Put the Sierra Club in charge?
Mark Paxton’s article last week about cattle was almost
hilarious,if it weren’t so effective.
 Adjectives such as muscular bull picking on those poor sandy
soils, oh it tugs the heart strings. Perhaps I can take Mark on a
visit to buffalo wallows on my family’s farm. These wallows are
veritable pools of diversity throughout the year. What those bull
feet, and rolling bodies do is pulveriz
e the soil and create a pocket for water to collect and allow
wildflowers to flourish. Perhaps the Sierra Club could list the
successes of grazing on protecting species. Perhaps we can
repopulate California with the elk herds, mastodons and other fauna
that used to muscularly, mindlessly pounce all
over the place. The more we actually research grazing, the more
benefit is actually revealed as a carbon source is recycled, and a
fire danger minimized by people who are willing to eke out a 2
percent return on their investment. These areas are easily fenced
off to minimize year-round trouncing,
and can be opened up to allow periodic trouncing to recycle the
excess carbon and plant and distribute seed. Cloven hooves are
uniquely designed to do this as opposed to hoofs like those found
on horses. I noted as well the muscular jeep road was traveled on
to get to pristinia with nary a comment
about its damage. Also not criticized was just the general
presence of man on earth at all. Perhaps we can tear down highway
85 and 87 in the marsh areas and bring those places back to life.
Economic growth through population expansion is causing more damage
than a connection with cattle.
Perhaps we can convert to eating Argentine ants, invasive
mussels and other non-native species and trade them on some sort of
carbon trading equivalent.
 More human species equals less wetlands. More private ownership
of land equals more protection of endangered species if the
environmentalists wouldn’t penalize landowners with restricitive
use policies that actually encourage eradicating any environment
for animals for fear the government might co
me in. Talk about trying to do something good and get the
opposite effect.
In the end, it’s obvious that most environmentalists actually
want to end land ownership. Perhaps we should just tear up the
constitution while we are at it and put the Sierra Club et al in
charge.
Mark Dickson
Hollister
Put the Sierra Club in charge?
Mark Paxton’s article last week about cattle was almost hilarious,if it weren’t so effective. Adjectives such as muscular bull picking on those poor sandy soils, oh it tugs the heart strings. Perhaps I can take Mark on a visit to buffalo wallows on my family’s farm. These wallows are veritable pools of diversity throughout the year. What those bull feet, and rolling bodies do is pulverize the soil and create a pocket for water to collect and allow wildflowers to flourish. Perhaps the Sierra Club could list the successes of grazing on protecting species. Perhaps we can repopulate California with the elk herds, mastodons and other fauna that used to muscularly, mindlessly pounce all over the place. The more we actually research grazing, the more benefit is actually revealed as a carbon source is recycled, and a fire danger minimized by people who are willing to eke out a 2 percent return on their investment. These areas are easily fenced off to minimize year-round trouncing, and can be opened up to allow periodic trouncing to recycle the excess carbon and plant and distribute seed. Cloven hooves are uniquely designed to do this as opposed to hoofs like those found on horses. I noted as well the muscular jeep road was traveled on to get to pristinia with nary a comment about its damage. Also not criticized was just the general presence of man on earth at all. Perhaps we can tear down highway 85 and 87 in the marsh areas and bring those places back to life. Economic growth through population expansion is causing more damage than a connection with cattle.
Perhaps we can convert to eating Argentine ants, invasive mussels and other non-native species and trade them on some sort of carbon trading equivalent. More human species equals less wetlands. More private ownership of land equals more protection of endangered species if the environmentalists wouldn’t penalize landowners with restricitive use policies that actually encourage eradicating any environment for animals for fear the government might come in. Talk about trying to do something good and get the opposite effect.
In the end, it’s obvious that most environmentalists actually want to end land ownership. Perhaps we should just tear up the constitution while we are at it and put the Sierra Club et al in charge.
Mark Dickson
Hollister
Budget dangles in the wind
The California Legislature has been late passing a budget before. Normally, both the Assembly and Senate would keep working until a budget could be passed.
 Not this year.
 The Assembly had passed a budget with a deficit of over $500 million even though the state constitution requires a balanced budget. The budget included rosy projections of income. Then the assembly adjourned.
 The Senate has not been able to come to terms on how to balance the budget. So, on a straight party-line vote, (1) the Democrats defeated a Republican motion to resume the senate session Friday; (2) on a straight party-line vote, the Democrats defeated a Republican motion to approve emergency funding to allow bills to be paid until the budget is adopted; and (3) on a straight party-line vote, the Democrats refused to consider $800 million of budget savings that Republicans had proposed to balance the budget.
 The Democrats’ solution – recess the Senate indefinitely. California could not pay its July 31 obligations.
 San Benito County cannot define its budget for next fiscal year without knowing what the state will do. Same for the every school district and government entity in the state.
 Our Democratic representatives in Sacramento have left the citizens of California dangling slowly in the wind.
Marvin L. Jones
chairman, San Benito County Republican Central Committee
‘New nurbanism’ or socialism?
I’ve represented small and very small business owners for more than 28 years in Gilroy, and I’ve seen the consequences of our government’s application of the policy called “new urbanism,” aka old socialism, which is at its heart really nascent communism.
Here’s what I’ve seen happen in Gilroy: businesses closing, becoming insolvent, seeking relief in the bankruptcy court, moving out of state or out of the USA, job flight after those businesses moved, family disruption, lost incomes, lost savings, divorces and delinquent children. Our leaders hail it as “success.” I think it sucks.
It has created employment, but not here. It has raised taxes and fees, and saddled property owners with exorbitant traffic impact fees (really government impact fees). In housing, in transportation, in health care, in just about every aspect of our lives, Marxism dominates.
It’s different of course, if you’re Walmart, Home Depot, Costco, etc. But for my clients it’s been ruinous. Hollister’s leaders would have to be crazy to follow Gilroy’s fiascoes. Just the black hole transit hub alone has sucked taxpayers dry while our leaders attempt to make the Soviets’ economic policy (new urbanism) work here. And on Aug. 23 HSRA will be in the Gilroy City Council chambers trying to convince us that their bullet train is a solution, rather than more government blight in a blighted, over-regulated, confiscatroily taxed, community that has evolved to be the small business killing fields. Yeah, if you hate your neighbors, follow the ruinous path of false promises called “new urbanism.” Caveat viator!
Joseph P. Thompson
Gilroy
