environment

The Meadows of Scotts Valley

When you think of Scotts Valley, what comes to mind? What comes to my mind are hours of tedious battles to save what was left of the remarkable meadows, which are home to some fascinating species. Embedded in those memories are lessons about how other people viewed those meadows and the diversity of human perspectives.

Glenwood and Santa’s Village

Highway 17 bisected some fascinating grasslands in Scotts Valley. On the west side of the highway, one can visit what remains of the Glenwood meadows. It is called the Glenwood Open Space Preserve and is owned by the City of Scotts Valley and managed by the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. I’m not sure how many native species are left now, but in the 1990’s when I joined the battle to save those meadows, we used R. Morgan’s statistic of an extraordinary 250 native plants on just over 200 acres. The meadows would erupt in spectacular displays of lupines and poppies, each hillslope a slightly different color with many other wildflower species.

Home to Rarities

To the east side of Highway 17 the last remaining meadow is at what was formerly known as Santa’s Village or the Polo Ranch. This smaller meadow was recently carved apart to make room for a luxury housing development by the seemingly ubiquitous Lennar Homes. Though smaller, this meadow has wonderful botanical surprises both in shallow-soiled dry rocky places and in some seepy wetlands.

These meadows are the home to the federally endangered Scotts Valley spineflower and the state-listed endangered Scotts Valley polygonum, species found nowhere else in the world. The state-listed endangered San Francisco popcornflower is awaiting better management in the seedbank in both meadows. A distinct form of Gray’s clover, if it survives, will probably one day be called the Scotts Valley clover as will a distinct form of Douglas’ sandwort – both should be listed as critically endangered and are only in the Polo Ranch meadow. A population of the State-listed rare Pacific grove clover has been found in the Glenwood meadow. The federally listed endangered Ohlone tiger beetles are also found in these meadows and in only 5 other places…all within Santa Cruz County. Opler’s long-horned moth, which should also be listed as endangered, is found feeding on cream cups in the Glenwood meadows. Western pond turtles have been found in the Glenwood pond, which would also make great habitat for the rare California red-legged frog were it not for nonnative fish which were put there a while back.

Prior Losses

Scotts Valley has a long history of destroying the things that made it a very special place and replacing those special things with poorly planned housing developments. One gets the distinct feeling that poor planning is a hallmark of that town, which has no town center and is entirely sprawl. Smells like a legacy of greed combined with lack of civic engagement and the resulting pro-developer elected official. My mentor R. Morgan lamented the loss of the marsh that was once at Camp Evers, an ancient peat bog like no other for hundreds of miles. Then there was the development at Skypark, which was an airport and now has a small fragment of the once wildflower-rich extensive meadows.

Scotts Valley High

Since the early 1990’s, as I’ve been following the more recent destruction of Scotts Valley’s ecosystems, the first to get to bulldozed was the Scotts Valley High School site. There were other sites but someone in power got their way, sacrificing rare species and permanently destroying a treasure of immense value. So powerful were the proponents that they managed to protect only tiny set aside areas for the rare species, spaces that were doomed to fail. Promises of integrating these small conservation areas with high school biology classes never materialized. Management for the endangered San Francisco popcornflower has never succeeded.

Glenwood Open Space Preserve

With great effort, the Friends of Glenwood, the California Native Plant Society and the Sierra Club managed to fend off 200+ homes and a golf course that had been proposed at the site.

Meanwhile, the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County is both succeeding and failing to manage this preserve. On one hand, they have been quite successful in managing for the most endangered species on the property- the Ohlone tiger beetle. This beautiful beetle has flourished because of their work. On the other hand, the habitat for the Pacific Grove clover seems to have been lost due to poor decisions. And, large areas of the property are being overcome by invasive species such as stinkwort and French broom.

