Bruce Bratton

Cotoni Coast Dairies BLM Land Opens to Public

The opening ceremony for public access onto the Federal Bureau of Land Management’s Cotoni Coast Dairies property was on August 15, 2025, a grim day for those who have followed this travesty, which will only worsen with the planned public access.

Building on a Tragic History

Nothing good led up to this moment. There is no one left who speaks the language of, or can show direct descendance from, the native people of this property. There are rich archeological sites illustrating that this land was settled for thousands of years. So, as with every spot in California we must see this property and how it has been and will be used as a colonialist endeavor. There is no attempt to give the land back to any coalition of First Peoples who represent those ancestors or to respect them in any way that approaches restorative justice. Oh, but there’s the name…(!)

After the genocide, the land has seen one extractive use after the next with little regard for conserving nature. The ‘Coast Dairies’ portion of the name points to cows, and cows there still are. The grazing regime has never focused on restoring the very endangered coastal prairies on the property and, even now, there is no plan to do so. This recreational use is a new, highly impactful extractive use. The property is rare for the Santa Cruz Mountains in having had very few human visitors for the last 100 years, so wildlife has been accustomed to roaming without disturbance. Cougars and badgers are especially wary of humans when setting up dens. A million visitors a year will soon be visiting and wildlife will flee.

The consortium of people responsible for so many other, better outcomes for conservation tried hard, won some concessions, but have seen great loss with how this property came to be open to the public. We tried to get anyone but the Federal Government to manage the property, but the Open Space Illuminati had other things in mind…’The Great Park’…a handful of boomers wanted their legacy in a wide swath of the area becoming a National Park. They stopped at nothing to achieve that legacy. The activists, biologists, conservationists, and regular citizens, were even sued to strike fear into them, to make them capitulate.

Money Made it Happen

The Wyss Foundation bankrolled cash-strapped ‘conservation’ organizations to create a fake grassroots campaign that culminated in Obama signing a Monument Proclamation adding 5 properties across a wide swath of coastal California to the California Coastal National Monument.

Then, the BLM routed hundreds of thousands of dollars, sole-sourcing a contract to a mountain biking advocacy organization to build the kind of trails their users wanted to see. That business quickly changed their name to a ‘trails’ organization. Instead of supporting good paying local jobs, the BLM paid this organization to rally volunteers to do the work of installing trails that were placed across a landscape without regard for the wildlife written into the President’s Proclamation for protection. When asked about how they could do such things when the property’s designation required favoring conservation over visitor use, BLM cynically snickered that the majority of the property, 51%, is set aside without public access. The rest, apparently, is a sacrifice zone.

What We Wanted and Will Pursue

Those of us who care about the native peoples, the nature of the property, and the experience of future visitors have a vision, which we will pursue despite setbacks. The land should not be Federal land – if you wonder why, you need to look at the current situation with federal lands nationwide. We always knew this, but now others are starting to understand our concerns. The current administration is selling federal land for real estate development and other extractive uses. If, after cutting the federal workforce, there are any staff remaining to manage the land at all, that will be a surprise. The Administration has said Federal lands will remain open to visitors even if there is no staffing or budgets. Oh no- could my dystopian vision for the property be closer to reality?!

If there is a chance, California should buy Cotoni Coast Dairies. Then, let’s envision taking Canada’s Indigenous Guardian’s project to this place, giving tribal people primacy in stewardship, use, and oversight. Perhaps the State could give the land back, as it has just accomplished with the Yurok.

If the property is to remain a public park with visitor access, there needs to be a radical shift in how that is approached. The regulatory designation for first managing the property for conservation needs to apply even to the areas with public access. This will require altering use patterns, even closing the trails occasionally, for the benefit of the soil, streams, wildlife and plants that Obama clearly intended to protect. There will need to be lots of monitoring and enforcement to adequately protect natural resources. The BLM will need to do a ‘carrying capacity analysis’ to determine ‘limits of acceptable change’ – thresholds that, if surpassed, trigger altered management of visitor use to bring the use into alignment with conservation.

Next Steps

It will soon be possible for visitors to monitor the situation first hand. Those of us who asked to do baseline monitoring of wildlife and plants were refused the opportunity many times. When we asked how small children and the elderly could possibly co-recreate on trails overrun by fast-moving mountain bikes, our concerns were dismissed. We will be able to help document how well BLM’s rules are working and if there is enough enforcement. We will be able to see the spread of diseases introduced by bike tires and hiking shoes ravage the amphibians, the trees, and the soil, and we will recall how BLM staff predicted those impacts in writing, with administrators choosing to ignore even the simplest measures that hundreds of other parks managers have employed to address those concerns.

-this post updated to past tense from the one posted via Bruce Bratton’s legacy site BrattonOnline.com

Right Livelihood

Picking a livelihood that helps to reduce suffering while creating a community that has access to such livelihoods are big and necessary challenges for everyone. The centrality of these goals is often overlooked. Here, I illustrate some hiccups with this process for those pursuing careers related to biology.

Biology Jobs

Bright-eyed young people gravitate towards out-of-doors careers, working with critters or plants, hoping that somehow they can help save the world by becoming experts at biology. They work hard to get biology degrees up against others who are pursuing more lucrative careers as doctors or genetic engineers. They compete for volunteer positions and internships to get hands-on experience. They go into debt to attend a Master’s degree program so that they are competitive in the marketplace of biology jobs.

A very few of these well-educated students will obtain PhDs to become research biologists or even professors. There are fewer and fewer of these jobs however, and most realize that this is hopeless unless they compete to be affiliated with the very best University faculty and labs as doctoral candidates.

Most budding biologists discover that the most available and well-paying jobs are as biological consultants. Most have loans to pay and families to raise, and that is the easiest way forward. But some can’t stomach being biological consultants (more on that later) or just never seem to be competitive in the application pool. These folks settle for jobs with government agencies such as public parks (BLM, State, City, or County Parks), regulatory and planning agencies (state or federal wildlife agencies, water districts), or advisory agencies (US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Resource Conservation Districts).

Teaching and Research

How well does teaching and research mesh with ‘right livelihood?’ I will paraphrase Thich Nhat Hahn with this example. I teach biology and conservation to many students, but some of those students will get jobs in biology just to make money which will enable them to raise children who likewise have no ethical appreciation for conservation of life on earth. I already benefit from those students’ contribution to the economy, and their unethical children will likely pay for my social security.

Does that mean I shouldn’t teach and research about conservation? No. What it means is that I need to consider these outcomes of my work and seek to improve my approaches to conservation. I also realize the need to improve my community, so that the biological careers that are available to the students I teach are more ethical, so even those who enter those fields ‘for the money’ can do less harm.

