order to avoid conflicting uses, the use of these thrillcraft machines to “rock crawl” up sheer faces of granite or “tear up” muddy or damp areas means greater management of off-road vehicles and the areas in which they’re allowed to operate is desperately needed.

What’s not needed, and what will lead many pristine National Forest areas to unregulated ruin, is a blanket dismissal of all restrictions for ORVs. Only someone who has never spent any time in the outdoors (or is so connected to the off-road lobby) could fail to see the immediate harm to Forest Service and BLM resources in passing such an amendment.

We at Treehuggers International concede off-road vehicle and thrillcraft use has become a part of the outdoor experience for some; it is appropriate to have some land set aside for this type of activity on public lands. But we also stand by our belief the explosion of off-road vehicle use is the single-biggest environmental threat our special places face. If not properly regulated, and corralled into areas designated for use, the consequences will be regrettable and far-reaching.

Beyond the inherent noise and air pollution resulting from internal combustion engines ruining reasonable levels of natural tranquility or outdoor solace, by definition “off-roading” puts automobile-like vehicles and internal combustion engine-driven machines in areas not designed or ever intended for such activity.

In terms of engine noise, habitat destruction, exhaust pollution and physical contact and harm, the impact of ORVs in terrifying wildlife, seen and unseen, and interfering with hibernation and mating schedules and regular activity, is considerable. Even a passive observer can tell off-road vehicle use churns up soil and creates ruts, damages root systems, compacts soil, and accelerates erosion, all of which can lead to more frequent dust storms and increased sedimentation in waterways. Despite this, the thrillseeking component of “tearing up” the landscape continues to be popularized and encouraged in the advertising for sport utility vehicles, even in commercials from major auto manufacturers.

In addition to damaging plants by driving over them and chewing them apart, off-road vehicles also spread seeds as they churn up soil and vegetation, aiding in the spread of weeds which can damage native plant life. As a natural habitat is churned up, eroded or invaded by noxious weeds, the wildlife which depends on it suffers. The idea of lifting reasonable restrictions placed by forest managers on off-road vehicles would permanently alter the balance of outdoor recreation, and rapidly damage the health of plants, water and wildlife in our National Forests.

We ask, is it that much of a chore to get off your machine and walk? Or even ride a mountain bike? Simply because you can access almost anywhere in the wild with such advanced off-road vehicles, it doesn’t necessarily mean one should, particularly if the goal is to find a new place to wreak destructive recreation. Far from “locking up” landscapes, wilderness designations are intended to preserve landscapes and ecosystems as is, for the health of the nation and for all to enjoy in the spirit of preservation. You can walk right in.

We hear enough engine noise and breathe in enough internal combustion engine exhaust in our daily lives as it is. Why would we want these same stresses and unpleasantries in the wild?

Political Expediency

With President Obama about to get in a political jam on the debt ceiling, along with other thorny national issues, we at Treehuggers International worry about what amendments he will use in order to draw GOP support in an eventual compromise, or for a compromise for some unseen concern down the road.

While much of the anti-environmental legislation passed over the last month in the House may appear ridiculous, in this highly-charged political climate where the nation appears to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, it could also pass in the name of political expediency.

In 2009 President Obama gave a gift to the gun lobby in the form of allowing loaded firearms on the trail in National Parks in order to pass the credit card reform bill. Obama’s kneejerk pragmatism and moderate extremism may lead to more of these kinds of political giveaways at the cost of environmental and regulatory integrity.

Sadly, another regrettable component of the Herger Amendment may be akin to bombing a building a peace treaty is being negotiated in. The Herger Amendment undermines a great deal of community work and common ground the conservation community and off-road vehicle enthusiasts have found over the last 10 years, and with its broad scope of eliminating local forest management by strangling the budget for regulation and enforcement, it reboots the conversation and eliminates what progress has been made.

Contact Your Senators

We urge you to reach out to your U.S. Senators, preferably by letter, but by phone as well, and tell them:

Herger Amendment 177, included by the House in its recently-passed Fiscal Year 2011 budget bill, prevents National Forests from managing off-road vehicles by prohibiting implementation and enforcement of the off-road vehicle travel plans that the public and forests spent the last six years developing.

These off-road vehicle travel plans have a history of bi-partisan support. In fact, they were initiated by the Bush administration which itself pointed to uncontrolled ORV use as one of the top threats to our National Forests. In addition to the obvious safety and resource damage concerns, this amendment takes away the voice of thousands of Americans who have, in good faith, worked with the Forest Service to develop these plans over the past six years. A vast array of citizens have spent their time and energy to see this process through, and Congress should not simply walk in and render years of the public’s hard work moot.

Please contact your U.S. Senators and pass along this message. If you want, e-mail us and let us know who you spoke with or who you sent a letter to. While e-mails are handy, nothing beats a hand-written letter from a frequent voter. Believe us, a letter gets passed around the office. We hope the above information isn’t too much to transcribe by hand, though a well-presented, hand-signed word processor-created letter works too.

Thanks to Anne Merwin from The Wilderness Society for her help with this piece.

Washington off-road vehicle driver being cited for driving around a forest gate.

Hope for Legacy Omnibus Public Lands Bill

tommy — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:06:37 +0000

The Legacy of the 111th Congress: An Election Post-Mortem

Despite several significant, and laudable, legislative victories over its two-year lifespan, the environmental legacy of the 111th Congress has, regrettably, gone largely unfulfilled. Beginning with a hopeful shot in the arm and a potential for greatness in righting an environmental ship left scuttled by the Bush administration’s declawing of regulatory agencies and rollback of environmental law and precedent, Congress made a splash in early 2009 with the passage of a much-delayed public lands bill, shelved throughout the entirety of the Bush administration, which became the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 upon President Obama signing it into law in March of that year.

The rotunda of the U.S. Capitol building, Washington DC.

Unfortunately, after becoming publicly bogged down in the sausage-making detail of health care reform and Fox News and talk radio-fueled townhall protests that summer, the Democratic majority went on the defensive and failed to follow up with any significant environmental legislation, particularly a climate bill which would have established the U.S. as an environmental and renewable energy leader. As historic as the 111th Congress’ hard-won victories on health care and financial reform are, a climate bill remains conspicuous by its absence, along with no renewed national effort to restore fiscal health to National Parks beyond underfunded Americorps programs.

While Republicans adeptly used parliamentary procedures, the threat of filibuster, and a minority working in lockstep to deny Democrats or the Obama administration any significant victories beyond health care and financial reform, often in a puerile attempt to simply discredit Obama’s standing as president, Democrats never rolled up their sleeves and engaged in tough, Harry Truman-style “buck stops here” politics, nor did the Democrats take on the GOP minority by calling their bluff, forcing Republicans to filibuster bills in the name of far-right litmus tests which otherwise would’ve enjoyed broad public support had the Democratic majority shown more leadership for their agenda and spine in their ideas.

In the opinion of Treehuggers International, many of the electoral casualties of the 111th Congress were the result of the Democrats not actively taking credit for their achievements, and doing a poor job of demonstrating the stark differences between their agenda and GOP challengers. The result? Not only is the funding situation for America’s public lands and special places unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future, even with a Democratic administration in office, but when Americans finally got a credit card reform bill signed into law, it came with the ludicrous addendum of allowing firearms in National Parks in order to appease GOP lawmakers to vote for the bill, thus breaking a long-held tradition dating to the 1930s which was even upheld by the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Sometimes you have to wonder who your friends are.

With newly-elected, and considerably more extreme GOP lawmakers offsetting Democrats’ once-enviable Senate majority to a near-tie, along with the complete loss of the House of Representatives, the legacy of the 111th Congress may not be what was achieved, but what more could have done had Democrats simply demonstrated greater boldness and leadership, and less concern for focus group testing. Voters not only respond to leaders with good ideas, but leaders who demonstrate competence in making good ideas into law.

The Salazar Interior Department

While the Obama administration has charted a determined centrist course with occasional, if half-hearted, progressive flourishes designed to be rapidly negotiated away at the first sign of GOP resistance, few in the president’s Chicagocentric inner circle have a natural affinity for the west or America’s outdoors beyond seeing it as a necessary, though perhaps tiring component of their coalition.

Previous Democratic administrations had wilderness visionaries leading the Interior Department and aggressively charting a responsible future for America’s National Parks and public lands, like Stewart Udall under President Johnson and Bruce Babbitt under President Clinton. The Obama administration has Ken Salazar, a former Senator, Colorado rancher, and big agriculture and mining ally few in the business world were worried would rock the boat when he was named to the Interior post shortly after Obama’s election.

Under Salazar the Interior Department quickly reigned in the most egregious, and obvious, Bush-era public lands sins, but as the only westerner in the Obama cabinet, whenever federal public lands matters come up, the questions immediately go to Salazar, who answers them through his particular resource-extraction, business-friendly filter. Literally being the guy in the room wearing the cowboy hat, the administration takes Salazar’s word as representative of prevailing environmental attitudes across the west.

While an obvious improvement over the darkest days of the Bush Interior Department, especially under Gail Norton, there has been grumbling about Salazar’s performance. Early in 2009 Salazar opted to uphold a Bush-era policy which prevents regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in regards to the Endangered Species Act, and as a veteran rancher, acquiesced to the removal of the Gray Wolf from the Endangered Species List, thereby enabling vicious hunts of the animal in states in Salazar’s Rocky Mountain backyard, like Idaho and Montana.

In the midst of the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico Salazar’s Interior Department put all offshore oil drilling activity on hold in the Gulf of Mexico while it reorganized the federal Mineral Management Service, which the Interior Department knew was corrupt and out of control (with parties rampant with drug use and frequent sexual liaisons between regulators and industry figure)s from the moment the administration came into power, only to allow renewed offshore oil exploration even in the most severely affected areas of the Gulf of Mexico before all the questions behind the Deepwater Horizon calamity were answered.

While spearheading America’s Great Outdoors Initiative at the behest of President Obama, Salazar showed excessive favor and leeway to ORV groups, which continue to complain they don’t have enough land for their “sport,” despite abundant greenlaning areas in the nation’s National Forests, and the proven environmental impacts long-term ORV use has on the environment, from air and noise pollution, trail damage, erosion, land degradation, and species and habitat loss, to the spectacular volume of dust kicked into the air in the west which has been proven to affect snowpack in the Sierras and Rockies.

