Public Comment

The PUPP writer is woefully uninformed and misunderstands basic forestry and fire hazard management. What does the PUPP writer even mean by the statement, ““restoration” of native plants and trees (even where they never grew before)” ??? How can native plants and trees never have grown where they are to be restored? Implicit in the definition of restoration is the removal of nonnative plants so that native plants can be restored to their natural habitat. Restoration fosters the resiliency of ecosystems and helps reduce the risk of fuel loads associated with non-native vegetation. 

The PUPP writer’s claim about toxic chemicals is false. Toxic chemicals are not at an increased use. Species-specific herbicides are minimally applied at researched sites so that they rapidly decompose and pose minimal impact to the environment. Even herpetologists recommend this method of herbicidal application because it is least likely to harm even the most chemically sensitive native amphibians in the parks and offers the greatest benefit for habitat restoration. 

When asked if the Park District is doing a good job, the public overwhelmingly said yes. Our park managers are experts who are committed to responsible land management so that we can safely enjoy our beautiful parks. Contrary to PUPP’s assertion that “money is spent on changes the public does not want,” the public clearly supports the improvements that the Park District will continue to provide. 

PUPP falsely asserts that Measure FF will provide $66 million over 20 years. In fact, Measure FF is projected to provide less than $50 million over 20 years. 

Contrary to PUPP’s assertion that “EBRPD has been cutting down more tall, thick-trunked shade trees that store carbon and help prevent global warming, “ EBRPD has a forest management plan that, in fact, enhances the growth of fire-resistant shade trees, such as oaks and redwoods. 

The PUPP writer misunderstands and mistakenly ascribes the causes of the Tubbs, Thomas, and Lake County fires to grasslands. In fact, the fires were caused by power lines that ignited nearby trees that should have been pruned and kept a safe distance from the power lines. See https://abc7news.com/cal-fire-releases-cause-of-12-north-bay-wildfires/3579377/ 

Again the PUPP writer misstates the facts about who pays and benefits from Measure FF. Keep in mind that the EBRPD parks are free to anyone who seeks a park experience regardless of where they live. This Measure will not increase taxes at all. This measure is merely a continuation of an existing parcel tax that amounts to just $12 per year for a property owner. 

The PUPP reader makes a false claim when asserting that hill restoration projects are a “vain attempt.” Where hill restoration has taken place, the restored habitat is home to threatened or endangered species such as the Tri-colored blackbird, the red-legged frog, or the San Joaquin kit fox. Without such hill restoration projects, threatened and endangered species lose their habitat and have nowhere to go and are at risk for extinction. Hill restoration is one of many science-based tools for protecting rare plants and animals. 

By applying the fictional name of “nativist” to science-trained conservationists, the PUPP writer dismisses out of hand years of professional training, research and publications in peer-reviewed journals, and evidence-based management practices. Dear reader, please inform yourselves of the facts. A simple search of best fire management practices will turn up countless research and published writings in peer-reviewed journals. Such practices are the basis for the EBRPD’s fire management and hill restoration plans. Start here: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr325.pdf 

Again the PUPP writer is mistaken when they assert, “non-native species, including eucalyptus, were planted to alleviate the problem of recurring grass fires.” In fact, eucalyptus trees were planted as a lumber source. However, it is widely accepted that “In seasonally dry climates oaks are often fire-resistant, particularly in open grasslands, as a grass fire is insufficient to ignite the scattered trees. In contrast, a eucalyptus forest tends to promote fire…” See Wikipedia at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Fire_hazard 

The PUPP writer sadly dismisses the natural resilience of native oaks and the reduced risk of fire that is associated with a healthy oak forest. 

The PUPP writer falsely conflates the use of toxic pesticides as a cancer-causing agent with the safe application of herbicides by trained professionals. The writer fails to comprehend that professionally-applied herbicides assure that impacts to the habitat and to chemically-sensitive wildlife are minimized. Land managers oppose the use of toxic pesticides that persist in the environment. Instead, only target-specific herbicides that rapidly decompose in the environment are applied. 

Please do your own research and then, with confidence that your forests and parks will be there for our future safe enjoyment, vote Yes for Measure FF!