Agency Biologists

It is nearly impossible for biologists working for public agencies to practice excellent biology for conservation. At best, they might incrementally reduce harm to nature, but more likely they are enabling harm to nature by helping to ‘cover’ for the other, more politically supported mandates of the agencies. For instance, the tidal wave of outside influence on parks by well-funded groups such as the Outdoor Industry Association has created a situation where parks agency biologists’ opinions are marginalized, and they are not allowed to insert any meaningful biological protective language into parks planning which is mostly about expanding extractive recreational uses for public lands (for instance, for BLM see this and for State Parks this). Instead, as you will see when following those previous links, they are asked to rationalize imbalanced planning approaches that will cause environmental degradation. When such approaches from agencies are challenged in court, there is a long legal history of courts siding on behalf of the agencies. I need to do another column on the bad news that happens when courts are asked to decide on biological matters: the quote that comes to mind is ‘if a scientist testifies to affirm it in the courtroom, a pig can fly.’

Consulting Biologists

Another career choice that biologists might make – and the most profitable by far – is biological consulting. Biological consulting is an area of the economy that has mostly been made feasible through regulations designed to protect the environment. Some consultants make a living helping public agencies that don’t have in-house biologists, often falling into the same pitfalls as outlined in the prior section. These and other for-hire biological consultants have a variety of approaches to helping their clients navigate environmental protection regulations. There is a spectrum of such approaches, and at the far end of the spectrum there are what a mentor of mine called ‘biostitutes’ – biologists who are in the business of ruining the earth for personal gain.

Biostitutes

During my 35 years of watching environmental discourses play out across the Central Coast, I have seen quite a few biostitutes profiting from environmental destruction, but their numbers are diminishing for a variety of reasons. One tactic I’ve witnessed is when otherwise well educated biostitutes claim over and over again not to understand clearly written, required monitoring guidelines: instead they create very poorly executed reports using poorly collected monitoring data in order to reduce costs for their clients. And, I’ve witnessed biostitutes misrepresent the extent of endangered, legally protected habitats by inventing their own, biased methodology of vegetation classification. In many of my experiences it has been a commonplace practice for biostitutes to, without any evidence whatsoever, claim that it is feasible to restore new areas of habitat or rare species to demonstrate to environmental regulators that there is ‘no impact’ of their clients’ proposals to destroy habitat or rare species populations. It is amazing to me that these people keep getting employed, but they do…why?

The Politics of Biology

It is my contention that biostitutes and other less blatantly unethical career biologists keep earning their livings because of their expertise in navigating interpersonal political bond formation. Subtly or not so subtly, a biologist can signal their willingness to be helpful to clients with what they would call ‘biology problems.’ Be it a subdivision developer, a parks manager, or a public works director, there will inevitably be environmental protections to integrate as part of getting projects done. The biologist is faced with the dilemma of either telling their clients (or their bosses) that there is ‘serious work’ that needs to be done to avoid biological impacts or, on the other hand, that such impacts are normal, inevitable and relatively easy to justify or repair. In the case of the biostitutes I’ve seen, there’s also often the formation of chummy comradery via framing a polar world of ‘us’ (the world-improvers) vs ‘them’ (the regulators). This situation is particularly weird as the regulators easily recognize this framing, and so clients of such biostitutes end up paying a lot more money than if they had been advised by biologists with collegial working relationships with regulators.

The easiest way to identify a potential biostitute is to ask them to provide evidence of where they have succeeded with environmental protection measures. Go to those places with an expert, and you’ll either not be able to find anything or be led to something less than success.

Learning and Growing

Those with the more collegial approaches to ‘biology problems’ are seeking the path of right livelihood. They serve as educators to both the regulators as well as those who are navigating the regulations. This approach helps the regulators learn and improve environmental protection while also helping push practitioners to be more environmentally sound. These ‘learning and growing’ biologists keep up on the science, are great communicators of science, and have a track record of succeeding with well-informed environmental protection outcomes. They will be proud to show you where they have succeeded, where they are learning, and where they look for evidence of moving in the right direction for environmental protection.

Aren’t these examples with right livelihood in biology interesting to apply across the spectrum of other jobs? I hope that you will now more easily identify the right livelihoods around you and work to make it possible to have more of these options in our community.

-this article is slightly modified from the one originally posted by Bruce Bratton at his BrattonOnline.com blog

Cotoni Coast Dairies, 2064: A Dystopia

I invite you to immerse yourself for a few moments into my nightmare of the future of Santa Cruz’ North Coast. How will Cotoni Coast Dairies fare in the future, for instance in 2064? During the past year, many things have aligned to push my nightmare closer to reality. Note, this essay is the opposite view of my prior utopian sketch published here.

Wilder Ranch 2064
State Parks held off the Populists for a while, but California relented

The Recipe

Extreme factions of the far right have expertly wrangled a successful populist movement, gaining control of all three branches of the US government. Swiftly, we see dismantling of conservation including parklands staff and environmental protections for wildlife, clean water, and clean air. We recall Brazil’s Bolsonaro regime and their treatment of the precious natural areas of the Amazon and its inhabitants: park boundaries ignored and rapacious resource development encouraged, including illegal settlements. This story has been repeated in many places around the world as populist national political interests are imposed. These trends repeat: abandoning local interests with the establishment of the parks at the outset and continuing alienation of local people post parks development. As ecologists and conservationist Dan Janzen has wisely noted, it is important that the most local people see their own interests reflected in conservation lands, so that they will play an active role in protecting those lands.

What’s Coming

It is 2064, the 50^th anniversary of Cotoni Coast Dairies becoming public land, and none of the hundreds of shanty inhabitants living on the property are reminded of the significance of this milestone. Parking areas and trails, once developed for the recreational elite, are covered with trash and lean-to cardboard and tin shelters, which started during the Hard Times of the 2030’s. Presidential Administrations have opened most federal lands, especially Bureau of Land Management lands, to settlement, promising to alleviate housing shortages. Millions had been displaced by extreme heat and epic storms, driven by climate change in the quickly uninhabitable interior USA. The squalor of the hastily erected federal land climate refugee camps contrasts only slightly to those on the nearby State Parks lands, which were opened by the Governor a little later and had ad hoc administrators that attempted (at first) to organize them.

Missing Wildlife

By 2050, wildlife on the North Coast existed only as a fond memory of most settlers, who longed for the first decades of feasting on their tasty flesh. Even the smallest birds have succumbed to cooking fires, and the land is silent, without bird song. Tide pools have been scraped clean of limpets and mussels and people comb post-storm beaches for kelp and other marine vegetables, otherwise out of reach from harvest.