McCullough Gulch in proposed Tenmile Wilderness, Colorado.

Never Too Late for A Lame-Duck Public Lands Bill

Of course, we recall things were worse just a few short years ago, and as the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress gets underway, there remains hope among conservationists some 21 wilderness and wildland protection bills currently in legislative circulation may be passed as an omnibus public lands bill while Democrats still command effective majorities, albeit on a rapidly vanishing shelf life.

The problem? Lawmakers from both parties have long wish lists, including passing a renewable electricity standard and a bill promoting electric and natural gas vehicles, revising offshore drilling rules, and for many “corn-state” lawmakers, renewing expiring ethanol subsidies. A number of GOP legislators and lawmakers from coal states are also hoping to delay implementation of the EPA’s new carbon emissions regulations.

Perhaps this may prove to be wishful thinking, but the coming shift in the political landscape may compel the outgoing Democratic majority in the House to make a last-ditch push for a public lands “legacy” bill. Such moves are not unusual. The first California Desert Protection Act was passed after the 1994 midterms, which saw outgoing Democratic lawmakers elevate Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments to National Park status, while providing for the creation of the Mojave National Preserve.

In the wake of the 1980 elections the outgoing Carter administration worked with Congress to push through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which created or revised the status of 15 National Park Service properties, and provided for the designation of nearly 125,000 square miles of new public lands, of which a third was set aside as wilderness.

We at Treehuggers International urge you to contact your federal lawmakers and urge them to pass a comprehensive public lands bill before the expiration of the 111th Congress.

You can find your U.S. Represenative in the House of Representatives HERE.

Find your U.S. Senator HERE.

While hand-written letters are always best, time for an omnibus public lands bill is limited to the lame-duck Congressional session. A polite phone call to the offices of a few key lawmakers may help get the ball rolling.

Whatever party they may be, remind legislators of the value of wilderness and wild places, the need to preserve our nation’s natural heritage, and the pride of “legacy” which such a public lands bill provides, especially for outgoing lawmakers. What better gift to leave future generations than the magnificent, undisturbed swaths of America’s natural heritage we are still fortunate enough to enjoy today because of the foresight of others?

Autumn in Montana's Blackfoot Valley, Lolo National Forest.

Statement On the Defeat of Proposition 21

tommy — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:21:05 +0000

Stately oak grotto at Los Osos Oaks State Reserve, San Luis Obispo County.

Statement On the Defeat of Proposition 21

By Tommy Hough, Founder of Treehuggers International

(San Diego, CA) – Sometimes you come up short.

Proposition 21 was a well-constructed piece of citizen legislation and a sensible idea, but even in a good economy, passing it would have been an uphill battle.

When it comes to preserving the environment and conservation initiatives, change has never come easy. With the mercurial nature of the proposition process and taking the temperature of the electorate, multiple tries at an issue are often required before the right formula is reached. Our only hope at Treehuggers International is we still have California State Parks to save once we arrive at the right formula, whether with the help of lawmakers in Sacramento or through another proposition measure.

While there are dozens of regional conservancies and organizations the length of the state doing tremendous work every day keeping California State Parks the “envy of the nation,” the system itself is reaching a point of critical mass.

The best way to raise awareness, generate enthusiasm, and get people excited about the natural history and legacy of California State Parks is by getting friends, family, and neighbors into the Great Outdoors to experience parks and connect with them.

Whether in a Redwood grove at Prairie Creek, hiking the bluffs at Montaña de Oro, or savoring the view from Font’s Point at Anza-Borrego, it doesn’t take much for the average person, when confronted with the beauty and wonder California State Parks, to find their “batteries recharged” and their sense of peace and balance restored.

The dedicated men and women of California State Parks do an amazing job of adapting and making do with what they have, providing the best experience for park users. But only when the public can tangibly appreciate what California State Parks have to offer and what they stand to lose will they demand Sacramento cease strangling park budgets and leaving historic sites mothballed or in a state of permanent disrepair, from trails to visitor facilities to ranger-led law enforcement.

While we can’t control the end result of a proposition campaign, we can continue to pro-actively work toward solutions, building relationships and coalitions, and most importantly, getting our friends, family, and neighbors into California’s Great Outdoors with us. Lead a hike, organize an outing, and show your friends and neighbors what we value, and what natural wonders decades of conservation efforts and brave stands by wise lawmakers have set aside for us, in our name, at California State Parks.

California State Parks will likely suffer more closures and cuts, but if there is one silver lining, it is the fact California has a new governor. While Jerry Brown pledged there would be “no sacred cows” when it comes to the budget, Brown also understands the economic engine state parks represent for adjoining communities, and realizes current funding for the beleaguered park system takes up less than one-tenth of one percent of the state’s general fund, proportionally a microscopic sliver. Considering Jerry Brown also cut the ribbon on many state parks during his previous service as governor, he is also more aware than nearly any other California elected official of the importance and value parks have for the state’s citizens.

Prop. 21 would have effectively and economically enabled the survival of California State Parks and offer the opportunity for even more people to connect with them, but keep your chin up parks fans: we move forward. Over 760,000 signatures were collected around the state to put this proposition on the ballot. That’s no small number.

Now lace up your boots, grab a friend, get outside, and enjoy the Golden State’s natural heritage.

Treehuggers International

Treehuggers International is an environmental affairs and natural science program, dedicated to the preservation of parks, wilderness, and special places, which airs Sunday mornings on KBZT FM 94/9 in San Diego and on-line at KMTT 103.7 The Mountain in Seattle. Treehuggers International is the brainchild of radio personality, conservationist, and outdoorsman Tommy Hough.

More information at www.treehuggersintl.com.

Castle Crags State Park from Vista View, Shasta County.

Afternoon sunlight on the bluffs at Torrey Pines State Reserve, San Diego County.

Abundant springtime grass at Henry W. Coe State Park, Santa Clara County.

Treehuggers International 2010 Voting Guide

tommy — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:10:00 +0000

“The only way to change is to vote. People are responsible.” – Paul Wellstone

“If you don’t vote, don’t bitch.” – Steve Earle

By Tommy Hough

Not all races are listed. For some races you will need to find the candidate running in your federal or state district. With some exceptions, voter recommendations are pertinent to San Diego County ballots.

Voter recommendations are listed first, followed by proposition and candidate choice essays.

Polls open at 7:00 am and close at 8:00 pm, Tuesday November 2nd. For a complete list of state elections offices, from Alameda to Yuba counties, click HERE.

Official Treehuggers International 2010 Endorsements

Governor: Jerry Brown

U.S. Senate: Barbara Boxer

U.S. Representative, 53rd District: Susan Davis

California’s 53rd Congressional District includes Downtown San Diego, Golden Hill, North Park, Hillcrest, Bankers Hill, College Area, Talmadge, Lemon Grove, Ocean Beach, Mission Bay, Bay Park, Tecolote Canyon, Linda Vista, Carmel Valley, Pacific Beach, Point Loma, Coronado, Bird Rock and coastal La Jolla, and Imperial Beach.

State Prop. 21: YES

City of San Diego Prop. D: YES

Official NO positions on Props. 23 and 26.

OTHER RACES

U.S. Senate – Colorado: Michael Bennet

U.S. Senate – Pennsylvania: Joe Sestak

U.S. Senate – Washington: Patty Murray

Governor – Ohio: Ted Strickland

California State Races

Governor: Jerry Brown (listed as Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown)

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen

Controller: John Chiang

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer

Attorney General: Kamala D. Harris

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

Board of Equalization, District 3: Mary Christian Heising

State Senate, District 36: Paul Clay

State Senate, District 38: Gila Jones

State Senate, District 40: Juan Vargas

State Assembly, District 66: Douglas Dye

State Assembly, District 73: Judy Jones

State Assembly, District 74: Crystal Crawford

State Assembly, District 75: Paul Garver

State Assembly, District 76: Toni Atkins

State Assembly, District 77: Mark Hanson

State Assembly, District 78: Marty Block

State Assembly, District 79: Ben Hueso

Federal Races

U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer

U.S. Representative, 49th District: Howard Katz

U.S. Representative, 50th District: Francine Busby

U.S. Representative, 51st District: Bob Filner

U.S. Representative, 52nd District: Ray Lutz

U.S. Representative, 53rd District: Susan Davis

State Propositions

Prop. 19: YES

Prop. 20: NO

Prop. 21: YES

Prop. 22: NO

Prop. 23: NO

Prop. 24: YES

Prop. 25: YES

Prop. 26: NO

Prop. 27: NO

San Diego County Proposition

Prop. A: NO

City of San Diego Propositions

Prop. B: NO

Prop. C: YES

Prop. D: YES

City of Chula Vista Proposition

Prop. H: YES

San Diego Unified School District Proposition

Prop. J: YES

San Diego County

San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 4th District: Stephen Whitburn

San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 5th District: Steve Gronke