Santa’s Village

Legal wrangling and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) negotiations resulted in the protection of a small private park above 40+ homes. CNPS fought to have fewer homes, arguing that more homes would require more grading, which would threaten the hydrology of the steep terrain and its rare plants. Undeterred and supported by the ‘any development is good development’ Scotts Valley City Council, the home builders dug into the hillsides which subsequently collapsed, severely damaging the rare plant habitat. After years of delaying any management, the preserve area degraded due to brush and weed encroachment. But, after many years, the Wildlife Heritage Foundation is managing the property and trying to restore some of the rare species. Let’s wish them luck!

Lessons Learned

Scotts Valley has been, like Capitola, pro-sprawl whereas Santa Cruz is hemmed in. Just wait…one day Santa Cruz may re-think its greenbelt. Maybe I’ll get to hear another City Council person tell me that if such-and-such endangered species was in their yard they’d destroy it. Maybe I’ll once again hear a developer say something like ‘that Ohlone tiger beetle is probably the most common bug in the world!’ As pressure grows to develop around the Monterey Bay, I hope that we figure out sooner than later how to ensure that natural areas remain natural. How about third-party conservation easements on our parks? Can you not see how municipalities like the City of Santa Cruz will one day try to build housing on its greenbelt? Even State Parks will see that pressure. It seems to me that land trusts should be eyeing those opportunities with interest. They could be helping to guarantee longer-term conservation now that we’ve seen how quickly the tides can turn against conservation as the populace gets poorer and the developers get richer and more powerful.

Another Trail ‘Study’

The Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) recently published an article about a 2023 regional trail user survey. The author of the article, Zionne Fox, wrote about some of the results of the study, and her writing helps gain new insights into POST’s philosophy regarding recreational use in natural areas.

Summary of the Article

Ms. Fox’s “blog,” published on August 28, 2025, announced the findings of a ‘unique’ regional study by the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network that had purported to assess parks trail user expectations. Fox reports the percentages of different user groups (equestrians, dog walkers, hikers, mountain bikers) that want more trails. She also notes that non-white respondents were statistically under represented. The article suggests (without supporting data) that demand for trails is growing and that ‘open space operators need practices that can meet rising visitor expectations while preserving natural habitat.’ There was also mention about many equestrians hailing from Santa Cruz County and (again, unsubstantiated) a need for additional accommodation for multi-day trail trips.

Reporting Issues

The POST article fails in many ways to meet the standards of responsible reporting, but that is predictable given the organization’s overall tendencies. First, note that the study referenced isn’t, as the author claims, ‘unique,’ at all: another, more professional study covering much the same material was published not that long ago. Also, notice that there is no link in the article to a report about the results of the survey. With further research I find that the survey authors, the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, lacks a link to any reporting on the survey results on its website. Without more details about survey methodology, statistical analysis, and results it is difficult to draw one’s own conclusions.

Moreover, the article emphasizes only the survey results which correlate most with POST’s own goal of increased recreational use of ‘open space’ lands. For instance, statistics are provided for apparent unmet needs from various recreational groups, but similar statistics are not presented about the degree of concern for natural resource conservation, which is at odds with increased recreational use. In fact, in the ‘What’s Next’ portion of the article, there is no mention of POST’s or any other ‘open space operator’s’ intention to address survey respondents’ concerns about conserving and nurturing natural resources which suffer from over visitation. Similarly, POST suggests that those operators should focus on ‘preserving natural habitat,’ which curiously avoids the more concrete and pressing issue of conserving the specific species that are sensitive to natural areas recreational use. Habitat preservation is nearly meaningless to measure, whereas species conservation is much more useful and quantifiable, with a richer history of scientific rigor in informing open space management.

Note that the author of this article fails to mention any results from the portion of the survey asking about trail user’s negative experiences in open space areas. The survey asked poignant questions about negative interactions with dogs, people biking, shared trail use with other users, etc. Such conflicts are expected and are a challenge that trained park managers are used to addressing; unfortunately POST lacks staff with such expertise, so it is understandable that the author would avoid mention of this portion of the survey, which would otherwise reflect poorly on her organization.

The reporting insufficiencies and biases should not be surprising to those who follow POST. This is an organization focused on increased recreational use at the expense of species conservation. For instance, while on one hand cheerleading for the National Monument designation of Cotoni Coast Dairies, POST refused to sign onto a letter advocating that the designation include specific protections for natural resources. Peruse the organization’s website and you’ll find that species conservation is de-emphasized as opposed to an over-emphasis of recreational use of natural areas, which negatively affects nature. While being the best funded private organization working on open space issues in the Bay Area, POST has apparently never hired staff or engaged contractors that are professionals at managing visitor use in such a way that demonstrably protects the very species that require POST’s natural areas to survive. POST has published no reports or plans to address these concerns, at least none that are available to the public.

Methodological Issues

On its face value, the survey issued by the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network lacked the rigor to make the kinds of conclusions that POST suggests would be valuable. As opposed to previous, more rigorous studies the survey failed to sample the breadth of the population with interests in open space areas. POST notes that proportions of respondent self-reported ‘race’ did not reflect the population as a whole, but failed to note how the survey may have also biased certain user groups over others (mountain bikers vs. hikers, etc).

One would expect to encounter survey bias given the mode of delivery. The survey was a web-based survey distributed by social media networks. Open space organizations have recently become increasingly aligned with a vocal minority: well-funded mountain biking advocacy groups who undoubtedly circulated the survey in order to impact the results. Other trail user groups may have been under-represented because they have little exposure to those particular social media networks or because they lacked the computer technology to respond.

Cautionary Conclusions

We can learn valuable lessons from POST’s reporting on this trail user survey. Given the power of POST, we should continue to be vigilant about the group’s propensity to favor increased recreational use of open space lands at the cost of species conservation. This bias should make us question the organization’s ability to manage funding tied to protection of public trust resources. POST is a donor-funded organization, and so some degree of pressure from donors could help to steer the organization more towards conservation. We should also recognize that POST is not alone in making these types of mistakes. It appears that the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network is also allied with such thinking, and we have seen other conservation lands managers approaching open space management with similarly unbalanced methodologies. These trends must be reversed if we are to conserve the many species of wildlife which are sensitive to poorly managed recreational use in our parks.

As time passes and we stay alert to the possibilities, we will see if the poorly executed SCMSN trails user survey results are used to justify or rationalize actions by POST or other members in their network: wouldn’t it be a shame if they were?

-this post originally published in my column for BrattonOnline.com – a weekly blog with movie reviews and posts by very interesting people on matters near and far. I recommend subscribing to it and donating so we can continue this long tradition.

Fire Era

It seems like the world has changed. As I write this on Tuesday 9/16/25, Tropical Storm Mario is headed towards California. Back in 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fire was the result of another such situation, via Tropical Storm Fausto. And, as with 2020, there is a lineup of such storms…another is predicted soon after this upcoming one. We look forward to the regular Fall rains to start, typically on October 15. Meanwhile, we wait to see where the lightning will strike and if someone can extinguish the flames before the resulting inferno.

I moved to Santa Cruz in 1986…did I somehow miss old timer stories or some other form of history that tropical storms, lightning, thunder, etc., are ‘normal’ for this part of the world??!!

Does this seem normal to you?

An ODD wall of clouds eats a North Coast ridgeline, quickly (from the South) – how unusual! Aug 2, 2017

Changing How We Live

All us country folk are changing the way we live, out here on the outskirts of towns.

Many modern Californians lived for decades in the “woods.” They had sprawling outbuildings full of canning supplies and landscaping tools, tractors, chicken coops, pet pens, toys scattered about. Their homes were ”original” architecture, funky and artful. Their gardens neat or a tangle, blended into the surrounding with the forest engulfing less tended portions. Funky. That was much of country California.

In this changing world, we can no longer afford to be that way: our ‘stuff’ is burning up and making a mess. Now, we must consolidate our things into fire resistant structures and manage the surrounding vegetation.

The Vegetation Around Us

This land is productive, which means that plants make a lot of biomass each year. In most natural areas near Santa Cruz, plants produce 4,000 – 8,000 dry pounds of biomass per acre per year: that’s 6,800 – 13,600 pounds of living biomass: literally ‘tons.’ For a house that’s 1200 square feet, clearing within the 100’ required space is managing about an acre and a half of vegetation. That means chipping, burning, mulching, composting, or hauling biomass “away” – otherwise, living or shed plant parts accumulate, add up, and pose a worse fire hazard in subsequent years.

Same goes for the thousands and thousands of acres of open space/parkland around the Monterey Bay. That open space is producing lots of fuel for future wildfire.

Some of the outfall of the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fire

Attitudes

Many people can’t handle this new reality of living with fire, especially in the country. Sure, if you are wealthy and live rurally, you can pay for someone to manage your property for wildfire…but still it is expensive! If you are poor, you can work to do it yourself…but it takes time, strength, and know-how! I’ve asked the folks I know who take care of their rural spaces how much time it takes to manage their (small!) home’s vegetation wildfire danger. The uncannily similar answer for my informal poll is….6 hours a week.

But most people are just plain in denial about the danger, even though everyone knows someone who’s been through one of the giant fires of the past few years. Some of those in denial actually went through the last fires and somehow think that it can’t happen again.

Perhaps we’ve become inured to the fire news and so can’t grip reality. Did you know that Chinese Camp, a small town in the Sierra was nearly completely destroyed by wildfire in early September? That was the result of another ‘monsoon’ full of lightning from the South! Too much!

City Folks

It might be easier to ignore the wildfire danger if you live in the City. But people must change the way they live in the cities, apparently: in case you don’t recall there was this thing in Santa Rosa called the Tubbs Fire that burned thousands of homes, many of which were ‘in town.’

It looks to me like a wind-driven wildfire could burn a long way into Santa Cruz with houses stacked against one another adjacent to the forested and shrubby steep canyons of Moore Creek or adjacent to the thickly vegetated and at times crispy dry San Lorenzo Valley. The towns sprinkled around Fort Ord share the same danger/fate as does Monterey and Carmel.

Wind Driven?

Do we forget about the 70 mph gusts that fanned the CZU 2020 fires? Were we watching the Santa Rosa Tubbs Fire blast on high winds? The winds are increasing…

The Cause and Effect

The changing world I have outlined here is in large part due to the burning of fossil fuels, trapping sunlight…aka ‘the greenhouse effect.’ More ‘greenhouse gasses’ cause more atmospheric energy: part of the reason we are seeing the new tropical storms headed our way. The winds, with or without the storms, are demonstrably getting more intense. Predicted outcomes of climate change include extreme heat and drought events…extremes of all sorts – big swings.

The sad changes we are struggling to manage with just plain living are probably quite minor compared to what is to come based on climate change predictions. One day, folks will look back at the one-day-a-week that it takes us now to manage our yards and say “humf! That’s nothing.” What will their struggles be like? Will they be trying to survive weeks-long dust storms…building storm proof greenhouses for food?

When will we reverse this terrible trajectory?

– this article originally appeared as part of BrattonOnline.com – check it out!

Restorative Justice: Trust for Public Land and Coast Dairies

There is healing to do in my community, but no one is moving that forward with one particular travesty. We’re approaching the 7-year anniversary of a local conservation organization’s legal action against our community, including environmental hero Celia Scott and others. In 2018, the Trust for Public Land sued a group of my community. Their actions incurred long-lasting damage to personal lives and the willingness and ability for the public to remain engaged in the hard work of protecting the North Coast of Santa Cruz County. This story is a microcosm of society-wide problems. In this essay, I explore this scenario in hopes that we can heal or at least learn from the past in ways to strengthen and improve the future, in similar situations.