Cotoni Coast Dairies 2064: “House Everyone!!” The President cried, and BLM was the first to comply

Wildfire

Fires have become tamer after the raging infernos of the 20’s and 30’s consumed the last of the mature trees and, eventually, even their memories…the blackened snags and stumps. Storms come almost every summer, and it is rare that lightning fails to ignite a hundred fires between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay. These run quickly across the mountains in the regularly howling winds, consuming whatever diminutive weeds survive. Hundreds of people succumb to wind-driven infernos, but more replace them. As bad as it seems, there is no better place remaining: the seasons are still relatively mild compared to anywhere else in the country.

The Water

The much-feared Water Guard and their families are the richest among the abject poor, for the cost of this scarce commodity cannot be avoided. They maintain and guard impoundments in the few streams that still provide water: Waddell, Scott, San Vicente, and Laguna Creeks. The other streams disappeared by 2050, now only scorched, mud-filled, lifeless canyons. The dams in the remaining creeks are maintained at high cost and much labor. Deluges are followed by flash floods carrying boulders, silt and debris that easily fill the tiny reservoirs. The stronger people earn water credit in trade for their labor rebuilding the dams, cleaning out storage pools, and replacing distribution pipes leading to water sales locations. Others earn their water by guarding this system day and night, sometimes with their lives. Water is life!

The Realization of This Nightmare

This dystopia is closer than most realize. It is a choice. It is everyone’s choice to avoid, but no one chooses the leadership necessary to do so. Instead, we keep electing representatives to take the place of the parents we wish we had had. Mother and daddy know best, we just want to be told to hush and to trust and that everything will be okay, but it never works out that way.

The pathway to this nightmare has been paved in so many ways. The back-room-deal-type Environmental Saviors responsible for the federal presence, for the Bureau of Land Management (of all agencies!) takeover of Cotoni Coast Dairies not that long ago fought local conservationists in court and won, then counter-sued the conservationists for their expenses. Those types are still working behind the scenes to make this deal seem palatable and good by succoring wealthy outdoor recreation types and funding their trail-building enablers. They have long abandoned partnerships with local community interests and even the more wide-ranging and very popular wildlife conservation movement. Alienation of those interests leaves the door wide open for the populists to overrun these lands which they portray as empty, pretty landscapes ready for settlement. It has always been so.

What You Can Do

The frustration we feel at the trends we have seen too late emerging can be put to good use. We can give money to the Center for Biological Diversity, a last bastion effectively using the legal system to protect wildlife, even around the Monterey Bay. We can vote for different representatives who primarily recognize the importance of the environment and the need to engage, enlighten, and empower those people who care about nature, which is everyone. We can speak up against the local lack of justice. We have more influence in local politics than national: this is the place we create the political movements that make a difference. This is the place we nurture the leaders of tomorrow’s State and Federal governments.

-this essay originally appeared alongside those of my Most Excellent Colleagues at BrattonOnline, a weekly e-newsletter covering the arts, history, ecology, politics, foreign affairs, and more.

Autocracy Continues to Build

I have long labored in this column to outline the frustrating situation all biologists feel in this world as our interests are destroyed by increasingly autocratic tendencies of the government. And no, I have never been partisan about this situation. Both parties are to blame in creating the country we find ourselves in right now, facing a perilous future where generations will not only not be able to enjoy the standards of living we do today but will suffer to keep a standard of living with any comfort at all.

Will we see lush cover crops and small farms in the future USA?

I am not surprised, however, to find many people freaking out about a government bent on destroying social programs. After all, many voters have long been fed a thin gruel diet of small social program ‘wins,’ so that they will overlook that their future is being stolen by the 1% who are paying for both political parties, allowing them to extract wealth and power by destroying Life on Earth.

Tinkering Around the Edges

I was recently listening to the Bay Area’s own brilliant journalist Kara Swisher interviewing Rahm Emanuel, a person who seems like a reliable voice of mainstream Democratic politics. Ms. Swisher pressed Mr. Emanuel on what the Dems should do at this juncture, and his responses were along the lines of ‘messaging the voters’…’adopting a new platform or two’…etc. There was zero reflection about the way politics is using people to enrich the 1% while destroying the environment and no reflection on how to engage and involve citizens in their own governance.

All Politics Is Local

National government tactics are repeated here in California and all around the Monterey Bay. If you think that the current use of Executive Orders is unusual, check out the far-reaching litany of executive orders from California’s governor, who is proud to reduce environmental protections as part of these moves, none of which is primarily directed at environmental conservation.

In Santa Cruz, I see politicians and government staff baselessly blaming and attacking people who are trying to protect the environment, including other columnists who write for Bratton Online. These local politicians and staff have long supported the roughshod environmental analysis of many projects before them as long as the project serves some social good and/or is economically attractive. For instance, many pointed out the inadequacy of the Regional Transportation Commission’s analysis on the estimated numbers of tourists attracted by the new North Coast Rail Trail, but politicians didn’t care enough to direct better work. I have witnessed this same political hunger for other projects that badly impact the environment at Arana Gulch (recreational development), Pogonip (recreation and agricultural developments), Glenwood (housing and school development), Santa’s Village (housing development), Seascape (housing development), Wilder Ranch (recreational development), UCSC (housing development), Terrace Point (educational buildings), Nisene Marks (recreational development), Cotoni Coast Dairies (tourism development), and Neary Lagoon (transportation development).

Up Close and Personal

I have had occasion to be privy to the autocratic decision making that creates the results where the environment, and conservationists, end up losing and here’s how it goes. First, someone who wants to develop and negatively impact nature works with an expert at navigating the review process so that they get just what they want. Second, once they have a plan for meeting regulatory demands (aka “jumping through the hoops”), they meet with one or two of the politicians whose vote they’ll need. Then, they make a deal of some sort to guarantee the votes. Then, the person proposing negatively impacting the environment meets with the bureaucrats who also get calls from the politician, and then they, too, make a deal. Finally, after everyone’s approval to the plans and approach, the project proponent goes through the motions of a public process, taking and ignoring input and moving forward with what they wanted to do in the first place. When pressed about why not do a more authentic public process, anyone that was part of those deals will tell you, “why bother?”…”it just makes more trouble”…”we know best and came up with the best solution.”

Do those trends sound familiar at a national level right now? We have far more potential to affect political change closer to home than further away.

Why Aren’t the Dems Fighting?

Some people who are concerned about the Administration’s actions nowadays ask ‘why aren’t the Democrats fighting?’ The answer is that everyone in power is in awe of what they, too, might get away with one day. Plus, some of what is being highlighted as shocking power grabbing is the same stuff that all politicians have been doing for some time now, but perhaps less bombastically.

During the first round of this administration, there was a surprising assertion that we were suddenly going to war with Iran, a country with about the same number of military as the USA. NPR picked one of their preferred retired generals to interview about the wisdom of this decision and that general said that he could not condone the action because ‘Americans have not been prepared for this war.’ That is, the military demands that politicians prepare citizens for war, presumably so that the funding will keep flowing to support the war effort once it is started.

I believe it has become equally normalized that it is the politicians’ job, in working for their biggest donors, to keep citizens constantly prepared for environmental degradation. And, it is my experience that the staff people of governmental agencies look at legally mandated disclosure and environmental review interactions with citizens as a burden and a waste with no chance of improving the agency’s work and better protecting the environment.

Is It Any Surprise?

Given what I’ve just outlined, I am not surprised by what I’m witnessing at a national level. As a nation, we have prepared ourselves well for this situation to work out excellently for the 1%. I am not happy that many more people get to experience the exasperation that conservationists have been feeling for decades, but so it goes. Perhaps this is the best chance we have had to start working together.

How can we organize an alternative in local politics where the people are prepared for a Monterey Bay that is protected by its citizens for the next 1,000 years? The answer lies with more permanence of residency, sustainable and vibrant economies, and removal of any environmental impacts of growth, but those things are at odds with our current societal structure. And yet, these things (and more) are sorely needed. If we can make it work here, the goodness will spread. It starts with developing leadership and engaging many more people. You’re right there with us, right now.

-this essay originally posted at BrattonOnline, a weekly roundup of all thing local and sometimes global affecting the Monterey Bay. Read it and keep in touch!

Trails Through the Woods

What could possibly be wrong with trails through the woods? Ad hoc, unsanctioned, illegal, illicit, unapproved…choose your adjective to precede the ‘trails through the woods’ phrase and then ask ‘what could possibly be wrong with unsanctioned trails through the woods?’ While we’re at it, let’s ask the question, ‘what type of person would build and maintain unsanctioned trails through the woods?’ Let’s hypothesize for a moment.

Law Abiding Citizen

There’s a lot going on in our nation with people’s attitudes about abiding by laws. Some people are as apt to decry a convicted felon in the White House as they are to cite the horrors of the justice system, saying it is utterly failing most of the poor souls who face the courts. How does that work, logically? I’m not sure it does. But, are we saying at the same time that we should question the laws, as well? Has ‘law abiding citizen’ become an anachronism or just plain laughable? Or, maybe our culture has become accepting of individual interpretation of laws, but not in all cases. For instance, who in their right minds would support widespread law breaking with hit and run drivers, armed robbery, or homicide? But, say how about the lesser offences of shoplifting, forgery, assault, or libel? Are we getting to your more acceptable level of crimes, yet? How about….driving 20 mph over the speed limit, selling alcohol to minors, extortion, or petty theft? And then, somewhere down the line you encounter the laws against damaging public property, trespass, entering closed areas of public land, visiting public parks when they are closed, and violating federal and state clean water laws or endangered species regulations. How are we feeling about the types of citizens who break those laws? Are we giving them a pass? Someone is. A lot of people are. Hundreds and hundreds of people in our community have decided that the criminals committing that last litany of crimes are ‘okay people’ undeserving of one iota of investigation that might result in at most a warning, and almost never prosecution.

Anarchists I know would scoff at the legal argument here. Many who know how broken the justice system is would also shrug off the legal arguments, as well, understanding that without justice there can be no reasonable pursuit of legal matters. So, perhaps we must turn to ethics to examine the truer nature of those who would participate in unsanctioned trail building and maintenance.

A Matter of Ethics

Should we consider the consequences of illegal trail building? Or, is it enough to ask if rogue trail building is good? Is building an unsanctioned trail in and of itself causing harm to other people? Is maintaining a rogue trail respectful of all people? These are the types of questions one must ask in seeking answers outside of legal context. As I have posed these questions over the years, the most common answer is “I don’t know.” So, we must ask another question of morality: is it unethical for an illicit trail builder to create new trails if they are ignorant of the consequences or context of their actions?

Consequences, Respect

The consequences of constructing and/or maintaining rogue trails are well known, or at least readily available. The most glaring impact of rogue trails is on wildlife. Conservation lands managers have a difficult time providing for some trail access while also conserving wildlife: the two goals are mutually exclusive. Park users disturb wildlife, so one must plan around that to have healthy wildlife populations. Trails constructed outside of that planning process scuttle attempts at nature conservation.

And so, rogue trail builders either have contempt for parks managers’ planning processes or do not care about wildlife or both.

The same sets of arguments also apply to conservation of flora, fungi, soil, and clean water.

And again, it would stand to reason that those who construct illegal trails have contempt for park oversight personnel’s work/expertise and also do not care about conserving native plants or mushrooms and don’t care if soil erodes, that we have clean running streams, or that natural areas provide for drinking water.

Let’s extend these logical frameworks to the element of respect. Morals often refer to respecting others: their lives, their pursuits, safety, happiness, etc. All groups with which I have interacted in the past few decades readily recognize that humans need all species to continue existing for our own survival. And so, those who create and maintain unsanctioned trails score quite low on the ‘respect others’ morality scale with that first test. The majority of USA citizens support wildlife conservation; second test strikes against those who would build trails without the careful planning that parks managers use to weigh the pros and cons of new trails. We could go on…

In Sum

In kind words, how would you summarize the findings above to describe those people who make it a habit to create, or maintain, unsanctioned trails? Excluding nihilism, one would need to start with the term ‘criminal,’ but that would not be enough. The word ‘selfish’ sounds unkind, eh? And, even so, just ‘criminal, selfish…’ lacks something.

Most of the social circles with which I have discourse include short hand lines of reference to describe types of people who love fun just a little too much. You know, when fun overrides respect for others? The term ‘fun-loving’ falls short of describing the types of people referenced in these conversations; the people being referenced generally have problems, which is why they are being discussed. Such conversations generally end in head shaking…no great solutions…sighs and ‘I hope they figure it out….’ or ‘maybe so-and-so (someone possibly close to them) can have a chat with them.’ I think we are getting closer to understanding the types of people we are dealing with.

Next time you take a walk in nature, watch for the many trails veering from the signed, sanctioned one you are hiking. Ask yourself how much traffic that trail must get to be so well rutted and then think about how far that trail must travel, how much work it takes to chainsaw (at night) those trails open after trees fall. What a massive effort by _______ types of people (fill in the blank)! Think about the conversations they must have with one another and their networks… and how that is influencing the goodness of our community.

– this post originally published in the weekly e-news for the Monterey Bay, BrattonOnline – if you don’t already know it, now’s a good time to subscribe.

Living by Principles

What comes to mind when you hear someone say something like, “She is a principled person?” If you trust the source of the statement, perhaps you will think more highly of the person being referenced, which is curious because you don’t have any idea of the nature of her principles. Perhaps merely having principles and acting upon them makes you more predictable, and that predictability is an asset. It seems that this might be a good time to reflect on principle-based living.

