Bob Strayer 
Member since Jun 17, 2013


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “East Bay Hills Tree Removal Plan Still Sparking Debate

What Mr. Grassetti neglects to mention is that eucalyptus shed more than 3 times as much detritus, and the native microbes don't biodegrade it as fast as native detritus.
Eucalyptus are much costlier to maintain than a native landscape.
You can see the difference here.…

25 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 06/24/2015 at 1:33 PM

Re: “Of Trees and Elephants

The author appears grossly ignorant of the eucalyptus issue.

1. The unified methodology is not a thinning plan, it is a hybrid between the Park district's disastrous agreement with the HCN and UC Berkeley's eradication and restoration plan.

2. There was never a proposal to clear cut, since there would be about 300 native trees per acre left after the Euc's Pines, and acacias are removed.

3. I suggest looking at the Australian models if you think the evidence of eucalyptus being a fire hazard is weak. Eucalyptus have one of the highest fat contents of any tree species, they produce 3 times as much ground fuel as natives, their flame lengths are 65 feet above the crown, and the long strips of bark they shed routinely spot fires 20 kilometers away, and have been known to spot fires 30 kilometers away. It is not the evidence that is weak, it is the authors knowledge of fire science that lacks muscle.

4. The UC plan would not create a moonscape. Unless, this is what you consider a moonscape.…
Nor would it require heavy use of pesticides. A few ounces per tree, applied with a non-drip brush to the cambium layer is no where near the equivalent of broadcast herbicides used in agriculture.

The eucalyptus in the canyon do not provide essential habitat for any native species. Just because native species can utilize them does not make them essential. Furthermore, the biological opinion concludes that eradication and conversion is self mitigating for the Alameda whipsnake, redleg frog, and pallid manzanita. Thinning the groves requires the property owners to purchase mitigation acres and set up a trust large enough to fund maintenance in perpetuity. The UC methodology is self mitigating.

The Park districts plan requires them to purchase over 300 acres, set up a $25 million dollar trust, and maintain that acreage in perpetuity. Here is an analysis of the cost by Jerry Kent, retired assistant general manager for EBRPD.…

Oh, one more thing. The activists that the author sings the praises of have filed a lawsuit to overturn the final EIS. Their legal maneuverings have effectively stopped any vegetation management in the FEMA grant areas of these fire prone hills for a decade. Now they have done it again. If they succeed, FEMA will have to do another EIS, revoke the grant.

Then we will all have to live with the threat of catastrophic fire in the East Bay Hills. And we can all thank Dan Grassetti, with a special shoutout to Robert Gammon, one of his enablers.

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 03/15/2015 at 11:19 AM

Re: “The Eucalyptus Is Part of California

The author mentions French Broom as an example of another species being targeted because of it's immigration status, while ignoring it's felony arrest record!

"French broom currently occupies approximately 100,000 acres in California (D. Barbe, pers. comm.). It displaces native plant and forage species, and makes reforestation difficult. It is a strong competitor and can dominate a plant community, forming dense monospecific stands. In an experiment in New Zealand French broom had a higher growth rate than any other broom species found in California, reaching an average height of more than 4.5 feet (141 cm) in two growing seasons. Since it can grow more rapidly than most trees used in forestry, it shades out tree seedlings in areas that are revegetated after harvest."…

Here is a photo album of a Eucalyptus grove surrounded by French Broom.

21 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 07/29/2013 at 3:03 PM

Re: “The Eucalyptus Is Part of California

@K. Holman - Clear-cutting and prolonged use of pesticide is not being proposed. That is a lie being propagated by the Hills Conservation Network and their sophisticated media outreach operation.
Here is what UC Berkeley is doing. In pictures.…

25 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 07/26/2013 at 2:50 PM

Re: “The Eucalyptus Is Part of California

@Cyrus Farivar - There is no need to plant trees in their place. There is a native riparian woodland being suppressed by the eucalypti, it is just waiting for liberation.
I have pictures of what the clear-cut, pesticide drenched UC Berkeley forest looks like after eradication on my website.………
And here is what the the forest looks like before eradication and liberation.…
The website is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies. They censor any comments that are contrary to their tightly controlled narrative. Most of the comments here are from a tight group of misguided, misanthropic, tree huggers that are being exploited by a few clever propagandists.

24 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 07/26/2013 at 2:45 PM

Re: “The Eucalyptus Is Part of California

The author begins his argument with the false premise that eradication of eucalyptus is "clear-cutting". An argument based on a false premise is by definition, a false argument.
The application of herbicide to the cambium layer of the stump is not "periodically dousing". Glyphosate has a short half-life and is not likely to enter the watershed even if sprayed on foliage.
I am documenting the lies and distortions of the author and his cronies at the Hills Conservation Network on my blog.
The truth is; E. Globulus and French Broom, are nasty, invasive, fire prone weeds that need to be eradicated from the East Bay Hills and other fire prone areas.

24 likes, 20 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 07/25/2013 at 9:19 AM

Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?

Had the author exercised a modicum of due diligence, she could have saved the East Bay Express a lot of paper and ink.

The letter cited by the " respected environmental engineering company" is over four years old. A trip to the Claremont Canyon or a visit to my blog, where I have shared hundreds of recent photos, prove the " respected environmental engineering company" was dead wrong!…

The biologist was right, the contractor was wrong. The stunted riparian woodland recovers quite rapidly once the oppressive eucalypti are eradicated.

The alternative to eradication, Thin, limp, and scrape, is not best practice for the developed sections of the park.…

It is totally unworkable in the steep, rugged, undeveloped forest.…

I don't know if Kathleen Richards has an agenda or not. Deliberately misleading, or just grossly misinformed, either way, this article is waster of paper and ink.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bob Strayer on 06/17/2013 at 7:12 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation