Comment Archives
Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?”
Thank you for this article--the information from URS Corporation is crucial and revealing. It supports the common-sense response most people have that the proposed plan is a bad idea and a shameful waste of taxpayer money that is badly needed elsewhere.
There is additional expert testimony, by a former Chief of Fire Prevention for the Oakland Army Base, at http://sutroforest.com/2009/08/08/no-tree-….
David Maloney was part of the Oakland-Berkeley Mayors’ Firestorm Task Force after the 1991 hills fire. His letter states:
“The Task Force Report concluded that the spread of the fire was mostly due to the radiant heat generated by burning houses. A burning house has a sustained radiant heat transmission of 2,500-3,000 degrees. The spread of the fire was not due primarily to burning trees — eucalyptus or any other species.
The Hills Conservation Network is correct in its support of thinning out the East Bay Hills wooded areas. It would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to clear-cut the East Bay Hills of trees that are highly fire-resistant, and it could lead to another devastating fire. Because of our conclusions, new fire prevention codes relative to housing construction were promulgated by the State of California and various cities throughout California. There were no new fire codes promulgated relative to the species of trees that would populate the East Bay hills.”
As for the herbicides they want to use, Roundup is bad enough, but Garlon is even worse,(and others are mentioned as well). Dow AgroSciences’ MSDS sheets for Garlon 4 Ultra and Garlon 3A show that the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act lists both as “immediate (acute) health hazard” and “delayed (chronic) health hazard”.
From the Garlon 4 Ultra MSDS: “…highly toxic to aquatic organisms…; “Prevent from entering soil…waterways and/or groundwater”; “decomposition products can include…: hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxide, phosgene.” (All toxic)
How are these poisons not going to harm anyone? How are they not going to be washed into creeks and eventually into the Bay? How are residues in dry soil not going to be carried by wind for miles around?
Re: “Privatizing UC Instruction”
http://migrantintellectual.wordpress.cokm/…
As Admiral Ackbar said in JEDI -- "it's a trap"
Re: “Roscoe Ceramic Gallery”
It is so hip, edgy, urban. Very well curated. Derik is the best.
Re: “Toxic Incense”
This article is very misleading -- company like www.myInsens.com provides all natural hand-rolled chemical free incense.
Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?”
PLEASE SAVE OUR EAST BAY PARKS
Killing hundreds of thousands of healthy, tall, mature, beautiful trees without most residents even knowing what is being planned, and with no way to vote is criminal. Losing these parks will be terrible for a population already dealing with poverty and pollution. Protect our local environment and all the wild animals who also will die if this plan based on greed is allowed to happen.
We truly believe that those asking for money from FEMA are primarily concerned with getting access to that money. The few moneyed
people who chose to buy houses near the parks knew the risks, and it's unfair that they now want the parks destroyed. It's also not the responsibility of FEMA to help them more than people who actually need help. Besides, making more grasslands will increase fire risk, while the tall trees, including eucalyptus, help prevent fire by bringing inches of water from the fog each year.
To find out the actual facts and not deliberate misinformation, please see these websites (Read every post at the brilliant Death of a Million Trees):
http://milliontrees.me/fire-the-cover-stor…
www.eastbaypesticidealert.org/wildfire.htm…
http://hillsconservationnetwork.org/HillsC…
PETITIONS TO SIGN:
1. Hills Conservation Network to FEMA
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-…
2. Vicki Thomas's petition to FEMA
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_the_…
3. Yolanda Huang's Petition to FEMA
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/fema-do-n…
4. Beth Buczynski's Petition to FEMA
FEMA is accepting letters until June 17 at EBH-EIS-FEMA-RIX@fema.dhs.gov.
We are NOT tea party supporters, but that is who made the video showing the last meeting with FEMA. Impressive Jean Stewart is at the 24 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT4Zczx_bik
1. This FEMA project will cause MORE fires, not less. Fires typically begin in grasslands, which is where the 1991 firestorm started. This project will greatly increase non-native, highly flammable grasslands and non-native poison hemlock, thistles, broom, etc. in the East Bay hills, instead of beautiful trees. Entire sections of our parks will become dry, barren wastelands. And the planned "control burns" will pollute the air with smoke, as well as risk more fire and make the herbicides airborne.