Social Principles

I posit that most religions are based on social principles of great value. Kindness, fairness, gratitude, generosity, and attentiveness are some such principles, stated positively. Some principles are stated in the negative such as “evil” including murder, greed, vengeance, gluttony, etc. It is a mystery to me that discussion of such principles is not the primary driver of political discourse. Perhaps we get confused when juxtaposing wealth redistribution as both generous (to the poor) and greedy (against the rich)? Or, maybe we wonder if it might or might not be kind to murder someone for heinous crimes? These are heady questions.

On a national level, we might feel ready to label presidents, members of the house and senate, or even Supreme Court officials as ‘principled’ or ‘unprincipled,’ but how would we take such labels to more definition? What precise principles would you suggest your favorite national politician has had or has lacked? So much media hype focuses on either fallabilities or exhilarating roaring successes of our so-called ‘leaders,’ and yet that question may be difficult to answer. I challenge you to try.

I suggest that everyone has some familiarity with social principles and that most people, if asked, would be able to speak to their personal framework. However, beyond that, I wonder how much people are guided by principles for their work, their homes, or their relationship with the environment.

While I challenge everyone to think about what principles they operate on at the workplace or in their homes, I am more interested here in elaborating on some environmental principles that you might consider.

Ecological Principles

There are principles that could guide humans in better forming their relationship with the environment, creating increased benefit for future generations. The root of all evil is said to be greed, and what better test of an environmental principle than just that – greed?

One of the key attributes of greed is to seek only to take, without giving. For thousands of years, indigenous peoples understood that humans should be very mindful about what they took from nature, and also they should give back. Frugality is a central principle for humans’ relationship with the environment. The less stuff we buy, the more pro-environmental we are. Last I checked, it cost a liter of crude oil every time a dollar was exchanged.

Giving Back to Nature

What is ‘giving back’ to nature? An indigenous person asked our community once why we were burning our prairies without seeding after the fire. Perhaps that is one way of giving back. We still aren’t doing that. Another way to give back would be to control the invasive plants and animals that are so terribly affecting nature. Please write to me if you can think of any other ways that Monterey Bay residents might give back to nature.

Energy Expenditure Principle

The way we create energy makes a difference and serves as a ripe area for environmental principle formation. Is the principle to create the most energy from the least impactful source? If so, how are we getting reports on how we might help?

The havoc being wrought by climate change has convinced many to be more mindful about what we take from nature, but most people have a very shallow understanding about that. Burning fewer fossil fuels is a Big Problem for life on Earth, but I hear very little about the impacts of alternate energy solutions on nature. Nuclear energy has a great environmental impact not normally described, same with solar panel production and concrete/steel installations for the bases of wind turbines. We might all benefit from getting more information about trade offs for various types of energy production. That way, we can shape our political or consumer voices to help create the best solutions. Plus, what are we hearing about using less energy, altogether? Long gone are the energy saving public service announcements of the now-lauded Jimmy Carter years.

Species Conservation Principle

Fossil-fuel burning-caused climate change is the number one threat to the environment, but there are other threats, and the core concern I believe we should have is about species conservation. I suggest that we should weigh human decisions on how well we can guarantee that all species continue to thrive. I have yet to speak with anyone that discounts this principle’s importance, but I have also seen many decisions made with too little information to adequately assess this principle. How is a regular person to evaluate whether or not a decision favorably affects species conservation? Luckily, we have public disclosure laws and people considering impacting the environment are required to analyze and disclose impacts on species. So, one would expect things like disclosure of species that might be impacted and how the impacts would affect their future chances of survival under the varied alternatives project proponents are required to analyze. If you don’t see such analysis, you should be careful about supporting such proposals.

For further thought on this, consider author Gregory David Roberts’ assertion in the novel Shantaram of the principle of complexity conservation. He would say that we should weigh the good of an action on whether it creates more or less complexity in the future…more complexity is the goal.

Go ahead- try using these pro-environmental principles or come up with your own! Let me know how it goes.

This article originally posted at BrattonOnline– try it, it’s FREE! Plus, very smart people contribute important news there- please do check it out and keep checking back, for substantive, real news.

First Bloom, Maritime Chaparral

The ridgeline expanse of chaparral lay dormant, wafting resinous scents, clicking and crackling as the morning sun’s first rays dried the maroon, shredding bark strands which hang peeling from the skin-smooth twisty manzanita trunks. Through the late summer and fall, each day brought the same routine, sometimes hotter days, sometimes nights bringing fog, dripping and awakening lichen which festoon branches and carpet the ground, nestled into lichens and patches of rabbit poop. Then, the rain came, soaking the rocky ground. Now, months later, maritime chaparral awakens with its first bloom.

Recently, on an early morning drive to the trailhead we encountered huge white, slippery frost patches along the spine of Ben Lomond Mountain where Empire Grade bisects high chaparral, towering oak forest, and miles of burned conifer trunks. We were off to Big Basin not for lingering in the recovering redwood forest as much as to spend time in the warmth of chaparral. Once on the trail, my cheeks and nose were numb with cold, as we descended from magnificent wet old growth forest onto drier rocky ocean view ridges with a different type of snow…petalfall.

The 3 types of manzanitas at Big Basin and Butano State Park have already been blooming since December. The best show is from a shrub that only grows in the southern part of the Santa Cruz mountains, but there are two other species of manzanita also flowering. The woodland edge manzanita, a species that can get 20’ tall, is aptly called Santa Cruz manzanita; it gets large clusters of obviously pinkish flowers. Glossy leaf manzanita with its small dark green boxwood-like leaves form the neatest of dense bushes with tiny white flowers. Giant woody burls of brittle leaf manzanita send out much less organized clusters of trunks, intertwining with other shrubs to add to the branchy complexity of impenetrable scrubland. In the chill shade below manzanita bush canopies, a carpet of white…the snow of spent blossoms covers moss mats and gravelly barrens.

More Unfolding

The manzanitas are first, but other chaparral shrubs are also awakening. We saw the first dusty, dark blue flower clusters of the pine-scented, warty-leaved wild lilac. Milk maid’s simple four petaled flowers adorned the trailsides where we walked along with the very first boisterous redwood sorrel blossoms emerging from a lush carpet of shamrock leaves. I look forward to hiking in chaparral in a month or so, when there will be an even more impressive profusion of flowers.