San Diego County Assesor / Recorder / Clerk: David Butler

Local Races

San Diego City Council, 6th District: Howard Wayne

San Diego City Council, 8th District: David Alvarez

Carlsbad Mayor: Keith Blackburn

Chula Vista City Council: Patricia Aguilar

Del Mar City Council: Lee Haydu

Descanso Water District: Lee Johnson

El Cajon Mayor: Todd Moore

Encinitas City Council: Teresa Barth and Tony Kranz

Escondido City Council: Richard Barron and Jason Everitt

Grossmont Healthcare District: Gloria Chadwick

Jacumba Community Service District: Dale (Bob) Price and Joe Marshall

Lakeside Fire Protection District: Susan Conniry and Milton Cyphert

La Mesa City Council: Patrick Dean

Lemon Grove City Council: Jerry Selby

National City Mayor: Alejandra Sotelo Solis

National City Council: Mona Rios and Luis Natividad

Oceanside City Council: Chuck Lowery

Otay Water Board, Division 1: Chris Shilling

Pine Valley Community Planning District: Joe Moore and Matt Rabasco

Santee City Council: Janet Enright and Rudy Reyes

Solana Beach City Council: Mike Nichols

South Bay Irrigation District, Division 1: Jose Cerda

South Bay Irrigation District, Division 4: David Bensoussan

Spring Valley Community Planning District: Willis Conley

Valle de Oro Community Planning District: Jack Phillips

Vallecitos Water District, Division 2: Alan Brown

Judicial

SUPREME COURT

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye: YES

Ming W. Chin: NO

Carlos R. Moreno: YES

COURT OF APPEAL, DISTRICT FOUR, DIVISION ONE

Judith D. McConnell: YES

COURT OF APPEAL, DISTRICT FOUR, DIVISION TWO

Manuel A. Ramirez: NO

Carol D. Codrington: NO

COURT OF APPEAL, DISTRICT FOUR, DIVISION THREE

David G. Sills: NO

William W. Bedsworth: NO

Eileen C. Moore: YES

SUPERIOR COURT

Judge of the Superior Court, Office 20: Richard Monroy

Public Schools

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson

San Diego Unified School Board, District B: Kevin Beiser

San Diego Unified School Board, District C: Scott Barnett

Alpine Union School Board: Gina Henke

Cajon Valley School Board: Jane Cruz Alfano

Chula Vista Elementary School Board: Douglas Luffborough, Brenda Ruacho, and Nick Segura

Del Mar Union School Board: Douglas Rafner

Encinitas Union School Board: Marla Strich

Escondido Union School Board: Royce Moore

Fallbrook Union Elementary School Board: Patrick Rusnell and Abel Lopez

La Mesa / Spring Valley School Board: Jay Steiger

Lakeside Union School Board: Gelia Cook

Lemon Grove School Board: Timothy Shaw

Oceanside Union School Board: Janet Bledsoe Lacy

Poway Unified School Board: Kimberley Beatty

San Marcos Unified School Board: Carlos Ulloa

Sweetwater Union High School Board: Karen Janny, Hector Rivera, and Arlie Ricasa

Community College Boards

Grossmont / Cuyamaca Community College Board 1: Edwin Hiel

Grossmont / Cuyamaca Community College Board 3: Debbie Justeson

Grossmont / Cuyamaca Community College Board 5: Gregg Barr

Mira Costa Community College Board 7: Bill Fischer

Palomar Community College Board: Mark Evilsizer and Paul McNamara

Southwestern Community College Board 2: Terri Valladolid

Southwestern Community College Board 4: Norma L. Hernandez

Southwestern Community College Board 5: Tim Nader

This is California, and yes, we're crazy. Bikers receive a mass blessing in Santa Barbara.

INDIVIDUAL RACE ESSAYS

Governor – Jerry Brown

Attorney General Jerry Brown may not be the ideal governor California needs right now, but he’s a far better choice than Meg Whitman, who has spent upwards of $120 million dollars of her own fortune to buy the governor’s race, and has yet to take a specific policy stand beyond classic Mega-American GOP talking points (illegal aliens bad, Jerry Brown worse) and pledging to eliminate the state’s capital gains tax, which would surely benefit Corporate Fat Cats currently donating to her campaign, despite her own wealth and resources.

We’ve had several moderate friends and colleagues wonder aloud the last few weeks, if someone spends their own money like this, how do you expect them to spend your money? Note to CEOs with money to burn: getting rich doesn’t make you a genius, and you don’t run government like a business because, sheesh, do we have to spell it out? Government is not a business.

Since this is California, Meg has run as a moderate and eschewed the goofiest of the trendy Tea Party talk by coming on as an able businesswoman who isn’t too angry (after all, what does she have to be mad about?), but her desperate attempts to falsely connect Jerry Brown to actively enabling illegal immigrants to attend California universities free of charge, revising the history of his previous service as governor and laudable work as the mayor of Oakland, and even trying to tie him to the Bell city council scandal are new lows in state electioneering.

For all of her mannered pleasantries, Meg’s TV ads have displayed a shocking amount of vitriol and cynicism, almost as a warning for anyone getting in her way. Look no further than her scorched earth carpet bombing of Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner in the GOP primary, who deserved what he got with his own flip-flops to the far right (in addition to having the misfortune of being several inches shorter than Meg). Beyond a disastrous appearance on the John and Ken Show on L.A.’s KFI, like many of the deer-in-the-headlights Tea Party candidates she’s distanced herself from, Meg Whitman has resisted contact with any real reporters beyond Ken Doll morning news hosts who might actually ask her a question of substance and expect an answer.

We also find it curious so many in the GOP seem to hate Jerry Brown for his frugality. In an era where we need to save every penny, let’s get the guy back into the governor’s office who ditched the limousines and private flights on taxpayer dime and flew coach like the rest of us. Let’s get a guy in the governor’s office who has balanced budgets and created jobs throughout his career, as opposed to Meg Whitman, who feels no position should be out of reach of her checkbook, and for whom money has, and never will be, an impediment or dire necessity.

Meg likes to wax nostalgic about the optimistic, can-do culture of the California she moved to in the early 80s which offered the creative environment which enabled good business ideas like eBay to take hold and grow. While Meg never made much of an effort to vote until a few years ago, we assume she’s aware the era she longs for was the era Jerry Brown was presiding over when he was governor.

Since Jerry Brown left office in 1983 (to say he left the governor’s mansion would be incorrect, since he opted not to live there in another effort to save taxpayer dollars), California has had four governors: three Republicans and one Democrat, and the lone Democrat was removed from office for trying to balance the budget after the state was victimized by rolling blackouts courtesy of Enron’s dirty tricks and replaced by an action movie star. Think about what Jerry left behind, and how it’s been handled since then.

Sure, Jerry Brown is a character, but he’s a genuine California character through and through. Is he any more of a character than Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once wielded a knife at a press conference? While Jerry is a healthy 72, we admit we would’ve preferred a young progressive live Gavin Newsome rolling up his sleeves and leading California into the 21st Century, but Newsome is opting to allow himself the time to become seasoned and learn how the state and Sacramento work beyond his Bay Area bubble. It’s a wise decision.

In 2010 Jerry Brown may be the old hand of California politics, and while he’s always been the ultimate insider by way of his father and his own longevity, he’s also been the most out-of-the-box thinker and outsider chief executive California, and perhaps the nation, has ever produced. Jerry Brown’s hard-won experience in good times and bad, clear dedication to fairness and the people of the Golden State, understanding of the state’s different regions, quirks, and local laws, abundant law enforcement support, and his frugal ways may be just what California needs at this moment.

Controller – John Chiang

We don’t know why they’re trying to make John Chiang look like a sleeves-rolled-up populist in his TV ads. Chiang is a numbers nerd with a law background who bravely stood by California’s civil servants at a moment when Gov. Schwarzenegger was using state salaries as a political football in order to pressure a state budget. After a complaint about his office’s failure to give fair notice when seizing unclaimed property (which dated to before he had the job), Chiang improved notification of people whose assets were about to be seized, and improved the due process ability of people to recover their assets. A hard worker who can take criticism and make positive changes, this guy deserves a second term.

Treasurer – Bill Lockyer

Bill Lockyer was at one time considered a contender for governor, but he’s instead opted to stick with his job as Treasurer. While not intended to be a defensive vote, voting for Bill Lockyer is also a pragmatic way to keep Mimi Walters away from the position. As the former mayor of Laguna Niguel in Orange County, and currently representing California’s 33rd District in the state Senate, Mimi Walters was one of the prime cheerleaders for the toll road through San Onofre State Beach and Trestles. Ever since the toll road scheme was revealed in multiple hearings to be a bad idea and stopped by the Bush administration’s Commerce Department (!), Mimi has had something of an axe to grind with local environmental watchdogs. Keep the straight-shooting Bill Lockyer in place and on the job as Treasurer.

Attorney General – Kamala D. Harris

San Francisco D.A. Kamala Harris is in a tough fight against Southland GOP rival and fellow D.A. Steve Cooley, the District Attorney for the city of Los Angeles. Beyond the classic San Francisco vs. L.A. face-off headlines, Cooley’s been making headway across the state on a wave of Republican enthusiasm, but one of his first acts as Los Angeles D.A. was to undo the city’s environmental crimes unit. Not that he cares, but that’s not the best way to land a Treehuggers International endorsement.

Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has been gunning for the Attorney General job for the last two years. During the peak of Obamamania in 2008 she even utilized Obama-like imagery and graphic design for her campaign, until Obama became as unpopular as Jimmy Carter at an Iranian hostage reunion. We endorsed Pedro Nava in the primary, and while there are juicier candidates on the general election ballot for Attorney General, it remains a tight race.

While Kamala Harris is a solid public official with high favorability marks in San Francisco, we question her long-range opportunism in running for the Attorney General job. However, we’d prefer to keep Steve Cooley at home in Los Angeles, so we ask you to give Kamala Harris your vote on November 2nd.

U.S. Representative, 49th District – Howard Katz

Mr. Katz is in the thankless position of running against popular incumbent Republican Congressman Darrell Issa in San Diego’s North County, who is estimated to be one of the richest members of Congress with some $250 million dollars to his name. Hey, at least Meg Whitman is spending her money, Darrell Issa doesn’t even have to break the bank in order to get re-elected in the GOP-heavy 49th.

Issa is also the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and if Republicans win control of the House of Representatives, which they seem poised to do, Darrell Issa will likely become chair of the committee, and he has a stack of subpoenas he’s been polishing and daydreaming about handing out to members of the Obama administration.

Never mind his investigations would center around a lot of Whitewater-style nonsense, it’s designed to tie up members of the Obama administration with lawyers and investigations over their heads, and keep them from focusing on their jobs. Issa has admitted on media outlets from Real Time With Bill Maher to Fox News he is relishing the moment he gets to stick his investigative powers into a White House which has already demonstrated a willing transparency and openness which would have shut off Dick Cheney’s pacemaker. Don’t like the sound of this? Then vote for Howard Katz in the 49th.

U.S. Representative, 50th District – Francine Busby

We actually urged a vote for Tracy Emblem in the Democratic primary, just to get some new blood into the race against 50th District incumbent Brian Bilbray who, no matter what you may think of him, is a survivor who’s managed to hang on in a district slowly veering away from the GOP.