2. After the trees are gone, the erosion and resulting landslides will be catastrophic. It is shameful to use desperately needed tax money for a project which is not needed and will result in ecological disaster. At that point, FEMA money really WILL be needed.
3. Re-planting is NOT part of the project.
4. Many native trees are extremely flammable, but eucalyptus are NOT a particular fire hazard, and have been demonstrated to help forests prevent and contain fires. Eucalyptus were seen to actually stop the spread of fire to houses, creating windbreaks during the 1991 firestorm, while redwoods burned. (Of course when a fire is hot enough, everything burns, but the answer to that is clearly not to kill all the trees.) Eucalyptus and our other tall non-natives precipitate inches of water from the fog each year, moistening the earth, filling creeks and adding water to reservoirs, supporting green and fire resistant shrubs.
5. Sudden Oak Death is killing our native trees. Most are infected. We should be grateful for having our fire-resistant, disease-resistant, healthy, beautiful, exotic trees who are well-adapted to our semi-arid climate -- especially with climate changing and impending drought -- and treasure them instead of killing them. We have no idea how quickly and extensively our native trees will die. We may end up with only non-native forest, so we need more tree diversity, not less. Many of our best parks have almost all non-native trees (which most people don't realize.) What reasonable person would prefer dry, empty, barren grasslands with no shade or wildlife diversity?
6. Why would anyone kill hundreds of thousands of huge trees, some over a hundred years old, when we desperately need them for cleaner air and to prevent climate change? Those supporting this ill-planned project make no mention of the harm done to the environment from eliminating so many oxygen-producing trees. The killed trees chipped on site will add to air pollution as well as greatly increase fire risk. Significant amounts of sequestered C02 will be released, adding not only to global warming, but also to local climate changes: more wind, more dry air, less fog, more air pollution. Big trees are needed to store carbon. No other type of vegetation stores as much carbon as tall hardwood trees. Ongoing carbon sequestration capabilities will be reduced from what they are now, and will never recover.
7. This project is actually about greed and getting 7 million dollars from FEMA for Monsanto, UC, local cities, and EBRP -- money that is desperately needed elsewhere. There has been no significant fire in the East Bay since 1991. There is now better prevention and quicker response time (the main fire cause is arson or carelessness.) Nothing is needed to be done to make the hills safer, but this project WOULD greatly increase fire risk.
8. WHY is something that will affect the quality of life in our East Bay cities forever not being put to a vote, and is being snuck in with almost no one knowing about it? Most of the people affected have no idea they will be losing their beloved parks. The propaganda campaign of myths and half-truths does not lead to trust. Some of who are participating in promoting this destructive plan while spreading misinformation will likely be benefiting.
9. Where is the concern for the millions of native animals who will be killed, including some who are endangered?
Once the trees are destroyed, the already-burdened wildlife will die from hunger and loss of habitat. Others will be directly killed by the devastating bulldozing, chainsawing and poisoning. Without predators like raptors, rodents and other small animals will over-populate.
Learn from our native animals which trees they prefer. Bay Nature magazine online has a beautiful photo of the Bald Eagles nesting in a eucalyptus at Lake Chabot -- that tree, like much of the parkland overlooking Lake Chabot will be killed. (Bald eagles have returned to nest at Anthony Chabot May 08, 2013)Our native raptors -- eagles, hawks, owls, etc. -- PREFER eucalyptus for nesting because they are the tallest trees and have an open canopy, which is good for spotting predators and for the largest birds to be able to safely fly in and out of. (A young Peregrine Falcon died recently because he landed badly when learning to fly.) The largest raptors ignore oaks, bays, etc., because the forest is too dense to safely fly in.
Hummingbirds rely on eucalyptus flower nectar. Monarch butterflies prefer eucalyptus to rest in in the millions during migration. The brilliant website Death of a Million Trees says that a survey of 173 ornithologists reported that 47% of birds eat from non-native plants
Eucalyptus are now an essential part of our eco-system, as are the beautiful Monterey pines, Monterey cypress, acacias, etc. The Monterey pine forests have far more bird diversity than native forest. Yet every pine is slated for killing. WHY? Yet another myth is that they have short life spans. They live up to 120 years, and every part of their life cycle nurtures our wildlife and plants. Raptors, woodpeckers, and other birds use the dead trees for their survival to hunt from or to store acorns. Insectivorous birds prey on small animals on the trunks. Many animals live on the nutritious pine nuts and those animals feed many native predators. The young pines grow up from the base of their dead mothers, keeping the hills green with new trees, completing the cycle. These trees need no thinning, pruning, cutting. Monterey pine also greatly enriches the soil, creating thick humus helping our native clay earth nurture oak, bay, etc. seedlings, as well as wildflowers, mushrooms, etc. MONTERY PINES ARE AN NOW ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR HEALTHY FOREST/PARKS ECOSYSTEM.
10. When the Redwoods were cut down in the 1800's, the many species of plants growing under them were destroyed. Not all came back. The logging in Marin was done differently, so they have much more species diversity there. The East Bay has very little Woodwardia/Chain fern left (this classic Redwood companion has an almost identical relative, also a Woodwardia, who grows in Japan with their Japanese close Redwood relative, the Cryptomeria.) And we nave none of the beautiful Clintonia and Scolipus lilies and other plants that use to live under the Redwoods.
If there is another massive logging with heavy machinery and then poison, we will lose even more native species.
11. The effects of a planned decade or more of highly toxic herbicide spraying is also being ignored. (Monsanto, DOW, etc. must be thrilled at this project.) How many cases of birth defects, cancer, neurological, auto-immune and other illnesses will result from the use of these poisons?
Most people living in the East Bay would object to the plan to continuously apply herbicide to the stumps of the butchered trees for TEN years, if they knew the details.
Appling herbicides across the hills will result in incalculable deaths of native animals, including endangered species, as well as the toxic sediments ending up in our creeks, reservoirs, lakes, and bay. When the winds come, which will increase because the tree windbreaks will be gone, the dust full of herbicide will be windborne, damaging the health of everyone in the East Bay. Some of the poison will evaporate into the air, adding to our air pollution problem.
No herbicide or the other petrochemicals added to it is safe. Every banned pesticide was once declared safe from studies funded by the pesticide industry and which the FDA approved. The experts who once assured us that DDT, Dieldrin, Chlordane, etc. were safe are saying newer poisons are safe. But the cancer rate continues to rise, as do birth defects, neuological illness, and auto-immune illness, etc. all associated with herbicide use. Meanwhile, how many animals are dying? We've seen California Newts dying horrible deaths after crawling through roadside areas sprayed with “safe” herbicides.
Knowing how toxic chemicals work, we also can't believe that the herbicides will not make the poisoned plants more flammable.
We also believe this plan simply won’t work, knowing the amazing regenerative capabilities of these magnificent trees. So the use of poison will be far more continuous than planned. Eucalyptus will take thousands of gallons to stop its attempts to stay alive and resprout. And what about the acacias? You cut one down, and dozens sprout along the ground, yards away from the original tree. They continue to try to live years after their mother tree was killed. (These are not realities that should frighten people, but be reassuring that if our native forests die, we will still have magnificent parks full of beautiful shade trees with all the native animals we love.)
The connection between Monsanto and Dow with the "native plant movement" goes way back... There is an annual "wildland invasive species management" conference in the Bay Area that is sponsored by Dow & Monsanto. This unholy alliance is out in the open for everyone to see if they would just look: http://nativeplantwildlifegarden.com/nwf-t…
12. Every part of this plan makes no environmental sense. Honeybees are dying, so we need our native bee populations more than ever, but the planned 24 inches of chipped mulch will prevent native bees from reaching the soil where they nest.
13. Again, people who live in the East Bay have not been given the opportunity to vote on even the short-term aspects of the project and will be subjected, against our wills, to years of constant noise from chainsaws, bulldozing, woodchipping, road closures, and the ugliness and heartache of seeing favorite parks left treeless, with poisoned stumps. (There are a few places where this travesty was done several years ago which are still ugly wastelands.)
14. How will this devastation actually be done and who will commit it? Those of us who have seen "maintenance" in the parks result in destruction of rare wildflowers on one of the few special little trails in the EBRP know the impact just one individual untrained individual can have. (He weed-wacked everything in sight and now we have to travel two counties away to see some of those flowers.) Endangered Clapper Rail habitat was destroyed at Pt. Reyes in an effort to help the rails. Audubon basically destroyed the Burrowing Owl habitat at Cesar Chavez park in Berkeley. (The last two had "experts" advising.)