Next: Flowering Hillsides

We will soon encounter the 5th spring after the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire, and the burned hillsides promise a Big Show. First up in the pageant: blue blossom, or wild lilac. They have just begun, but in 6 weeks there will be thousands of acres of sky blue flowers covering 10’ tall glossy leaved shrub-trees. Fire-following bush poppies are next, in June: 2” wide, cheery yellow flowers smiling from the startling silvery blue-green canopies of six foot tall leggy shrubs. Magenta flowering and very poky chaparral pea, twisty white flowers of twining wild morning glory, and white spikes of chamise. For more than half the year, maritime chaparral is a colorful show with patches of yellows, splashes of blue, rafts of white and pink, and dots of red set in cushions of diverse blue-green mounds of shrubs, sometimes towered over by occasional pines or redwoods.

Misplaced Scorn, Not Enough Love

These shrubby ecosystems are being disrespected (again) right now, but we should show them more love. News and talk shows about the fires in southern California frequently include scorn of the shrubby landscape which carries fire so fiercely. ‘Control that vegetation!’ some say. ‘Cut down those shrubs!’ others exclaim. At the top of Loma Prieta, cell phone tower owners mow down many acres of the most beautiful chaparral. Even local parks have started destroying chaparral along trails and fire roads. Few note that no matter how much energy you put into messing up that habitat, what comes up will still be flammable, and probably badly so.

On the other hand, chaparral blankets and protects the poorest of soils allowing rain to replenish the groundwater. In places where humans have tried hard to convert chaparral to something else, they manage to create a terrible weedy patch – fine fuels that carry fire fast. And, in those places, the hillsides give way in heavy rains and fill streams with sediment, creating flooding and debris flow problems. Where these amazingly drought tolerant chaparral shrubs are given a chance, they hold incredibly steep poor soils in place allowing rainfall to soak in without landslides.

Now, Go!

If you can find some time to spend with chaparral, try taking a few trips to the same place in the next few months to watch the flower display change and unfold. Those ridges in Butano and Big Basin State Parks are great chaparral displays. Summit Road near Loma Prieta is also quite nice. Despite fuels management and long intervals without fire, some patches of chaparral persist in Wilder Ranch and in/around Nisene Marks, both State Parks. Montara Mountain in San Mateo County is my favorite chaparral trekking location…amazing views, too.

When you go to these places, here are some questions for the trip:

How many Ceanothus, aka blue blossom or wild lilac, do you see? Is there variation in flower color? What’s your favorite?
What kind of rock is the chaparral anchored into? Do you see any soil? How do these shrubs get water?
How long has it been since there was a fire in that patch of chaparral? Is there a lot of dead fuel build up? Are there young or old pines, which might indicate how old the stand is?
Is the chaparral well managed by people? Are invasive plants under control or spreading? Are the roads and trails eroding or well maintained? Are the nearby houses, power lines, and roads sensitively integrated into the system?

After your return from your chaparral tour, please keep this conversation alive. Talk to your friends and family about chaparral. Read more about it. Vote as if chaparral mattered: political candidates should have opinions about how to protect rare habitats given the constant onslaught of poor human behavior.

This column originally published as part of BrattonOnline, a weekly news publication to keep our community informed about pressing matters at home and abroad – check it out! Subscribe! READ!

Cattle Grazing on Public Lands

A recent negotiated settlement at Point Reyes National Seashore is the latest example of how controversy over cattle grazing on public land gets resolved. The polarity is typical. On one ‘side’ are ranchers, their families and workers, and the broad community that supports family farms, local agriculture, and organic or nowadays regenerative agriculture. On the other ‘side’ are environmentalists, pro-species, pro-clean water, pro-wildlife, and anti-livestock where there’s profit on public lands. The battle at Point Reyes is just one in this war across the U.S. West, and it has been going on for decades. At least at Point Reyes, the two sides don’t neatly align in the expected ways between the two mainstream political parties. Why did it get so bad at Point Reyes that legal action and tens of millions of dollars were needed to settle the issues? Could this kind of thing occur on public lands closer to the Monterey Bay? Let’s look closer to see.

The Vast Gulf

Conflicts with recreation, water quality concerns, and impacts on native plant and wildlife species are the issues most commonly raised when there are concerns about cattle grazing on public land. And, there is good science to support the value of carefully planned cattle grazing to reduce wildfire impacts while promoting native plant and wildlife conservation. In addition to these types of issues, there are pro- and anti- cattle advocates out there, on one hand in support of agriculture or cute critters for children to adore; and, on the other hand, wanting only native animals on the land or against meat eating, methane producing, and otherwise cruel corporate cattle corporations.

Radical Center

There are many of us who are experiencing the beauty of collaboration between livestock managers and conservationists: we are achieving more emergent success than anyone thought possible 30 years ago. Chief among these collaborative networks’ concerns has been development and sprawl…greed that replaces private ranches with housing tracks and shopping malls. In California, we also have shared concerns about the vitality of ranching economics, water provision, wildlife conservation, and catastrophic wildfire. Each of these issues has seen progress because a respectful, trusting network keeps showing up and working together. It takes everyone who has an interest in land management to create innovative solutions: ranchers, conservationists, researchers, land managers, regulatory agencies, community members, resource advisors and consultants, and planners. But, each of these groups has unique interests, different languages, different cultures. We get past these differences by gathering together and learning from one another in well planned, moderated dialogues. The Quivira Coalition is the first group I know to start these discussions, and many followed. The Central Coast Rangeland Coalition (CCRC) is working on this stuff locally, and is celebrating its 20^th Anniversary in 2025. I copy here the pledge from the Quivira Coalitions website (link above), a pledge that mirrors the work of other groups like the CCRC:

“We pledge our efforts to form the `Radical Center’ where:

The ranching community accepts and aspires to a progressively higher standard of environmental performance;
The environmental community resolves to work constructively with the people who occupy and use the lands it would protect;
The personnel of federal and state land management agencies focus not on the defense of procedure but on the production of tangible results;
The research community strives to make their work more relevant to broader constituencies;
The land grant colleges return to their original charters, conducting and disseminating information in ways that benefit local landscapes and the communities that depend on them;
The consumer buys food that strengthens the bond between their own health and the health of the land;
The public recognizes and rewards those who maintain and improve the health of all land; and
All participants learn better how to share both authority and responsibility.”

Who is Showing Up, Who is Not

Where do you see cows on public land; how is it working; how do you know? There are cattle grazing on Midpeninsula Open Space, Santa Clara Open Space, State Parks (Pacheco State Park), BLM (Ft. Ord, Cotoni Coast Dairies), POST, and on City of Santa Cruz (Moore Creek, Arana Gulch). Of these, MidPen, POST, and Santa Clara regularly show up to work with the CCRC. I believe that these are the organizations that are most apt to succeed and least likely to end up in the terrible situations that Point Reyes has been experiencing. Why do some show up and not others? I suggest that the third bullet is as important as the next-to-last. It takes the oversight agency’s interest in results as well as the public’s engagement to nudge public land managers to the table.