The sun rises from the fog, hope for a new era

What Happened?

In 2014, we were extremely concerned that the Trust for Public Lands chose the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to take possession of ~5,800 acres of the ~7,000-acre Coast Lands and Dairies property. This would be the first transfer of large acreage in Santa Cruz County to the Federal Government, putting decision making, environmental review, and management oversight far afield from local influence. Moreover, the BLM is nationally recognized as being the ‘bottom of the barrel’ of public land management agencies insofar as their ability to provide adequate staffing or adequately analyze and plan for protecting natural resources and managing visitor use. ‘Don’t worry,’ the Open Space Illuminati whispered, ‘the land will go to National Parks soon enough.’ ‘The Great Park’ was their dream, a way of cementing the legacy of a very few boomers and their deep-pocketed, old school “environmentalist” funders. A dozen or so local veteran conservationists were clearer eyed and decided to fight back.

The Sempervirens Fund’s Great Park Campaign publication cover, see this link for more.

This coalition worked with experienced legal counsel to challenge the federal lands transfer based on TPL’s need to divide the property between State, private, and Federal ownership…a process requiring County and Coastal Commission approval. When their legal action failed, TPL sued those activists, demanding a large financial settlement. TPL’s legal action also failed but not before the damage was done to individuals and their families as well as the coalition overall and my community of conservationists in general.

Outfall

TPL’s lawsuit echoed through the region, hobbling conservation and damaging community. The Open Space Illuminati felt more empowered, less humble. Family members questioned whether activism was worth the risk, fearing retribution affecting their already tenuous ability to live in an increasingly unaffordable area. Conservationists wondered how a ‘conservation’ organization like TPL could launch such an attack.

The Bullying

This history is but one instance of something we see unfolding nationally with greater consequence. In most political spaces we have mainstream, wealthy, influential ‘centrist’ “liberals” that are sure that they know what’s best for everyone, and they are determined to force their reality forward. They bully and demonize progressives who are often under-resourced for such battles: ‘successful’ centrists are often in wealthier circles/circumstances, and their visions often include methods of increasing their financial advantage. Do we forget progressives’ criticisms of the World Bank and US AID for their paving the way to the destruction of communities and ecosystems? Newsom is so good at bullying Trump because his centrist community are very experienced at bullying progressives, and they’ll be back at that focus soon enough. The centrists love the far right for the power that gives them to move the populace to the center where the rich get richer and the environment and the poor suffer greatly. The Coast Dairies situation is a microcosm in another way.

Microcosm

Many of us are familiar with the story of the colonialist tragedy affecting indigenous people, but can we also apply some of those lessons to the situation with TPL at Coast Dairies? We know we are on the unceded ground of indigenous people: each and every one of us reading this. At the same time, many prescribe to the philosophy of such colonialism when we celebrate the “keystone” of “successful” conservation. Cheers ring out when property is purchased for a park, and few ask who is losing when that happens. Some of us are familiar with the boundaries of parks being drawn without consultation of native peoples around the world: indigenous people displaced by ‘conservationists.’ Few of us see the parallels with such dangerous transitions in California where the ‘We can do better!’ mentality overwhelms local communities.

Can We Do Better?

Conservationists celebrate the quick transition away from local control, yet traditional land management knowledge is lost at great peril. Those engaged in traditional forestry know how to manage land at scale, restore forests, grow trees, and reduce wildfire risks. Those engaged with traditional range management also know how to manage lands at scale, control herds of beasts to ecological benefit, and identify stewardship risks before they become catastrophic. Indigenous peoples have a much deeper and broader experience to share. Instead, the conservation community often removes these previous communities from their stewardship roles, instead entrusting land care to too few University-educated elites with their small share of experience matched by their lack of humility, and framed by their embrace of pro-forma ‘management planning and environmental review’ processes designed to protect them from public conversation, criticism, and legal challenge.