15. We ask, why the selective logging? Those few people who demand that the park trees be killed are wanting tax-payer FEMA money after they chose to buy houses near the very trees they now want dead. And they want to eliminate the rest of the East Bay residents from access to those beautiful trees that we support with our taxes. We suggest they trade houses and they live instead in the tree-denuded wasteland that is much of the East Bay urban area.
For those who want our parks and UC Berkeley lands clear-cut, we suggest they start with the multi-million dollar ornamental non-natives that are the majority trees at the UC Botanical Gardens and campus, the landscaping of businesses and federal, state, county, and city buildings, people’s private gardens and yards – which, like the hills, would leave almost no vegetation since most of the green we see are from non-natives. (Hypocrite UC even has a book about their many exotic trees on campus.) Why the inconsistency – why are the non native plants in the cities being spared while the wild animals' homes and food will be destroyed?
At the East Bay Regional Park headquarters in the hills where the meeting with FEMA was held,, and where tree-killing is planned, there were many non-native ornamentals. Those Olive trees, Liquidamber, Arbutus Unedo, etc, aren’t going to be eliminated, so why destroy the trees on trails that many of us know personally and love?
We ask every human who is against the beautiful exotic trees, what do you have in your own garden? If you don't want to be a hypocrite, first cut down your olives, roses, magnolias, wisteria, jasmine, apples, peaches, plums, etc. before you deprive wild animals of their homes and food. Most people don't even know which trees are native and which are not. But 99% of the plants in people's yards and gardens are not native.
Actually, there is a reason that the vast majority of city plantings are done with non-natives. They contribute variety and beauty, and they feed and house an incredible diversity of birds, butterflies, etc. (The only truly problematical invasive is Hedera Canariensis, which completely covers trees and kills them. It can be seem from Highway 13 in Oakland and in many other public places, where it has been growing for decades and can be seen completely covering redwoods. We have called those responsible for decades and have been told that they don't see it or don't have the time. That is another reason why it makes no sense to kill healthy trees, while letting healthy natives be killed by ivy.)
Of course we are not actually suggesting that people kill their non-native plants or cut down street trees and other landscaping, but we object to the double standard of where the wild animals are to be deprived of their homes and food while humans keep their non-native plants. Why should only the native animals suffer? No non-native human should be giving a death sentence to the native animals who will die as a result of this planned environmental devastation.
There will be many persuasive arguments for committing this irreparable environmental devastation, but please don’t believe them. We’ve seen terrible harm already done in the name of environmentalism in the Bay Area. A few hours of well-intentioned work can result in permanent ecological damage.
For those who insist on eliminating non-natives, we suggest we start with the humans, and then the introduced non-native animals who kill millions of native animals each year. And why not kill all the honeybees as well since they’re from Europe?
The animals trees who will be killed by this plan, are not just “things” in humans’ territory. They are living, feeling beings. And they give us so much. When people are often depressed from the dark and rain in winter, the gorgeous acacias bloom brilliant golden for two months. The broom with their yellow, exquisitely fragrant blossoms bloom for months during winter and spring.
Please learn who this project will actually benefit. Find out the details before it’s too late.
Please know that if this “project” begins, it will be far more destructive than they have told anyone. Expect the worst.
Once our beautiful forests are gone, we will be left with bare, ugly hillsides with poisoned stumps, impending erosion and landslides, polluted waterways, the wildlife left homeless, with many animals dead, many native plants also destroyed, the topsoil ruined, and the beauty gone forever. Few urban areas have such amazing wilderness. What a tragedy to mindlessly destroy it. We should all be grateful for what we have here.
The FEMA money is desperately needed elsewhere. Please do not waste this money by making a few people rich at the expense of the people, animals, environment, beauty of our parks. Please don’t create a new environmental disaster under the guise of preventing one.
Bev Jo
Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?”
With our native forests dying of Sudden Oak Death, we will need every tree we can get. Thousands of animals will die if these projects go through, including endangered species.
Nothing needs to be done in the hills. Fire starts in grasslands, which this environmental disaster will leave us with. The tall trees, which precipitate inches of moisture each year, protect against fire -- including eucalyptus.
This is ALL about getting taxpayer money from FEMA for Monsanto, Jean Quan, etc.