My Experience at Point Reyes

I am an unabashed native plant conservationist, have researched and visited coastal prairie habitat at Point Reyes for many years, and I have NOT been impressed. Two of the science papers that got me started on my doctoral research were from Point Reyes. One told the story of a rare wildflower that was protected to death when cattle grazing was removed from its wetland habitat. The other illustrated how another rare wildflower thrived because of an appropriate cattle grazing regime. I consequently surveyed across fencelines at Point Reyes and found native annual wildflowers to be more diverse and abundant on the cattle grazed side of the fence, as opposed to the side where grazing had been excluded. In fact, I found the very rare San Francisco Owl’s clover in abundance in the areas with, and not so much without, cattle grazing. I have subsequently made many returns to Point Reyes to learn about what is going on. During one field trip, I found out that the cattle ranchers and park managers had only the most rudimentary ability to discuss a topic that had long been a priority, common interest: the encroachment of brush onto coastal prairies. During another excursion to explore the health of the very endangered Point Reyes Horkelia, park employees indicated that not only did they not have any data to share about the health of this species, but also that I was not permitted to monitor the species without extensive paperwork, even in areas open and easily accessible to the public (see bullet point above, re: defense of procedure vs. production of results). Nevertheless, I found that the cattle grazing regime had hammered nearly to obliteration this rare species whereas adjoining cattle excluded areas still had a few individuals which were on the verge of being obliterated by weeds, especially iceplant, a species that is relatively easy to eradicate in such instances where it is a local threat to an endangered species. I’m sure that the cattle rancher had no idea about rare species and I’m sure that the Park employees had never considered talking to the rancher about its conservation. In my experience, such communication is essential to improved success.

Where From Here?

Reflecting on my experience at Point Reyes, I am unsurprised about the recent outcome, but I am undeterred to keep helping the Central Coast Rangeland Coalition avoid such unproductive mayhem wherever possible. I challenge the Bureau of Land Management, State Parks, the City of Santa Cruz, and all other land stewardship entities to take the above pledge, joining constructive dialogues that demonstrate success at taking care of our lands. And, I challenge everyone else who is reading this to take the portion of the pledge that applies to you. I especially challenge the “Conservation Architects” (you know who you are)…including those who think highly of the concept of a “Great Park” designed to encompass most of the Santa Cruz Mountains…to now doubly consider what kind of baby-sitting federal agencies need to achieve conservation success. Together, we can make a difference. But, we need the principles of Radical Center-based collaboration (as articulated above) to take root in all places before we will see the harvests we so desperately need.

-this article originally published as part of the ongoing BrattonOnline news service, covering the Monterey Bay and Beyond. Subscribe and win!

What’s In the Air?

Have you heard the question “What’s in the water?” I’ve encountered that question recently posed in the context of a situation when odd, inexplicable things had been happening at an organization. Then, new, seemingly fresh and rational personnel are hired, but those people quickly seem just as odd and inexplicable, less fresh and innovative and then things just stay the same kind of weird. How can that possibly happen?! And we exclaim, “What’s in the water?” It’s as if people are being medicated through their drinking water into a kind of sub-par state of being. “They drank the Kool-Aid” is another way of saying that same thing, I guess, except less innocuously referencing a terrible tragedy in South America some time ago. Judging by the amount of filtered water, bottled water, and such that people purchase, it does seem as if we are very, very concerned about what is in our water. What about the air? What’s in our air?

The Direction of the Wind

In my daily routine, each time I walk outside I try to pay attention to the wind. Which way is the wind headed? I feel the breeze on my skin or watch the swaying of the grass and trees. I tilt my body until I face straight into it, to know best the precise direction. Ialso ask how is the wind blowing right where I am versus farther away? Sometimes the wind is gentle close but raging nearby, on higher ground, where trees ‘talk’ and sway.

The directions of the wind can be predictable, but it is becoming less so. Winds around the Monterey Bay are often from the north or northwest, mainly cool breezes. Winter storms especially sweep in with gales from the northwest. Bomb cyclones come from that way. Atmospheric rivers tilt the direction more from the west. Especially cold storms come more from the north. Once the breeze starts coming from those other two ways, things get weird.

CZU Lightning Complex Fire – The air looked like this for days

The downslope, Santa Ana winds of southern California (aka devil winds) make things really weird to our south. Those winds are from the east and can be very strong; fires rage, people freak out. Luckily, that phenomenon doesn’t happen here, but we do get occasional winds from the east. I swear I can smell the desert on those winds, the smell of creosote bush. Those breezes are warm and dry just like the winds from the south. I can very well recall the stormy winds from the south: those brought us the CZU Lightning Complex Fire as well as a couple other tattered hurricane remnants that created havoc across the state. When winds come from the south or east, beware of fire and keep your eye out for the odd human behavior associated with Santa Ana winds in southern California. We might also be concerned about the better-documented situation where those breezes carry the spores of fungi that cause Valley Fever, an air quality concern…borne on the wind as they say.

Air Quality

Once you recognize the direction from which the wind blows, the next question becomes what is that air carrying? When the wind blows ‘just right’ (from the northeast), we get a nasty soup of smog hanging out to sea, blown out of the Golden Gate and then generally downcoast where you get to appreciate that the Bay keeps us a bit sheltered and inland from those toxic breezes. Northeast winds are rare, but that smog carries lots of ugly chemistry. There’s stuff you don’t want to breathe for its toxicity, but there is also lots of fertilizer from car exhaust. Catalytic converters do a good job of turning exhaust into readily available nitrogen compounds that are fertilizing the landscape. Healthy? Nay. Fertilizer makes habitats more weedy, weeds grow bigger and make a bigger wildfire danger when they dry. The tall weeds outcompete native wildflowers. Fires carried by those weeds are devastating California’s deserts, endangering things like Joshua trees. The Golden Gate (NE wind) is one of our passages for nitrogen-laced air pollution, the other is the Pajaro Valley, belching out smog pushed by the more northerly breezes passing down through the southern end of the Silicon Valley.

Those ‘Fresh’ Westerlies

If you are like me, you feel lucky to have that great expanse of clean ocean air to keep us breathing well. Think again. We are seeing more and more pollution from China reaching our shores. Those giant cargo containers full of ‘stuff’ isn’t the only thing coming from the east. Coal fired power plants are making a yuckola mess of chemicals that are polluting California’s air. But, let’s not rest all of the blame on human’s insatiable appetite for stuff in the present. Some of the toxic air particles are from greed of the deep past: gold mining. Mercury was used in processing gold in California. That mercury flowed downstream and into the ocean; it is now being carried back to land in fog and rain, concentrating up the food chain and poisoning mountain lions in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Famous Air Quote

“We have some incredibly talented people that know environment and what we’re doing probably better than any people on Earth.