All of this is happening at Cotoni Coast Dairies. Can the situation there, including with the Trust for Public Land, help model a way to overcome this negative global spiral?

Reconciliation

I am suggesting that we go through a truth and reconciliation process for the Coast Dairies debacle, including the TPL’s legal action against our community.

First, we must seek to understand. Who was involved with deciding that the Coast Dairies property would best be in BLM’s hands? Let’s hear from those individuals about their decision and what they think about that nowadays. Who was involved in the decision to sue our community members? Let’s hear from those individuals about what motivated that action. Why did community members sue TPL? Let’s also hear from those individuals about what they were hoping to achieve and how they see their loss affecting the current situation. Can we also hear from the Federal decision makers: how does the machinations of federal control address the concerns of our community?

A well facilitated truth and reconciliation process can move forward from such mutual understanding towards solutions that can help to heal the past and move to a more productive future.

I predict this reconciliation process will not happen until the Open Space Illuminati and the Federal decision makers feel that they are no longer ‘winning.’ Then, they might see that they need the help of the people they have marginalized. This will require the marginalized to gain more power. Please join the movement by talking to your network about these issues.

If we don’t address these past injustices, it will not be a long wait until we see them repeat in larger and more tragic ways. Right here in our communities.

-this post originally published as part of the illuminating BrattonOnline weekly blog, featuring leading thinkers on local, regional, and global affairs…in this era of squelched free speech, it is best to keep our minds agile by reflecting on well-informed commentary and journalism. Subscribe now and SAVE (your mind- the blog is free).

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!

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.

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!

Land Atonement

Very slowly, we must move in the direction of becoming at one with the Land. All that we eat, all that we breathe, all that we drink comes from the Land.

What is your opinion of how people have treated the land around us?

Have we damaged it, or made it better? How do you know?

Big Sur: Whole or Shattered?

The Santa Lucia Mountains…Big Sur, to our South. On one hand, we see picturesque beauty, “wilderness,” a rugged, sparsely settled landscape, millions of flowers, huge trees, and a rich marine environment. On the other hand, there is a land devoid of much of the wildlife that once called that place habitat, the native peoples that called it home and stewarded that place are mostly gone (but still there!), wildfires ravage the landscape too hot and too frequently, roads and other development bleed soil and pollution into streams, and hordes of poorly managed visitors negatively impact the richest ecology, where the land meets the sea.

Monterey Peninsula: Zombie Ecosystems or Well-Managed Parks?

An ecological treasure, the Monterey Peninsula has rare pine and cypress forests, chaparral, and coastal prairies. Millions of humans visit to play golf, shop, drive fancy cars, visit art galleries, taste wine, or do tourism at an aquarium and historic sites. Nature there is fragmented into isolated parks which have no chance of long-term health. With lots of exposure to disease and human disturbance, with no chance of natural interactions with wildlife or fire, the parks represent zombie ecosystems, seemingly alive but really walking dead as they slowly decline with species after species winking out.

Tilled Valleys, How do You Fare?

The Salinas and Pajaro Valleys frame the central Monterey Bay, rich alluvial soils that support Agriculture, the nation’s salad bowl. Farming is an economic engine, sustaining jobs and communities and feeding people vegetables, never enough helpings per capita in any given day. The effluent flowing out of that engine creates the most polluted surface water in the US, pools of eutrophic, stinking rot. Ancient rich soil is disappearing, lost with the rain, in floods, and in the wind. Groundwater is being contaminated with pollution or by sea water intrusion caused by over pumping groundwater.