All the posts at this excellent site explain more:
http://milliontrees.me/fire-the-cover-stor…
Re: “Jayakarta”
Jayakarta has the most authentic Indonesian food I've had since moving to the US 20 years ago. I no longer attempt to cook Indonesian food at home.
Re: “Tunnel Vision Part One: Delta in Peril”
People have a right to express concerns regarding the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Some of these concerns are inaccurate and have been based on emotions rather than facts. Following are some of the facts as they relate to BDCP.
Nearly 4,000 farmers receive this water and most of them are family controlled. The land they farm is one of the most productive areas in the world for food production. Consumers around the world have benefited from the work of these dedicated farmers to provide a healthy and affordable food supply.
The efforts of these farmers in recent years have been disrupted by an unreliable supply of water that they have a right to receive. Regulations intended to protect Delta fish have taken water away from farmers and 25 million Californians. These regulations have attempted to increase fish populations by the single action of keeping more water in the Delta; these regulations have failed. Federal agencies that have written these regulations ignore the factors of predator fish, poor habitat and food supplies, and equally poor conditions in the ocean as the leading causes impacting population numbers for both smelt and salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service identified poor ocean conditions as the number one cause of dwindling salmon population. The National Research Council also concluded a study by explaining that resolving Delta problems require a wide-ranging approach that addresses multiple stressors.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is the best opportunity that fully complies with the mandate by the California Legislature to create a reliable water supply and restore the Delta ecosystem.
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
Re: “Sharing Fido”
I really like this concept. When I first started the article I was......hesitant. But knowing there is an opportunity to get to know someone before leaving your dog with them, and building friendships is wonderful.
I'll be sharing this blog post with my followers tomorrow. I'm really curious on their take.
Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?”
I remember growing up in the hills there. There used to be such grand views, now all the trees are so tall and untrimmed you can only see a fraction of the views we used to have even 30 years ago, and you pay 5x the price. The traffic also. We used to bicycle on Skyline & Grizzly Peak as kids and maybe 1 or 2 cars an hour would come by.
Re: “Categories We Didn't Think Of: Arts and Culture”
What a great public service you do with this!
Re: “Michaan's Auctions”
An interesting and educational place to work. The owners are fair, the clientle a quirky mix of characters and the merchandise a myriad of treasures of varying degree. Here one can has the opportunity to control their monthly work schedule and if ambitious and interested can work their way up into positions of more responsibility. Just being here can be a lesson in art & antiquities if one chooses to pay attention.
Re: “Walden Pond Books”
Lefendary for a good reason. Staff, well balanced selections and decvent ownership.
Re: “Manifesto Bicycles”
Family owned, fairly run, expert work & service.
Re: “East Bay Depot for Creative Reuse”
You name it, you need it, you want it, it's sure to be here.
Re: “Lake Merritt”
Whether alone or with a friend, this is a sweet, beautiful and serene place to get away and relax. Enjoy the beauty of the Japanese Koi Ponds, the bigger ponds & waterfall, the Bonsai Garden, the heavenly Sensory garden where you can feel & smell wonderful herbs, the Vegetable gardens where you can meet & learn from the various gardeners (you too can have a plot of your own), the Rose garden with all that blooming beauty, the Butterfly garden planted to attract three different species of butterflies and the new Bee Hotel designed to attract bees to pollinate the gardens. A truly wonderful place for family & friends...
Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?”
When the University of California takes its obligation to "native" students as seriously as it takes its responsibility to "native" plants, it will be a glorious day.
Re: “Toxic Incense”
This article is misleading and uses the umbrella term "incense" in the place of "most brands". It is unfortunate that this article seems to only highlight the obvious dangers of cheaply produced incense without providing a resource or a product recommendation for a safer option. This leads consumers to believe that they need to deal with and accept these dangers if they want their yoga studio or home to have the spiritual feel provided by incense. Of course, the air belongs to everyone and people should not have to inhale the perfume, smoke, or other fragrance (B.O. included) belonging to or enjoyed by someone else. This is a poorly written, sensationalized article. As for a suggestion for safe brands to look into, I have heard only good things about the Auroshika and Vinaiki.
Re: “Original Kasper’s Hot Dogs’ (Brief) Revival”
My grandma worked at Kaspers on MacArthur for 40 years!!!! Wish they would of gave her a lot more recognition when she retired finally in her 80's. Dam Shame really. Everyone remembers her from back in the day.