From day one, my administration has made it a top priority to ensure that America has among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet. We want the cleanest air. We want crystal-clean water, and that’s what we’re doing and that’s what we’re working on so hard.”

I’m guessing you know the source of this quote by now. If not, you can probably guess from the recognizable style. We hope that President Trump, like all politicians, recognizes how much the vast majority of citizens value clean air, so that there is ample motivation to do something about it. If politicians don’t act on these things, we all suffer. Unfortunately, few journalists hold any politician accountable to their clean air record: after all, it is anti-business to do so, and the news needs money.

Our Work

Vote. Get an air purifier for your house. Buy less. Go outside and think about the breeze…the direction of the wind…the strength of the wind…and what is carried on those breezes.

-this post originally published as part of BrattonOnline.com – check it out! Updated weekly with keen insights into Monterey Bay and beyond.

People for Fire

Nature around the Monterey Bay has been adjusting to changing wildfire regimes; we should expect that to continue, but how that happens is up to us in many different ways. Very recently, we are putting purposeful, good fire back onto the land. This may help restore the land while protecting human infrastructure from catastrophic damage, but there are too few projects to learn from…we must learn more!

Burning History

The Monterey Bay area has been getting hotter and drier for 20,000 years, which coincides with the era of fire-lighting humans. Laguna de las Trancas is an ancient pond that lies on a geological fault on the North Coast. Ancient ponds record the history of their place in strata. Scientists have taken sediment cores from that pond and recorded layers of pollen and volcanic ash, going back through time as the deeper sediment is older. Volcanic ash has properties that allow us to know from which volcano it originates and scientists have used various methods to chart the age of ancient volcanic eruptions. So, volcanic ash serves as milestones marking known years in the sediment’s past. This is how we know that this region changed to a much more fire-prone landscape around 12,000 years ago, consequent with the widespread archeological evidence of humans. Before that, the dominant forest trees were firs; after that, fire-adapted redwoods came to dominate. More recently, for the past 1200 years, fire scars on ancient redwoods illustrate a 4-6 year burn return interval. Indigenous people likely managed the fires sweeping frequently through redwood forests, but their fire tending of this landscape tragically ended during the genocidal colonist period. Purposeful fire has been almost entirely absent on most of this landscape for 230 years. In its place, long-interval catastrophic wildfires have caused all sorts of mayhem and loss of life.

Indigenous Pyro Management

Oral history, written accounts at the time of colonist contact, pollen records in ponds, burn scars on ancient trees, and vegetation patterns on this landscape are things that can teach us bits about thousands of years of intentional use of fire by humans. One early written account from early Old-World colonist explorers notes that many of the meadows around Monterey Bay were burned black. We know now that without burning and/or grazing all of this region’s prairies change quickly into forests, so fire must have been maintaining meadows for a very long time, in the absence of grazing and tree-pulling by the Pleistocene megafauna. The blackened meadows hampered the progress of invading Old-World explorers because they had trouble feeding their horses, which they relied on for transport. In this case, we might contemplate the use prairie fire as self-defense, but we also know that indigenous peoples used fire to cultivate native plants that served as medicine, salad greens, grain, basket materials and much more.

Good Fire Emerging Now

California’s governor has set a goal of using prescribed fire on a half million acres a year. It has been 1/10^th of that for too long but indigenous folks probably burned more like 3 million acres (or more) a year previously.

Most people do not see the natural landscape as their pharmacy, grocery store, or fibershed, but many people look to the hills and know the danger of wildfire. Purposeful, good fire is starting to address this last concern and one day will help people reunite with the land in those other ways.

I was recently fortunate to interact with the Central Coast Prescribed Burn Association as they purposefully burned big patches of brush on Santa Cruz County’s North Coast. After much planning and preparation, forty volunteers gathered one Saturday to light big patches of hillside on fire. The goal was to restore coastal prairie and to train more wildland fire lighters in order to expand our region’s capacity to reintroduce fire on the landscape. These volunteer groups are growing around the world, including here in California. We have learned that their work is essential for everyone’s safety, and for the stewardship of the land, which provides us so much: water, timber, livestock, recreation, clean air, food, health, and solace.

Value-Added Fire

As we realize the importance of good fire in natural lands, entrepreneurs are envisioning profit. People are cashing in on the wildfire crisis by managing wildland fuels to power electrical generators. Some are seeing a potential to power electrical land stewardship equipment with generators fired by the fuel that equipment is removing. Others are already hauling wildland fuels to generation facilities supplying regions in Northern California with power. New technology allows burning wildland fuels to create charcoal, which is added to agricultural areas improving water holding capacity and maybe even soil fertility. That carbon is captured to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The machines are called ‘carbonators’ and they use thousands of gallons of water a day to keep them cool, which is the trick to making charcoal.

There was a lull for a bit, fand now there’s a rejuvenation of wood fired heaters for rural homes. The new woodstoves are engineered to be very efficient with very low air particulate output. Greenhouse gas (carbon) output is from recently grown wood rather than ancient fossil fuels.

The Future?

I envision a time when robots harvest biomass for fuel, farming every square inch of Planet Earth for energy. Imagine micro technology…ant-sized robots that prune plants in cultivated landscapes and natural areas, hauling bits of biomass back to larger robots which haul it to biomass energy production facilities…one big conveyor belt of fuel stolen from natural food webs. I do not like that future, but it seems inevitable in our ‘civilized’ world. How far off is that future? Without another way of managing wildfire, the day of that scenario is coming closer, quickly. The alternative is for more people to be involved with community groups managing purposeful, good fire across large areas, like the Monterey Bay region.

Your Role

Each of us has a role in helping Good Fire gain traction. Start with getting an air filter for your house: you need one anyway for wildfire smoke. Air pollution is a great concern, even with purposeful fires. The recent burning exercise I was a part of was delayed a week because of air quality concerns, and that week delay caused a bunch of issues with people’s schedules, wasted catering food, etc. If we can all be better prepared for smoke, it will be easier to get Good Fire on the ground. If you are able, help to figure out a way to get air filters to folks who can’t afford them!

We can’t expand Good Fire unless everyone feels safe in their homes. So, helping people get safe in their homes is an important thing. And, even when those homes are well secured against wildfire, people still need to be talked to, shown Good Fire, and helped to shed their fears. We can try to experience purposeful fire and see how well it is managed and then tell those stories to more people: there is a lot of fear about even professionally managed, purposeful fire.

The last thing I think more people might do: volunteer to help! The Prescribed Burn Associations could use more volunteers. Learning to manage purposeful fire is hard work and many people are needed.

-this column originally posted in the very informative weekly blog, BrattonOnline – please subscribe, like, and spread the word!