As is the case with our enthusiastic endorsement of 53rd District incumbent Susan Davis, Francine Busby is one of the greener candidates on the ballot this year. Unfortunately, as was the case in 2006, Ms. Busby also seems to be doing just enough to lose, and she probably remains best known to voters in the 50th, if at all, for having a cocktail party rudely interrupted by Sheriff’s deputies who were sent to her house by a crank caller. In the ensuing melee, a party guest was maced, and Busby sunk any potential bounce or sympathy from the incident by mishandling the fallout and appearing more confused than the idiot Sheriff’s deputy who apparently believed he was being menaced by a party of middle-aged women in Carmel Valley.

Look, home brewing aside, we’re not fans of Brian Bilbray. His statements on illegal immigration have been as reprehensible and extreme as Duncan D. Hunter’s, and his solution to the problem of the Tijuana River belching into Imperial Beach when he was mayor was to bulldoze the mouth of the river closed, which created bigger problems for ranchers upriver and the Navy’s Imperial Beach Outlying Field in the Tijuana Slough, but never mind, we’re sure Bilbray thought the TV footage of him at the controls of a bulldozer made him look macho. Like Mike Dukakis in a tank. Vote for Francine Busby.

U.S. Representative, 51st District – Bob Filner

Despite his occasional airport freakout, Filner is a reliable, labor-friendly incumbent and a strong advocate for the 51st, even though we think his idea of moving the San Diego airport to Imperial County and installing a high-speed rail system to move people to and from was ridiculous (but would’ve made cool use of the Carizzo Gorge train trestle). To his credit, Filner let the idea quietly go away, and while he sometimes needs an extra talking-to when it comes to the environment, Bob Filner is accessible and listens, and genuinely cares about the people in his district. He wins our nod. Give Bob Filner your vote.

U.S. Representative, 52nd District – Ray Lutz

Ray Lutz worked with the town of Potrero to kick out the corporate welfare-funded private contractor army of Blackwater, kept in business with long-term missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in which they were answerable to no one and needlessly cultivated a Wild West atmosphere. For this reason alone, you should give Ray Lutz your vote if you’re in the Duncan Hunterland of the 52nd District.

Mr. Lutz is also a proponent of green energy and solar panels, which San Diego County should be the world leader in, and likes to call incumbent Duncan D. Hunter, the first-term son of long-running Congressman Duncan Hunter, “junior.”

With all due respect to Duncan D. Hunter’s genuinely courageous military service, his political positions include deporting the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S., and referring to Arizona’s SB 1070 law as “a fantastic starting point” for dealing with illegal immigration. Hunter also doggedly saw to it to finish the border wall through Smuggler’s Gulch near Imperial Beach, after his father arranged for an environmental waiver from the Bush administration to build it, thereby creating a legacy-building photo opportunity for the elder Hunter. Problem? Not only did the border fence waiver wipe out wildlife corridors to and from the Tijuana Slough, but even the Border Patrol didn’t want Hunter’s wall built in the first place.

Duncan D. Hunter’s father held the 52nd’s Congressional seat for 28 years before passing it along to his son, and while the elder Hunter was a staunch conservative with little time for environmental considerations, he at least had an independent streak, whereas Duncan D. Hunter seems to have a soft spot for the most extreme rhetoric of the Tea Party, yet has the luxury of representing a district which doesn’t demand he explain himself more thoroughly. Which leaves the rest of us wondering if Hunter is just a cynical politician or really believes this stuff.

Please give Ray Lutz your vote on November 2nd, and vote for a man who would represent ALL the citizens of California’s 52nd, not just authoritarian conservatives who vote on brand loyalty and name recognition.

Monterey Bay at Pacific Grove.

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION ESSAYS

PROP. 19 – YES

Would legalize marijuana in the state of California and allow local governments to tax it.

Dude. Don’t like the size of your kid’s class? Fine, make marijuana legal and tax it to pay for more teachers with better salaries. Hate seeing art and science classes cut in your local district? Make marijuana legal and tax it and offer students the full array of classes we had access to as kids. Don’t like state furlough days? Make marijuana legal and tax it to pay for the services citizens expect in a state like California, from the DMV to CalCare, even in a recession. Want more police and firemen? Make marijuana legal and tax it to pay their salaries.

Concerned the state no longer has a “rainy day fund” or contingency cash for an emergency like an earthquake or wildfire? Make marijuana legal and create a new, eh, “stash” out of tax dollars collected from pot. Want to get California’s freeways, bridges, aqueduct, and public works back up to speed? Make marijuana legal and tax it to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure left us by visionary California leaders like Pat Brown.

Want to get the jump on hemp, which could be a banner renewable industry for California? Make marijuana legal and use hemp for the same purpose it was used for in the U.S. for centuries: clothes and rope. Want to take the thrill out of smoking marijuana? Make pot legal and tax the heck out of it.

For those of you who believe marijuana is a gateway drug, guess again. Alcohol is and always has been the ultimate gateway drug, ruining lives daily as it continues to be blissfully legal. At its worst, pot renders its users hungry, playing video games, and listening to Incubus.

Like turning 21 and taking that first legal, yet anti-climactic drink at a bar, California may be a little bananas for a couple of months after legalization while citizens and assorted visitors get the thrill of possession out of their system before getting back to the clear-eyed sobriety of their regular lives, but what will the real hassle be? Less obnoxious drunks at the ballpark? Less people getting into drunken fistfights? Maybe a few extra pizza delivery traffic jams from everyone driving 25 miles an hour?

For heaven’s sake, this is California. Legalize it, tax it, and once and for all, get over it. If you condone gambling, it’s hard to justify being icky about marijuana legalization. It’s pot. It grows naturally. Making a weed illegal is about as silly as making a wildflower along the side of the road illegal. It’s going to grow whether we encourage it or not. It’s 2010 already. Can we evolve? Please? Yes on Prop. 19.

PROP. 20 – NO

Would expand the Citizens Redistricting Commission’s authority to include congressional districts.

Chances are you live in a district which has been gerrymandered to the hilt. Most of San Diego County, and the state, has been shamelessly divvied up into generally “safe” districts for Republicans and Democrats. Maybe you like your Congressperson, maybe you can’t stand them, or maybe you just want to see your Congressional incumbent get out and actually fight for your vote and explain himself or herself in public once in a while. Well, Prop. 20 isn’t the way to do it.

While a perfect world would provide Congressional districts which have an equal balance of Democrats and Republicans, in the real world most districts have lopsided majorities based upon regional geography. But all the talk of gerrymandering aside, the weird thing about Prop. 20 is it calls for a segregation of districts according to “similar living standards” which should only be made up of people “with similar work opportunities.” Huh? Okay, so now who’s doing the gerrymandering? Economic elites? We already have districts somewhat determined by income, but Prop. 20 seems to propose creating rich and poor Congressional districts. Does that mean gated and ungated? Shabby apartments next to the freeway vs. Rancho Santa Fe?

It’s not that we don’t trust the Citizens Redistricting Commission, we do (see Prop. 27), we just don’t trust the fine print of this proposition. No on Prop 20.

PROP. 21 – YES

Would establish California State Parks Access Pass by way of an annual $18 vehicle license surcharge.

For Treehuggers International, this is the most important proposition on the ballot.

Tommy Hough has spoken at length on the air, at gatherings, and in conjunction with our friends at the California State Parks Foundation about the need to preserve California’s laudable state park system, “the envy of the nation” left to us in good faith by those who worked hard to save and protect these areas for all.

Not only do California State Parks preserve some of the Golden State’s finest landscapes and environments for its citizens, offering an affordable, accessible retreat to exercise, reflect, recreate, and find solace, but state parks are something of an economic engine for small communities near parks with mom-and-pop businesses which may sell camping gear, sundries, and related outdoor products. A Sacramento State University study last year determined for every dollar which goes into state parks, there is a return of some $2.35 to local economies.

Chronic underfunding of state parks has caused them to accumulate a $1.3 billion backlog in needed maintenance and repairs. Roofs and sewage systems leak, restrooms are not cleaned, bridges have collapsed, trails are washed out or unmaintained, campgrounds and visitor centers are shuttered, and buildings and public works throughout the park system are badly deteriorated. Twice in the past two years state parks were on the brink of massive closures; at one point 80% of all state parks were on the chopping block, from Humboldt Redwoods to Sutter’s Mill to Montaña de Oro to every state beach in San Diego and Orange counties, along with landmark San Diego-area state parks like Torrey Pines, Palomar Mountain, Cuyamaca, and even massive Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

In Arizona, almost all state parks have been closed, and in Illinois, state parks are on the verge of closure, but in California we have an opportunity with Prop. 21 to create a dedicated funding source for California State Parks and address decades of budget cuts and neglect. The measure was put on the ballot by more than 760,000 concerned Californians and is supported by a coalition of 700 business groups and grassroots organizations the entire length of the Golden State. Approval of Prop. 21 will provide California vehicles free, year-round day-use access to state parks and beaches, in exchange for an annual $18 dollar surcharge on your license tab renewal.

When you consider the average day-use fee at a state park ranges from $8 to $12, an annual fee of $18 is an extraordinary value, and will do away with paying to enter parks along with encouraging more Californians to visit these natural and historic jewels set aside by decades of conservation work in their name, as well as ensure an economic and stable law enforcement apparatus remains a part of the park system in the form of rangers and police. Funds from the surcharge will be placed in a trust fund dedicated specifically and only to state parks and wildlife conservation. This clause is written into the language of Prop. 21; the state may not, and cannot, use the funds for anything else.

More on California’s beleaguered state park system and Prop. 21 in the July 3rd edition of Treehuggers International. If you only vote on one item this year, we urge you to cast your vote for California’s State Parks. This is at the heart of Treehuggers International’s mission. Yes on Prop. 21.

PROP. 22 – NO

Would bar the state from borrowing money which would otherwise be spent by local governments.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? No one wants the state to swipe money from a community which has otherwise earmarked funds for local schools or police, but the fine print in Prop. 22 reveals the proposition would lock protections for redevelopment agencies into the state constitution, forever. Forever, eh? That’s a mighty long time.