Santa Cruz and the North Coast, Loved and Smothered

On the other side of the Bay lies Big Sur North, a tamer landscape, thickly inhabited, worn. Tourism, Silicon Valley settlement, and education rule here. Surf and mountain bike culture are ‘natural’ tourism while hordes of cotton candy fueled tourists amble in the relatively cool beachy haven that contrasts so readily with the increasingly baking inland. Millions of feet pummel the beach sand substrate, crushing the food chain of flocks of would-be shorebirds; the remaining birds scatter, no longer comfortable foraging on these overrun beaches. Similarly, most meadows and canyons zip with such continual disturbance that wildlife families flee….fewer places left to hide. In the built areas, hundreds of fossil fuel formulations leak from engines, pesticides ooze from landscapes, headwater rivers and streams are diverted for toilet flushing and carwashes, downstream they receive and convey pollutants into our treasured Bay.

How do We?

How do we atone for the ongoing damage we are causing to the land around us? In ecological terms we call this restoration. In social terms, we call this reparation. In economic terms, we call this re-investment. Do you see enough of this going on? I cannot believe that you do.

Ecological Restoration

We must make room for all of the species of plants and wildlife to flourish if we ourselves are to survive. We read such things, but do we believe them? Do we act on them? Are there things individuals can do to make this happen? Many of us can vote for those who have this vision. Many of us can learn about ecological restoration and tell others about the ways forward around here. There is good fire to put back on the landscape. There are ecological linkages to restore, across roads, through development. There are invasive species to control. And, there are many species of wildlife that need to be better managed, monitored, and restored with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife at the helm.

Reparations

We live on unceded lands. We are surrounded by people displaced by greed-fueled governmental policies, including war. The nation owes its current wealth to people terribly taken advantage of for generations. What are we doing for reparations? Anything at all?

Re-Investment

The way we do it, every new home, every new development creates a heavier burden on our already strapped local municipalities. The way we have done it for generations, businesses have profited from extraction from Nature, most recently including agriculture, water use, and tourism in natural areas. Some suggest it is time to increase the taxes of landowners to enable more tourists to overrun our natural areas…’investing” in new trails and repairing old trails degraded by millions of tourists to keep local businesses thriving. How did this become part of a re-investment proposal?

A Path Forward

Whether you take part in restoration, reparations, or re-investment, each of us must do our part. I’m sure that none of us want to leave the world worse off than it was before we enjoyed the water, the air, and the food that Nature made possible. We regularly eat meals…taking. We regularly drink water…taking. We regularly travel through Nature…taking. We regularly purchase things and throw away things…taking. What are we regularly doing to give back, to atone for all that we are taking from Nature, from each other?

I hope that you will think about that debt when you vote this Fall. And, I hope that you will plan at least one activity in the next little while that gives something back. Make such giving a regular practice, please.

-this column brought to you in part by Bruce Bratton, who graciously publishes my work weekly at BrattonOnline.com Sign up, donate, and read it- a great way to catch up on what is going on around the Monterey Bay, and beyond.

Whence SCruz Enviros?

I continue to ask myself this question: where has the environmental movement gone in Santa Cruz? I have several hypotheses. This is not to deny the tireless work of various individuals who have helped on many fronts, but I sense a loss of momentum, of any organized movement of the type of conservationists that have been so crucial in the past in providing the Santa Cruz area with much of which it is now proud: Lighthouse Field, the City’s Greenbelt, Wilder Ranch, and Gray Whale Ranch come to mind, is there any kind of movement now that could achieve such success?

Questionable Rationality

One of the age-old issues with working with coalitions is the rationality factor, and the environmental conservation movement has had its share of associates who defy the laws of rational discourse. There is strength in numbers, but as those numbers grow the community will include people who are vocal about some pretty wild, unsubstantiated things. Those people sometimes have a fairly strident way of expressing themselves. Whether it is a tactic, or perhaps they believe it, the opposition to conservationists will say ‘look at that lunatic fringe group!’ They lump perfectly rational people in with the less-than-rational minority. The less-than-rational folks will also say ‘Look! I have credibility! I am associated with these rational people!’ That fringe element has driven more than a few of my colleagues away from advocating for conservation.

Oppositional Idiocy

Problems with rationality aren’t just internal to conservationists: there are many irrational people to face in the opposition. There is increased reliance on very poor methods of discourse: tu quoque, black-and-white and straw man arguments are very common, and conservationists aren’t always prepared to rebut such vacuous methods of dialogue. We often don’t even recognize them as such. As I wrote recently, add those types of arguments to a long list of unsubstantiated ‘facts’ and you have the gish gallop making it impossible to address any particular thing.

Conflict Avoidance

Poor discourse and barely rational coalition members may have contributed to the next reason I hypothesize for the demise of the local conservation movement: conflict avoidance. One thing that seems on the upswing with the younger generations is conflict avoidance, but this issue has long been a problem to conservationists. Politicians and other would-be mediators of environmental conflict have often tried problem solving by attempting solutions through compromise. That is, they see two sides – conservation versus development – and say “we can find a middle ground.” The problem with that is that often the conservation issues associated with the proposed development aren’t addressed by this middle ground: biology doesn’t work that neatly. This concept has oozed its way into the general populace where many want to solve things by reaching an imaginary happy spot – ‘half way’ between what is portrayed as two divergent points of view. Even that half-way point is difficult for most to imagine negotiating.

Those who are proponents of nature destruction are well seasoned negotiators, new public conservation advocates not so much. New recruits into conservation often balk at the need to negotiate with often well-paid consultants who are so good at their game. These new conservationists also often feel shy about hiring professionals, especially lawyers to help with the conflict: for some reason many feel like seeking that method of solution is ‘too much.’ And, then again, lawyers are expensive.

Legal Defense, Legal Bills

If somehow a group of conservationists can come to the conclusion that a lawyer would help, raising money for legal defense funds for conservation around Santa Cruz is not easy. Lawyers are expensive and their work takes time. Can you remember the last time a local conservation group asked for funding for legal defense? It has been a long time.

And yet, legal defense has often been essential to resolving many important environmental conflicts, everywhere. Especially here in California, the laws protecting the environment are strong and broad ranging. Those proposing to destroy nature fear enforcement of those laws. With my conservation advocacy, I often cite legal language and so have been called ‘litigious’ by a handful of nefarious truth-stretchers: I have never retained legal counsel to sue anyone. It is very important for conservationists to understand laws and regulations and to cite those as well as case law whenever making their point. And yet, fewer and fewer locals are forming coalitions to retain legal assistance to protect nature.

Legal Reprisals

Some conservationists have avoided the milieu of conflict because they fear that the often well-funded anti-nature crowd might sick their lawyers on them. There are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) where the pro-development types intimidate conservation advocates by suing them…often for libel but for lots of other things. Also, some conservation advocates have been named in lawsuits by nature destroyers. For instance, our ‘friends’ at the Trust for Public Land sued local conservationists to recover expenses the group said they used to defend themselves in court actions aimed at better protecting the Cotoni Coast Dairies property.

No Peace, No Justice

The last issue hobbling local conservationists is their inability to adequately form coalitions with environmental justice movements, which have perhaps gained more wide support and recognition. This piece well summarizes the issue, and rests with the ‘no brainer’ intersection of the two movements: climate change. In this regard, Santa Cruz might be doing okay, but we are leaving behind other conservation issues of the highest importance: conservation land management, endangered species conservation, clean water and wetlands protections, and natural areas visitor management. Each of those issues has meaning for environmental justice proponents, but conservationists have done little to make that bridge.

What Can You Do?

I urge more people to become actively involved with local conservation groups. And, when you do, help those groups to become better through your mentorship and skill. We need to train one another to be good at conservation before the next big issue threatens species, habitats, or the relationship between humans and nature in our region.

-this post originally published as part of Bruce Bratton’s long-running informative blog at BrattonOnline.com, a place you should turn for all that you need to know around the Monterey Bay (and beyond).