Redevelopment agencies are basically political fronts for developers, which lobby for large-scale projects, like stadiums, which may seem sexy, but are not necessarily in the public’s best interest or the best investment of their tax dollars. Prop. 22′s supporters boasts more than 50 local chambers of commerce on board. You don’t say. Here in the Golden State some 12% of property tax dollars are diverted to redevelopment agencies, which hold bonds, with about half of that money going to developers.

While this may not be as apparent a problem in the northern end of the state where local building and zoning laws are more strict, in Southern California developers build and do as they please, often with rubber stamp approval from municipalities. A good example of this is Orange County’s Transportation Corridors Agency, the entity behind the Trestles toll road, which has local mayors and city council members personally invested in toll road projects as members of the TCA Board of Directors.

The tougher angle on this proposition comes down to the very nature of propositions, which not only tie the hands of current lawmakers, but future lawmakers as well. We elect lawmakers to make tough decisions, in good times and bad. So when lawmakers are doing a bad job or making poor decisions, why tie the hands of every public servant coming after them when you can just vote them out of office?

Lawmakers and politicians are answerable to voters, which is why our system is designed the way it is, but redevelopment agencies? They’re answerable no one. So you’d rather give tax dollars to agencies which can’t be held accountable, instead of lawmakers who can? Prop. 22 is more welfare for the rich designed to sound like it’s looking out for the little guy. No on Prop. 22.

PROP. 23 - NO

Would delay implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 until unemployment falls to 5.5 percent for a year.

Please check out the October 24th edition of Treehuggers International for more on what Proposition 23 is and who is behind it. No on Prop. 23.

PROP. 24 – YES

Would repeal three targeted tax reforms which benefit Big Business.

The only reason these tax reforms were enacted in the first place was because Democrats were desperate to get Republicans on board to pass the state budget the last two years, and regrettably, made all kinds of wacky pledges to get the GOP on board, including these three Big Business-friendly tax reforms which would cost the general fund about $1.3 billion dollars. This is an easy formula: tax breaks don’t go to help mom-and-pop small businesses on Main Street, they benefit big corporations which, as we’ve seen throughout this recession and especially after some of the bailouts, sit on profits instead of reinvesting them in the workforce or hiring new employees. Yes on Prop. 24.

PROP. 25 – YES

Would replace the two-thirds majority to pass state budgets with a simple 51% majority.

For years, Californians have sent far more Democrats to represent them in Sacramento than Republicans. However, in California, a 66% vote is needed in order to pass the annual state budget. Yep, a full two-thirds vote is needed to pass a budget. Quite the super-majoity. Sounds crazy? It is, and here’s what’s crazier: even though Democrats have long held a majority in Sacramento, their numbers never quite add up to 67%, so in reality Republicans and a number of feisty Democrats are actually able to wield far more significant power in Sacramento in order to get what they want in the budget than their numbers may indicate, all in order to push a “yes” vote on the budget over 66%.

As everyone knows, budget votes never cleanly make their way to two-thirds agreement, especially by June 15th, which once, many years ago, was the deadline for state budgets. Now we’re lucky to have a working budget in place by the World Series. Somewhere in between a 53% and 66% majority, the disconnect sets in and no one can agree on anything, and instead, everyone suffers: citizens, state employees, and in particular, non-profits which rely upon matching funds from the state, and are forced to extend heroic lines of credit up to three or four months in order to do their work.

The budget process in California is contentious enough without the two-thirds majority requirement. Prop. 25 would scrap it, enabling a 51% majority to pass a budget or enable a majority, and would also force lawmakers to forfeit pay for every day they fail to produce a budget after June 15th. At first we thought the last bit of the proposition was petty, but then we learned business groups and corporations are financing the opposition to Prop. 25, and apparently they feel they have the most to lose. Yes on Prop. 25.

PROP. 26 – NO

Would let polluters off the hook and would cut off funding for the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Sneakier than Prop. 23, and funded by the same people. No on 26.

PROP. 27 – NO

Would dissolve the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission.

You want a vote for gerrymandering? This is it. Apparently, the politicians in Sacramento didn’t hear us when, just two short years ago, California voted to create a Citizen’s Redistricting Commission to handle the redrawing of district lines for the state Legislature and Board of Equalization. Now we’re being asked to close down the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission altogether before it’s even been given a chance to do its work. Who do you think would benefit from this? Prop. 27 would dissolve the commission and return redistricting power to Sacramento.

Now, while I’m not opposed to handing federal redistricting off to the redistricting commission, as is suggested in Prop. 20, I’m concerned about some of the language in Prop. 20, and I don’t want the commission controlling all redistricting right now. Call it a decentralization of power. When it comes to federal congressional districts, if I smell a rat, I want to be able to move to vote the rat out by the direct action of election, instead of the long process of lobbying and lawyering to change personalities on the redistricting commission. No on Prop. 27.

Treehuggers International

More information at www.treehuggersintl.com.

Golden autumn sycamores and gray Sierra Nevada granite, Inyo National Forest.

Big Money and Big Oil Behind Prop. 23

tommy — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:19:52 +0000

Andrew Adams from the Sierra Club

A Green Corps veteran and recent University of San Diego law school graduate, Andrew Adams is currently an organizer with the San Diego and Imperial Counties chapter of the Sierra Club. While at USD, Andrew was involved with the school’s Environmental Law Society and was one of the founding members and editors of the San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy Law.

Thousands of pump jacks populate the Lost Hills Oil Field in California's San Joaquin Valley.

Far-Reaching Effects

One of the most important propositions on the 2010 California general election ballot, and one which could have the most far-reaching effects on how California and the nation move forward in combating global climate change, is Proposition 23.

Primarily bankrolled by a pair of Texas oil companies, Tesoro and Valero, along with oil industrialists and Tea Party-training backers David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, Proposition 23 is intended to delay implementation of California’s innovative Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32, or AB 32. Passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AB 32 is set to take effect in 2012 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020 using a cap-and-trade system, and establish a timetable to bring California into near compliance with the provisions of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The proposition’s primary sponsor is California Third District Assemblyman Daniel Logue (R-Chico), who told the Marysville Appeal-Democrat in an odd abdication of leadership, “this has been the blind leading the blind, political correctness that has collapsed the economy in California. California already has the fifth-cleanest air in the country, so why are we doing this when no one else is?”

Proposition 23′s other key sponsors include Ted Costa of the Sacramento-based political action group People’s Advocate, U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, last seen running a distant second in the California GOP gubernatorial primary.

Arguments submitted to the Secretary of State’s office in favor of Prop. 23 say the measure would only suspend the implementation of the clean energy law until unemployment levels in California decrease to less than 5.5 percent for one year, though the connection between unemployment and cleaning California’s air is not made entirely clear.

Treehuggers International placed calls to both Tesoro and Valero in order to clarify this connection, but have so far not received a response.

“Cynical” Ploy and “Self-Serving Greed”

Lawmakers and observers have also noted the 5.5 percent unemployment figure is grotesquely unrealistic, given the state of the economy and the Golden State’s current unemployment rate of over 12 percent. Gov. Schwarzenegger, in particular, is defiantly bucking his party’s support and advocacy for Prop. 23, decrying the wording of the proposition as a “cynical” ploy to delay environmental regulations indefinitely on the backs of the state’s unemployed, by creating a phony connection between jobs and clean air.

In leveling his criticism, Schwarzenegger also called Tesoro and Valero two of the state’s biggest polluters, and angrily referred to their “self-serving greed” in conjunction with Koch Industries. It is no irony this initiative, bankrolled by mammoth, fossil fuel-based industrial forces which have significant oil and refining interests in California, comes at a time when the state stands to benefit from a myriad of green jobs unique to the region, from solar to geothermal to wind.

In addition to detailing the Sierra Club’s fight against Prop. 23 as part of a coalition of activist groups and grassroots organizations, Andrew also talks about the dangers of the “Trojan Horse” proposition of Proposition 26, which is not only bankrolled by many of the same oil industry and right-wing activists behind Prop. 23, but is running interference on Prop. 23′s flank. By requiring a two-thirds majority in order to enable spending, the measure seeks to cut off funding for the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by throwing the state legislature further into budget chaos, and lets corporations and polluters off the hook for industrial or toxic accidents, like an oil spill, shifting financial responsibility of a clean-up from those responsible to the taxpayers.

For more on this year’s slate of California propositions and key races, please visit the 2010 Treehuggers International Voter’s Guide.

No on 23 poster campaign from San Francisco-backed Stop Texas Oil.

Complete List of Hands Across the Sand Coastal San Diego Events

tommy — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:37:46 +0000

Hands Across the Sand is coming to a beach or park near you, Saturday June 26th.

A full listing of all coastal San Diego County Hands Across the Sand events, Saturday June 26th, compiled by Richard Miller and our friends at the San Diego and Imperial County Sierra Club chapter.

For additional information on Hands Across the Sand and other coastal conservation and clean-up events, check out the San Diego Surfrider chapter, along with our friends at San Diego Coastkeeper, Pro Peninsula, and Wildcoast / Costasalvaje.

What to do at a Hands Across the Sand event:

STEP 1 – Go to one of the gatherings listed below at 11:00 am for one hour, rain or shine.

STEP 2 – Join hands for 15 minutes at 12:00 noon forming lines in the sand against oil drilling in our coastal waters.

STEP 3 – Leave only your footprints.

CARDIFF BY THE SEA, SAN ELIJO
Hwy. 101 south of Chesterfield Dr. on the south side of the San Elijo Lagoon bridge.

CARDIFF BY THE SEA, SAN ELIJO STATE BEACH
Exit the 5 freeway at Birmingham Drive and head west towards the beach. Turn LEFT on San Elijo Ave. Turn RIGHT on Chesterfield Drive and cross over the railroad tracks. Turn RIGHT on Coast Hwy. 101. For more information on this event click HERE.

CARLSBAD, CARLSBAD STATE BEACH
Ponto Beach, Carlsbad.

CARLSBAD, CARLSBAD STATE BEACH
Hwy. 101 to Carlsbad State Beach; start point at Pine Ave. and Hwy. 101, across from the Carlsbad Tamarack Beach Resort and Best Western Beach View Lodge. Start lining up down from the bathroom area.

CARLSBAD, TAMARACK BEACH
Tamarack Beach, Carlsbad Blvd. Meet at the bottom of the stairs across from the Tamarack Resort at 3200 Carlsbad Blvd. (zip is 92008)

ENCINITAS, MOONLIGHT BEACH
Take the 5 freeway to Encinitas Blvd., then head to beach to meet us there. Event starts at 12:00 noon and we will hold hands for 15 minutes. Please come in advance to start on time.

IMPERIAL BEACH, EVERGREEN AND SEACOAST
Meet on the beach directly north of the pier located at Evergreen and Seacoast, Imperial Beach. (zip is 91932)

LA JOLLA, LA JOLLA SHORES
Take the 5 freeway to La Jolla Village Drive, then west to N.Torrey Pines, down the hill to La Jolla Shores, right to first light, left to end. Will meet at the La Jolla Shores lifeguard station.

LA JOLLA, WINDANSEA BEACH
Meet on the beach in between Playa Del Sur and Playa Del Norte. The cross street is Neptune.

OCEANSIDE, CASSIDY STREET
Meet at Cassidy St. and Pacific St. in Oceanside. (zip is 92054)

OCEANSIDE, OCEANSIDE BEACH
Meeting in Oceanside right by the pier from tower 1-6.

OCEANSIDE, OCEANSIDE PIER
Google maps shows location at the end of Pier View Ave. 333 Pacific restaurant is the closest landmark. Take the 5 freeway and get off at Mission to Downtown. Free parking the the transit parking sturcture to the south of the pier; carpooling is encouraged. Let’s pack it out! Meet you at the entry of the pier, west side of the Coast to Coast highway at the benches starting 10:30 am!

OCEANSIDE, WISCONSIN AVENUE
Let’s join hands with those meeting at the Oceanside Pier and in Carlsbad by gathering at the bottom of Wisconsin Ave. on the beach. There is a pay parking lot at the bottom of Wisconsin Ave. on the Strand, or free street parking on South Pacific St. near Wisconsin; walk down to the beach from there.

SAN DIEGO, MARINERS POINT, MISSION BAY
Join 1,000 ocean-loving outrigger paddlers from Southern California for Hands Across the Sand. Take I-8 to the Sports Arena Blvd. exit, make a right onto West Mission Bay Dr. and continue on to West Mission Bay Dr. ramp. Continue over the bridge and the parking lot will be on the left-hand side.

SAN DIEGO, MISSION BEACH, LIFEGUARD TOWER 13
Take the I-8 west to W. Mission Bay Dr./Sports Arena Blvd. exit. Turn right at W. Mission Bay Dr./Sports Arena Blvd. From right lane, take the ramp onto W. Mission Bay Dr. Turn left at Mission Blvd., then take the first right into the parking lot. Park your vehicle, and walk to lifeguard tower 13 on the beach.

SAN DIEGO, OCEAN BEACH
***Be aware this event will coincide with the O.B. Street Fair.***
Recommended for locals or those who are already planning on attending the street fair. We will be meeting at the base of the O.B. Pier at the end of Newport Ave. For more information on this event click HERE.

SAN DIEGO, PACIFIC BEACH
Meet on the beach just north of Crystal Pier which at the end of Garnet Ave. in Pacific Beach; in conjunction with Surfrider.

SAN DIEGO, TORREY PINES STATE PRESERVE
For directions please click HERE.

For more information on Hands Across the Sand events in California, click HERE.

Treehuggers International California Primary Guide

tommy — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:06 +0000

Whether a primary or general election, remember to vote green.

“If you don’t vote, don’t bitch.” - Steve Earle

By Tommy Hough

These are partisan picks based upon a Democratic ballot for the June 8th primary election in California.

My picks are specific to San Diego County and the 53rd Congressional district, though statewide candidates, propositions, and U.S. Representatives for all San Diego County federal Congressional seats are included. The judicial choices, city positions, and propositions are non-partisan and appear on both Democratic and Republican ballots, so feel free to apply my picks on GOP ballots in those cases.

Not all offices and primary races are included.

Polls open at 7:00 am and close at 8:00 pm, Tuesday June 8th.

STATE OFFICES

Governor: Richard Aguirre or Jerry Brown

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom

Sec. of State: Debra Bowen

Controller: John Chiang

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer

Attorney General: Pedro Nava

Pedro Nava has consistently been recognized for his environmental work in the legislature, especially in writing the legislation which outlawed lead ammunition in California in order to save the California condor, and his early opposition to the Tranquillon Ridge offshore oil drilling project in the Santa Barbara Channel, which is looking like a pretty brilliant call today. In the June 8th primary, “vote for Pedro.”

Insurance Commissioner: Hector de la Torre

FEDERAL OFFICES

U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer

U.S. Representative(s):

49th District: Howard Katz

50th District: Tracy Emblem

Enough. Francine Busby has run enough times to lose each time out to Brian Bilbray, a GOP survivor who knows how to hang on in tight races, even as the 50th dwindles down to 40% GOP registration. New blood, let’s give Ms. Emblem a whirl.

51st District: Bob Filner

Despite his occasional airport freakout, Filner is a reliable incumbent and has been a strong advocate for the 51st, even though I think his idea of moving the San Diego Airport to Imperial County and installing a high-speed rail system to move people out there is ridiculous, but might make a cool use of the Carizzo Gorge train trestle. To his credit, Congressman Filner hasn’t said much about it since 2006 and has let the idea quietly go away.

52nd District: Ray Lutz

Ray Lutz is the guy who worked with the town of Potrero to kick out Blackwater; give him your vote if you’re in the 52nd. Mr. Lutz is also a proponent of green energy and solar panels, which San Diego County should be the world leader in, and he likes to call incumbent Duncan D. Hunter, the first term son of long-running Congressman Duncan Hunter, “junior” (with all due respect to Duncan D. Hunter’s military service, if not his political positions).

53rd District: Susan A. Davis

State Assembly Member, 76th District: Toni Atkins

COUNTY COMMITTEE

County Central Committee, 76th Assembly District: Fred Rogers

Full disclosure, Fred Rogers is a friend of mine. Nothing against Lori Saldaña, but I’m voting for Fred. If I was actually running, it’s hard to see how my positions would differ from Fred’s.

JUDICIAL

Superior Court office 20: Richard R. Monroy

This next item is very important.

Judicial candidates are non-partisan seats. As a result, candidates appear on both the Democratic and Republican ballots, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have agendas contrary to the ballot which they may be on.

Case in point in San Diego County: beware of judicial candidates put forward by the conservative group Better Courts Now, which is backed by a coalition of evangelical pastors, an El Cajon gun store, and opponents of reproductive choice and marriage equality. The Rev. Don Hamer, the founder of Better Courts Now, recently died, but during the 2008 election cycle took an active role in the campaign for Proposition 8 and was one of the nutjobs who produced a series of videos “proving” Barack Obama was a secret Muslim. Wrong morally and factually.

The Better Courts Now slate of four judges are challenging incumbent judges, and according to the June 2nd edition of the Los Angeles Times, “three of the four incumbent judges have been given the highest possible rating, ‘well qualified,’ by the local bar association. The fourth, a veteran judge, was given a lesser ranking, apparently because she’s suing her colleagues in a dispute over probation policy.”

Fair enough, but most importantly the piece goes on to say (italics are mine), “the bar found three of the four challengers unqualified; the fourth had too spotty a legal record to permit a rating.” Understand what’s going on? Here are the judicial candidates you need to AVOID. Tell your friends to AVOID these judicial candidates too and VOTE AGAINST them:

Superior Court office 14: Vote AGAINST Craig Candelore (vote for Lantz Lewis)

Superior Court office 21: Vote AGAINST Bill Trask (vote for Robert C. Longstreth)

Superior Court office 27: Vote AGAINST Harold Coleman Jr. (vote for DeAnn Salcido)

Superior Court office 34: Vote AGAINST Larry “Jake” Kincaid (vote for Joel R. Wohlfeil)

In fairness, Mr. Candelore has an impressive 32-year military career to draw upon, including a Combat Action Badge and Bronze Star. However laudable, Mr. Candelore is regrettably the kind of judicial candidate who brings out the straw man argument, “we need judges to uphold the law.” What, because they don’t already?

Mr. Candelore also indicates he’s running “to restore people’s trust and confidence in our courts.”

Did we miss something? Since when have people lost faith in the courts to adequately and impartially serve justice? When I hear rhetoric like this from a local judicial candidate, I cut and run to the other guy. Mr. Candelore writes on his Facebook page “judges simply need to be held accountable for their rulings, rule within their established boundaries, and display common sense,” which sounds like Mr. Candelore has been on the receiving end of too many losing decisions and is feeling discriminated against, despite the fact he is the founder of the Men’s Legal Center and therefore should not be a stranger to the inside of a courtroom.

All of this is simply O’Reilly Factor grandstanding, and the fact Mr. Candelore is already part of a far-right slate of judges makes it much easier for me to say avoid him and his Better Courts Now colleagues.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Member, Board of Supervisors 4th District: Stephen Whitburn

Assessor-Recorder County Clerk: Howard Johnson

District Attorney: Bonnie Dumanis

Sheriff: Bill Gore

This is not necessarily an endorsement, but incumbent Sheriff Gore is a better and more equable choice than his two challengers (sorry Treehuggers International fans, Sheriff Gore has no familial connections to the former Vice President).

Treasurer-Tax Collector: Dan McAllister

I don’t necessarily approve of Mr. McAllister, he’s run unopposed twice and I think it was about time he was challenged for a job which pays over $150,000 a year, but the guy running against him, while a public service and city treasury veteran, pops up as a pick on several far-right websites, so I will go with a presumed lesser-of-two-evils choice here.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Propositions are a crapshoot, and I’ve never liked the odds. Yes, I agree partisanship has grown unworkable in Sacramento. Yes, I agree the only way California will ever really solve its budget problems is by undoing or reforming Prop. 13, but it’s become political kryptonite to do so in Sacramento and both parties are cowardly in the face of it. The classic Prop. 13 (of 1978, not 2010) highlights the problem with the proposition system in the first place; it handcuffs the legislature to a certain year and a particular era, where the results are usually designed to be short-term.

If you don’t like the way a candidate is voting, vote them out. You can’t do that with propositions. If you can’t vote an incumbent you don’t like out, organize a group to elect candidates which will vote your way. The right wing is exceedingly good at this, and they’re also adept at using business interests to push propositions designed as the taxpayer’s friend.

The problem with propositions is they are faceless, and can easily have their true meanings hidden by cryptic ballot language. Vote for humans to make the laws, not broad law-making measures. My two cents.

PROP 13: YES

Despite my cantankerous attitude toward propositions, okay, I am cautiously voting yes on this, even though the main endorsement for this proposition comes from Kern County State Senator Roy Ashburn, who was one of the most staunchly (and some would argue, cruelly) anti-gay legislators in the statehouse until, you may recall, he was revealed to be a practicing homosexual after a few too many drinks at a Sacramento bar in March.

For what it’s worth, there is no active opposition to this proposition, and it would eliminate a dangerous disincentive for property owners to upgrade un-reinforced masonry structures in order to improve earthquake safety (think of all those brick buildings in San Luis Obispo which warn you to get away from them if there’s an earthquake). The state’s own website says the “proposition promotes fairness by eliminating the unequal treatment of different types of property which undergo seismic safety improvements.”

The loss to local property taxes as a result of this measure is probably going to be minor, and we at Treehuggers International would rather see owners retrofit their un-reinforced masonry structures before the next Medium One arrives. We all know it’s coming, and frankly, it’s overdue.

PROP 14: NO

Again, this sounds like a novel idea, but while the proposition’s backers argue this will enable more moderate candidates to advance into the general election by making the top-two vote getters from either party the two to face each other in a general election, I think it’s an invitation for extremists and would rather have a defined choice in the general election. Why? Candidates will no longer be required to list their party affiliation on the ballot. Being an alleged Independent is sexy these days, but it’s also deceptive if you don’t list the party whose apparatus actually got the candidate there in the first place. Business as usual disguised as reform with too many risks for my liking. The more I learn about 14, the more I’m against it.

PROP 15: YES

I know, I know, the “California Fair Elections Act” sounds like more plastic apple pie, but the proposition would create a pilot project to make voluntary public financing available to Secretary of State candidates in 2014 and 2018, in other words, marking the beginning of public financing of elections and taking companies and corporations out of the loop. The Sierra Club argues, “cleaning up our political system is crucial to cleaning up our air and water and preserving our coast, parks, forests and deserts. Public financing is a way to get politicians out of the fundraising game and back to solving California’s problems.” We at Treehuggers International are on board, but cautiously. The far right also seems to hate this idea, which makes me as a moderate like it.

PROP 16: NO

Not just no, (exclamation of choice) NO. Tell your friends to vote no on this, the whole initiative is bankrolled by Northern California’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility, and they hope by framing this as a “taxpayer’s right to vote” argument Southern California will pass it for them. Say no. The Green Chamber of Commerce writes, “Prop 16 would impose new voter approval requirements on local governments before they can use ‘public funds,’ defined broadly in the measure to include tax revenues, various forms of debt, and ratepayer funds, to start up electricity service, expand electricity service into a new territory, or implement Community Choice Aggregation.” In other words, it has nothing to do with “your right to vote.” This will eliminate your community’s choice to opt out of PG&E’s high rates, and some argue it even violates state law by thwarting local control of energy. No on 16. No on 16. Say it with me. No on 16. Seriously, anyone who frames something as the “taxpayer’s right to vote,” if you’ll pardon the choice of words, has got to be full of shit.

PROP 17: NO

Mercury Insurance is Proposition 17′s primary sponsor, and they’ve been responsible for about 98% of the funding for the Yes on 17 campaign, kicking in about $14.6 million dollars. Think about how much they could’ve reduced their customers’ rates with that money instead. When it’s too good to be true, it usually is, and believe me, insurance companies are worse than banks when it comes to giving a customer a break. Also, Prop 17 is opposed by the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in the state. The only major newspaper in favor of Prop 17 is the Orange County Register, which is enough to be a cause for concern, but even the Bakersfield Californian, not exactly an editorial board known for even vaguely leftist sympathies, says Prop 17 “isn’t about lowering the cost of insurance; it’s about raising the cost for those who can least afford it.”

COUNTY PROPOSITIONS

PROP A: YES

Despite the fact the official argument in favor of a new landfill in Otay Mesa was written by an out-of-town consulting firm which incorrectly identifies State Route 905 as an Interstate highway, I have a problem with building a new recycling collection center and landfill because I think it’s going to be 99% landfill and 1% recycling. While doing better than it was a few years ago, San Diego is still not holding up its end of recycling as well as other major cities in the state. I also don’t like building a sizable facility in what is an otherwise wild area of the lower Otay and carving wildlife habitat into smaller and smaller pieces. However, the landfill at Miramar will soon be full, and it has been exceedingly well run and managed in a way which all San Diegans should be proud of; that’s an official Treehuggers International position. If the same management is applied at this new facility, I’ll be happy. Plus it’s supposed to run entirely on solar energy, which would set a nice precedent, albeit about time. A reluctant yes, with my arms crossed.

PROP B: YES

Pam Slater-Price is my hero on the Board of Supervisors, so no offense meant here. Normally I’m against term limits, but in the case of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, I think it may be about time to shuffle the deck.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO PROPOSITIONS

PROP D: NO

Tommy at the Shadow of the Giants Sequoia Grove, Sierra National Forest.

Treehuggers International Marks Second Year As Media Sponsor for San Diego River Days

tommy — Sun, 16 May 2010 01:21:44 +0000

Treehuggers International is proud to be the media sponsor for the San Diego River Park Foundation’s River Days, and the inaugural edition of Riverfest, happening Sunday, May 16th from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm at the Qualcomm Stadium practice field, along the banks of the San Diego River.

Despite significant urbanization, the San Diego River still flows through Mission Valley.

San Diego Is Named for Its River

Even with all the rain Southern California received this past winter and spring, most residents of San Diego County tend not to think of their corner of the Golden State as teeming with rivers. Part of this can be attributed to the region’s arid Mediterranean climate, but this perception can also be attributed to the effective job man has done tucking the river out of sight, attempting to reign in the course and power of San Diego River.

Yet the San Diego River, and other rivers and creeks in the county like the San Dieguito, San Mateo, San Luis Rey, Sweetwater, and Santa Margarita, on some occasions flow with a speed and volume as great as some of the biggest rivers in North America, with surprises along the length of each of them. While pollution continues to affect the San Diego River at several of its tributaries and old industrial sites, the San Diego River Park Foundation has literally pulled a million tons of trash from the river over the last decade, bringing a new respect and appreciation for the river which gave the city and county of San Diego its name.

The San Diego River Park Foundation is a community-based, grassroots, non-profit organization seeking to tie the San Diego River together as a greenbelt from the river’s headwaters in the Cuyamaca Mountains to the sea at Ocean Beach, along the river’s 52-mile course. This greenbelt will double as a trail system, connecting a variety of parks and open spaces spread out along the length of the river.

Wild and Scenic River Designation

The foundation has also been active in the pursuit of Wild and Scenic River designation for the upper portion of the San Diego River, including the dramatic San Diego River Gorge. The upper reaches of the Santa Margarita River west of the Santa Rosa Plateau has also been identified by the Forest Service as having Wild and Scenic potential, and since portions of the rivers flow through Congressman Darrell Issa’s district, we at Treehuggers International are encouraging the congressman to add Wild and Scenic River designations to the wise legislation he has already put forth to expand the Agua Tibia and Beauty Mountain wilderness areas into northern San Diego County (previously discussed on the March 31, 2010 edition of Treehuggers International).

River Days and Riverfest

This year’s San Diego River Days festival culminates in the first ever Riverfest, happening Sunday, May 16th at the Qualcomm Stadium practice field, featuring a roster of area bands and musicians, including headliner Gregory Page.

Congratulations to San Diego River Park Foundation Executive Director Rob Hutsel and friends for landing a great piece in the May 9th edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and thanks to Rob for dropping by host Tommy Hough’s “other” radio show, the weekly Living Better In San Diego program on the San Diego Lincoln Financial Media stations.

For more information on San Diego River Days or Riverfest, click on one of the links below, or call the san Diego River Park Foundation at (619) 297-7380.

The 300 ft. drop of Mildred Falls, near the headwaters of the San Diego River.

Elwha Dam Removal On Track In Washington’s Olympic National Park

tommy — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:33:25 +0000

From Cape Flattery, the mountains of Vancouver Island rise above the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

While many in Western Washington are mourning the passing of KIRO weatherman Harry Wappler or the closing of Seattle’s naughty marquee landmark the Lusty Lady, there are plenty of reasons to be excited and optimistic about wilderness conservation in the Evergreen State on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

Developing stories include a proposed addition to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, which just passed the U.S. House of Representatives, and a renewed Forest Service effort to determine possible year-round grizzly bear populations in the North Cascades. Here’s hoping a few silvertips are once again calling the North Cascades home.

In the meantime, Treehuggers International has been following these three key stories.

Further Preservation of the Hoh River

The Hoh River near the park boundary.

The culmination of a decade-long struggle, some 7,000 acres of the Hoh River outside of Olympic National Park have come under the protection and oversight of the Hoh River Trust, a coalition formed by the Western Rivers Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center to preserve as much of the Hoh River watershed as possible between the beach and inland components of Olympic National Park. As Lynda Mapes writes in the April 7th edition of the Seattle Times,

The groups still are seeking to acquire lands along another prime salmon tributary of the Hoh. But the core mission of protecting large swaths of private land along the river was attained this winter, with final purchase of about 2,000 acres from the Fruit Growers Supply Co.

Preservation of the landscape, mostly former industrial timberlands, provides a critical connection between lands in the upper river and the beach already within Olympic National Park.

“The park has the high country and the beach,” said Phil Davis, executive director of the Hoh River Trust. “We are connecting the dots in between.”

We at Treehuggers International offer our congratulations to the Hoh River Trust, not only for their success in “one of the largest single conservation efforts in Washington,” but also for their determination to protect, conserve, and perhaps most importantly, restore significant stretches of the Hoh River watershed outside of public land along the river’s final march to the sea. A number of these areas were the site of major timber operations, some of which ended only a few months ago.

Mt. Si and Other DNR Lands to Remain Open

Some great reward: the view of the Snoqualmie River Valley from atop Mt. Si.

Additional, albeit temporary, good news comes in the form of trails on state Department of Natural Resources land, which will remain open after a budget compromise was reached in Olympia. A proposed cut of $278,000 to the DNR budget could have meant the closure of iconic Western Washington trails like Mt. Si and Rattlesnake Mountain, both located near North Bend on either side of the Snoqualmie River Valley. Anyone who has ever done the grueling hike up Mt. Si to enjoy the stellar view from above, perhaps even the view of Downtown Seattle from the Haystack, knows the trail is one of the busiest and most popular in the region.

The downside? The compromise only ensures the trails will remain open for another year, as official and unofficial trail maintenance falls to volunteer groups and organizations, in particular the Washington Trails Association, or WTA. Jonathan Guzzo, Advocacy Director for Washington Trails Association, wrote about the struggle to keep DNR lands open for the public in an April 13th posting on the Washington Trails Association website.

This was an uphill fight the whole way, and much of the credit is due to you. Hikers like you littered the mailboxes, inboxes and legislative hotline with compelling pleas to preserve the funding. Those who came to WTA’s Hiker Lobby Day were instrumental in raising awareness of this issue and of demonstrating that DNR lands are places that people like to hike. Thank you to all who helped make this victory possible!

But I almost hate to tell you this next thing. The restoration of recreation funding this year is only a reprieve. Once we’re done celebrating, we need to get geared up again. If we don’t find a way to provide new and sustainable funding for DNR, we’re going to find ourselves back in the same spot next year.

Further proof writing letters and stomping your feet so those in Olympia, and in the words of Harvey Manning, those in “the other Washington” can hear you, works. While not all solutions are permanent or as long-lasting as a Wilderness or National Park designation, when politicians can’t hear you, they don’t care. Build upon the little, day-to-day victories.

Removal of Elwha River Dams to Begin In 2011

The Elwha Dam in March 2007, with Lake Aldwell behind it.

A long-term solution we at Treehuggers International are particularly excited about is the impending removal of the Elwha River dams in Olympic National Park. In what will be the largest engineering undertaking in the history of the National Park Service and the largest dam removal effort ever in the U.S., the project is already serving as a precursor to the eventual removal of dams along the mighty Snake and Klamath rivers. Preliminary work on removing the Elwha River dams is due to begin next year.

The Elwha flows north out of the Olympic Mountains into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, separating the Olympic Peninsula from Vancouver Island. For centuries, through the history of the Klallam people to the arrival of the Europeans, the Elwha was one of the greatest salmon-producing rivers in North America, laying claim to Pacific salmon like coho, pink, chum, and sockeye, along with steelhead trout, cutthroat trout, and bull trout. Before the first phase of the Elwha Dam was completed in 1910, approximately 400,000 salmon returned to the river each year to spawn in over 70 miles of the Elwha and its tributaries. Pink salmon and coho were particularly robust in the river, spawning to nearly the Elwha’s headwaters in the glacial high country of the Olympic Mountains.

The Elwha Dam was originally constructed to provide cheap hydroelectricity to sawmills in Port Angeles, then busily eviscerating the pride of Olympic forests into 2 x 4s and shingles for San Francisco, which was undergoing a massive re-building effort following the 1906 earthquake and fire. Sadly, in the haste to build it, the original Elwha Dam was a comedy of colossal, ecologically-tragic errors. Littered with construction shortcuts, including an absence of fish ladders (despite a request to include them from the Washington state fish comissioner), the dam wasn’t even adequately secured to the bedrock walls of the valley with sufficient anchoring and grouting, resulting in a partial collapse of the original structure in 1912 when portions of the side and bottom of the dam were washed downstream.

The Lake Mills reservoir behind Glines Canyon Dam.

The dam as it stands today was completed in 1913, and from that moment effectively sealed off nearly 40 miles of the Elwha River and about another 30 miles of Elwha tributaries to salmon, decimating the run. Today, fewer than 4,000 salmon return to spawn in the lower seven miles of the river below the Elwha Dam.

The area around the Elwha Dam also served as the Klallam nation’s only inland village, as well as their tribal creation site, all of which wound up 90 feet underwater with the formaton of Lake Aldwell, the reservoir behind Elwha Dam.

The higher Glines Canyon Dam, also known as the Upper Elwha Dam, was completed in 1926, further sealing the fate of the native salmon and fish population. Though left outside of the original National Park boundary in 1938, a major addition to the park two years later brought the Upper Elwha and its reservoir, Lake Mills, into park service oversight, a terrible irony as Olympic National Park was intended to preserve only natural ecosystems and the natural conditions of the Olympic Peninsula.

By the time of the 1940 park expansion, the Elwha was already three decades into a murderous strangulation of the river’s native salmon, and coupled with sediment build-up behind the dams and a lack of organic material from the decomposing bodies of salmon to nourish other organisms in the river, by the early 1990s the Elwha had long been relegated to a tragic shell of its former self.

With the reality of the Elwha’s dire ecological situation, erosion of clam beds at the mouth of the Elwha, increased erosion at Port Angeles Harbor due to a lack of river-transported sediment, decreased ability of the antiquated dams to produce hydroelectricity, and ongoing concerns about construction shortcuts in the original Elwha Dam structure, Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act in 1992, beginning the process leading to the removal of the dams starting in 2011. As Les Blumenthal wrote in the April 12th edition of The Olympian,

The dams won’t be blown up, but deliberately dismantled over roughly three years so the 19 million cubic yards of silt, gravel and rock behind them can be flushed downstream gradually.

Once the dams are down, it may take 10 years to re-establish the runs. Some salmon will be flown by helicopter to the upper reaches of the Elwha watershed. The initial runs will include what native fish remain and those raised in a nearby hatchery. Eventually, the runs are expected to become wild.

Scientists say that if the salmon runs can’t be restored on the Elwha, they can’t be restored anywhere.

More than 85 percent of the river’s salmon habitat is in Olympic National Park, remote backcountry even now barely touched by humans.

While the majority of the Elwha River is preserved within Olympic National Park upriver from Glines Canyon, removing the two dams, now approaching 100 years in age, is not without some risk. The dam removal will surely, though temporarily, increase the amount of silt in the river. The volume of sediment which has collected behind the Elwha dams over the last 100 years is estimated to be about 18 million cubic yards. To head off the expected flooding and increased silt in Port Angeles and for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, a new water treatment plant has been constructed in anticipation of the soon-to-be-released Elwha.

The thought of renewing the once great salmon runs and bringing the Elwha River back to life from its ignominious slow strangulation is enticing, and cause of celebration. It won’t be long before the Elwha again flows freely into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and it’s valleys and tributaries begin the process of rehabilitation. Should the Elwha rehabilitation be a success, its easy to see how the engineering and conservation lessons learned could, in addition to the Snake and Klamath rivers, also be applied to the long-standing environmental wrong done to Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley.

How fitting then, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we look to the release of the Tuolomne River and the removal of the O’Shaughnessy Dam as a goal to build upon with the removal of the Elwha dams. For John Muir, who spent his last years fighting a brutally uphill battle for a man haf his age to keep the O’Shaughnessy Dam from being built at Hetch Hetchy, there would be no better ending or sense of justice. After all, April 22nd was selected as Earth Day in part to honor the memory of John Muir, whose birthday falls the day before, on April 21st.

We at Treehuggers International want to wish you a happy Earth Day, and thank you for your support and words of enthusiasm as we move into our fourth year. Happy Earth Day.

Summertime in the high country of the Olympic Mountains, near Hurricane Ridge.

Treehuggers International » Action

Blaming Wildfires On Environmentalists

Angry Man Blames Environmentalists for Wildfires (again)

More about this post at:

Herger Amendment Would Lift Off-Road Vehicle Restrictions In National Forests

The New Anti-Environmentalism

An Executive Order

The Great Unraveling Underway

Herger Amendment

Destructive Recreation

Political Expediency

Contact Your Senators

More about this post at:

Hope for Legacy Omnibus Public Lands Bill

The Legacy of the 111th Congress: An Election Post-Mortem

The Salazar Interior Department

Never Too Late for A Lame-Duck Public Lands Bill

Statement On the Defeat of Proposition 21

Statement On the Defeat of Proposition 21

Treehuggers International

Treehuggers International 2010 Voting Guide

By Tommy Hough

Official Treehuggers International 2010 Endorsements

California State Races

Federal Races

State Propositions

San Diego County Proposition

City of San Diego Propositions

City of Chula Vista Proposition

San Diego Unified School District Proposition

San Diego County

Local Races

Judicial

Public Schools

Community College Boards

Governor – Jerry Brown

Controller – John Chiang

Treasurer – Bill Lockyer

Attorney General – Kamala D. Harris

U.S. Representative, 49th District – Howard Katz

U.S. Representative, 50th District – Francine Busby

U.S. Representative, 51st District – Bob Filner

U.S. Representative, 52nd District – Ray Lutz

PROP. 19 – YES

PROP. 20 – NO

PROP. 21 – YES

PROP. 22 – NO

PROP. 23 - NO

PROP. 24 – YES

PROP. 25 – YES

PROP. 26 – NO

PROP. 27 – NO

Treehuggers International

Big Money and Big Oil Behind Prop. 23

Andrew Adams from the Sierra Club

Far-Reaching Effects

“Cynical” Ploy and “Self-Serving Greed”

More about this post at:

Complete List of Hands Across the Sand Coastal San Diego Events

Treehuggers International California Primary Guide

By Tommy Hough

Treehuggers International Marks Second Year As Media Sponsor for San Diego River Days

San Diego Is Named for Its River

Wild and Scenic River Designation

River Days and Riverfest

More about this post at:

Elwha Dam Removal On Track In Washington’s Olympic National Park

Further Preservation of the Hoh River

Mt. Si and Other DNR Lands to Remain Open

Removal of Elwha River Dams to Begin In 2011

More about this post at: