Commission Impossible

No less a personage than Lowell Ahart (co-author of Manual of the Vascular Plants of Butte County, California published by California Native Plant Society) pointed out to me that Sidalcea robusta (Butte County Checkerbloom) appeared to be growing more robustly adjacent to the Yahi Trail and Parking Area Q than away from it. He told me that some species prefer disturbances, and that the S. robusta growing in an portion of the former Parking Area Q lot was evidence. It is an issue that deserves further study. Let's have a charette, I mean, a workshop. Trails may be essestial for the continued well-being of the species.

See if checkerbloom becomes more abundent in disc golf as time passes. When I looked for it 5 years ago there was very little. And the intital botanical study found little/none. It suggests that disc golf use may be benefiting the species.

Hey Michael,

The BC Checkerbloom seems to thrive in all sorts of areas. The largest patch I've seen was in an area with regular foot traffic (this is about a 20'-40' diameter area with lots of plants).

But I've also seen little one or two stalk plants tucked in the shade just at the base of an oak.

But of course I'm no expert. I just think it's funny that the plant that was "removed" and caused such a ruckus appears to have grown back and is doing quite well.

That's a pretty tough plant.

Interestingly, the same thing is true for Butte County Meadowfoam. From what I've observed in the fields around here, it seems BCM does far better in pastures that are regularly disturbed by grazing or other activity.

For example, up to 2 years ago, the pasture at the corner of Bruce and Stilson Canyon road had healthy and proliferating BCM. Now with the horses gone (the owner died) non native weeds are overtaking the BCM.

This trend is also amply demonstrated in the City's own "Doe Mill Meadowfoam Preserve" at the East end of 20th street. This used to be cow pasture, but was donated to the city as a "mitigation appeasement" in the mid 90's by the Schmidbauers in exchange for being able to develop the property east of Bruce for a housing project. Its the same land CUSD picked initially for a High School site and then was rebuked by DFW.

While that Schmidbauer housing project failed for financial reasons, the meadowfoam preserve continued under City management. Basically it was fenced off, a "no access without City permission" sign posted and forgotten about, much like Bidwell Ranch now.

The BCM in that preserve is completely overrun by non native plants as its no longer being grazed. The seed pods of BCM in the preserve are dried pea sized, while down the road at Bruce and Stilson, they are marble sized, but less in distribution since grazing stopped two years ago.

Just two months ago I visited the Doe Mill preserve and found the gate knocked down and laying on the ground by construction of the new row houses across the street. The city of course was unaware, I notified Larry Wahl and he bumped it down the food chain to get it fixed.

Another example is the NE corner of Bruce and 20th. A patch of Douglassi Rosea Meadowfoam (non-endangered) was thriving two years ago, but this year the patch was completely plowed under due to a pipeline addition by the City...but two weeks ago, there it was, coming back strong. I'm betting on a bumper crop next year.

The point is, these endangered plants seem to fare better under human influence and managed pastures. Leave 'em alone and they wither from competition by other plants

Anthony,

I think the plants are sometimes used as a tool to create "concern" over human activity.

I've seen some plants put off limits to people in one area of Bidwell Park and bulldozed in another, at exactly the same time.

It's an interesting idea that some of these plants thrive in disturbed soil. This has been proposed by biologists in the past (example: Stewart Survey - Bidwell's Knotweed), but is rarely discussed today.

With "preservation" issues I often wonder where the science ends and the religion begins.

I have a theory about Butte County Meadowfoam.

I don't believe its native to California, but rather a recent mutated transplant within the last 200 years.

Here's my logic:

- Before California was settled, much of the N. Sacto valley was woodlands with a lot of Valley Oaks

- Early settlers came along in numbers from 1800-1900 and cleared much of the Valley Oaks, converting the woodlands to grasslands for grazing.

- With the advent of grazing, lots of open space meant those vernal pool puddles were now very visible from the air whereas before they were obscured.

- Waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway found those newfound puddles mighty inviting at times. Great place for a stopover, especially if we had an early fall rains and they were migrating south. Remember rice fields didn't exst then.

- Waterfowl from the Vancouver Island area may have ingested BCM's very close genetic relative, "Macouns Meadowfoam" during feeding. Then pooped it out on stopovers in vernal pools locally.

- Macouns Meadowfoam, which like all Meadowfoam, is a marsh plant, found itself in a puddle with seasonal water. To adapt and survive, it mutated.

- The mutation made it homozygotic, because in isolated vernal pools, it had no other nearby plants to cross pollinate with. It was mutate or perish. Nature has a way to adapt, and quickly if needed. I beleive that happened with BCM. Necessity was the mother of invention, so to speak.

- Note that the only thing unique about BCM versus other common meadowfoam is that its homozygotic...meaning it can reproduce without cross pollination...the only variant of the Limnanthes family to become that way. There are other examples in nature where isolated plants or animals have become homozygotic in order to survive.

- Continued grazing has kept the BCM population alive by minimizing competition from other plants. With grazing now being discontinued, BCM is withering because it doesn't have the resources to compete, becuase its out of its "original" marshland native environment.

So that's my theory. It may be all wet, but so far nobody else has come up with anything (that I know of) to explain the existence of this narrowly distributed freak of nature we call Butte County Meadowfoam.

And you are right Lon, it and other plants are sometimes used as a tool for obstructionism.

Hey there gentlemen,

I've been following your "reasoning" regarding the Butte County Checkerbloom, and Anthony your "arguments" regarding the Meadowfoam.

A few comments from a vegetation scientist might be appropriate.

First, regarding the checkerbloom, Lon, Checkerbloom does not have bulbs. It is a long-lived rhizomatous perennial. That means that it has an underground "mat" of lateral growing buds that are responsible for the resprout. So lets say your "plant" originally consisted of an 8 foot x 5 foot mat of underground rhizome, and someone came along with a pickax and shovel, and removed, say 8.5 feet by 4.5 feet of it. That last 1/2 x 1/2-foot square will resprout from the remaining undisturbed rhizome. So just because there are aerial stems present this year next to the vacant hole, doesn't mean that the plant is resilient...it might just mean that whoever dug the plant up missed a little bit of rhizome....just a little scientific reasoning.

Consider a mouth full of teeth. Someone takes a hit in the chops from say, a flying disc and knocks out all of their teeth but three. The next time he smiles and you see three teeth, do you say "wow look how those teeth thrive in disturbances"! Those teeth must just loved getting whacked by flying discs! Pretty silly wouldn't you say?

Also regarding your notions of "disturbance-requiring rarities", there is a huge body of scientific literature out there. I suggest you read some of it if you're going to expound on it. And it is a matter of discussion among consrevation biologists, and yes, even local CNPS folks. Read Grimes et. al. (Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes), who through lifetime of empirical study ordinated plant communities and individiual species according to three over-riding parameters (Stress tolerance, disturbance tolerance, and competation tolerance). Once you are grounded on those ideas, you can perhaps apply what you learned to the various vegetation assemblages present in upper park, and then perhaps start ordinating each of the various species (like checkerbloom and Bidwell's Knotweed) into the system. By the way, Stuart was not correct in his statement about Bidwell's knotweed. Some knotweeds thrive as weedy species in heavily disturbed sites, but Bidwell's is not one of these. It is primarily a stress-tolerant ephemeral that thrives under low competition conditions imposed by very thin and quikly drying soils. It lacks many of the features of other "weedy" knotweeds. It's kind of funny how so many consultants are ignored and even rediculed until a little piece of their information supports one's arguments.

Yes, some kind of disturbance is required for many (not all) native plant species to thrive. But not all disturbances are equal, and not all plant species respond similarly. Furthermore, the intensity, duration, and timing of disturbances can mean all the difference in the world. You might appropriately ask (just like many of you wonder why the checkerbloom is next to trails in so many situations), why it's absent in so many more? Why isn't it in the trail surface itself? Or the road surface? Why is it always so close to impermeable surfaces and protected microtopography(e.g., drip-line of oaks or next to outcropping rocks, or tucked among piles of fallen limbs)? How does proximity to the microtopographic features meadiate the plant's persistence considering the parameters of physiological stress, disturbance, and competition? Can you venture a guess?

Also, the reason that the first botanical survey of the Disc Golf Site came up with negative Checkerboom findings isn't because the plant has since repsonded positively to the disturbances. This is pretty silly. The reason is is that there was never a complete survey done! I went up there the week that Stuart submitted his report and "discovered" at least 1/2 dozon checkerbloom colonies, as well as numerous Bidwell's Knotweed colonies, and shortly thereafter, the White-Stemmed Clarkia.

Stuart's surveys of the disc golf site consisted of looking at the ground wherever his contracted trail survey area happened to overlap the disc golf site. I spoke with him about this. That is a fact I know. Beardsley threw in the disc golf scope onto the trails survey as an afterthought. The basis of the attorney letter was not a lawsuit threat (I wish you guys could get this straight), it was to notify the City that their analysis was incomplete (in more ways than just the botany surveys!).

One more thing, Butte County Checkerbloom is a rare species (do you know about all of the different types/patterens of plant rarity and the CNPS R-E-D Code?). Even though it is not presently listed as federally or state endagered, it is a candidate species (as all CNPS List 1B species are). It is the responsibility of Local, State and Federal agencies to assure (through project analysis), that any decision for a project go-ahead will not result in a trend towards listing. Once something is listed, it's almost too late.

One of the patteerns of rarity, by the way, is a plant species that is very narrowly distributed geographically, and locally frequent, and endangered in a portion of its range...sound familiar?

Anthony, regarding your meadowfoam "theory", I don't know where to even begin. I suggest that perhaps you should write a book on the subject to inform the scientific community of your insight. Maybe you can entitle it, "A Weatherman's Take on Vernal Pool Evolution and Ecology; A Paradigm Shift". I'm sure it would be very well recieved! In the mean time, you might want to read some of the many existing scientific papers on vernal pool biogeography and ecology and vernal pool plant evolution written over the last 50 years (not just the pet meadowfoam). I can suggest a few dozen to start with if you're interested.

Indeed, Lon, I wonder about the line between science and religion as well. By the way, I see very little of either in the discussion of Checkerbloom (or meadowfoam for that matter). Makes me wonder more about the line between reasonable discussion and politically-oriented project-proponant hysteria.

Respecfully,
John Dittes

Hey John,

You sound unhappy the Checkerbloom grew back.

Your "scientific" reasoning on the disc golfers removed teeth fails to recognize that teeth don't grow back.

Now, if a disc golfer lost all of his teeth, and then they all grew back because they are long-lived rhizomatous perennial teeth, you'd think the disc golfer would be happy. And maybe less concerned about losing teeth in the future.

I do appreciate the education on the wonderful BC Checkerbloom, which should be blooming any day now. It's good that we have so many scientists in the community willing to pleasantly educate us on the natural world.

Lon, I think you missed the analogy entirely. Like the 3 teeth, the portion of the checkerbloom that "grew back" may never went away..get it? I can try and make it even simpler for you if need be.

John

Hey John,

Please do. Not being a vegetative scientist I work mostly with stick figures and crayons. Any more of your brilliance you're willing to shine on me is appreciated.

As always, your humble and ignorant blogger,

Lon

Hello John,

As a scientist, please tell me what good all the sarcasm you have used has done? I'm not a social scientist either, but I'm betting the approach you've taken has only served to bolster already polarized stances.

Would it not have been better to maintain a professional persona, and explain why you think my theory has holes or is unworkable rather than to publicly chastise me? I've always been willing to listen, and to learn. No I'm not an expert in botany, but I've never claimed to be one. Regarding botany, I'm an educated layman with a strong interest. Having an opinion and/or theory doesn't mean I'm stupid, and it certainly does your cause and CNPS no good at all when you talk down to people.

It would be like me saying to people "well I'm not going to even bother telling you the forecast because you don't know anything at all about the Norwegian Cyclone Model!"

Your biggest battle is and always has been in PR, so why do you shoot yourself in the foot when you get a chance to bring GOOD PR your way?

I'm really disappointed that you have chosen to denigrate rather than educate.

Anthony,

Just a quick correction. Only one side is polarized (hmm, I wonder if that's possible, maybe I should check with a scientist).

The other side is playing with their kids in a wonderful park, and laughing off the the folks who look down their noses at the rest of us.

I am a beginer at "bloggin" but I must admit reading this one was especially precious. John it is obvious you are more impressed with yourself than the rest of us. Your knowledge would be a lot better served by serving it up with a little, scratch that, a lot less attitude (contempt) and a lot more spirit of the blog.

It seems to me that your comments are more designed to serve your desire to stop anything happening in your neighborhood than protect the species and fauna. The facts are the plants grew back and it seems most of the abused endangered species are doing better when tread upon than when protected.

Now if you want to pick on me, I suggest you aim at my spelling. Thats an easy target.

Henry

I can't believe how elitist the "vegetative scientist" comments sound. What are you trying to accomplish with your diatribe? It seems a bit self important and condescending. Neither of which is useful in getting anyone to understand your prespective...or care about it.

But then again, maybe that's beneath you.

John Dittes was hired by the CSUC Research Foundation which was hired by Park Director Dennis Beardsley to do the botanical survey for the proposed Annie Bidwell Trail about 5 years ago.

Mr. Dittes (a professional botanist)did what appeared to me (an amateur botanist)to be a fine job on the botanical survey. But even before the botanical survey was released to the public, Mr. Dittes had composed a letter to the Park Commission opposing the trail project. This letter included a laundry list of why the trail should not be built. Many of the items were way out of Mr. Dittes' field of expertise. A choice one said that the trail shouldn't be built because any brush that was cut would need to be packed out. As a person who has thirty years experience as a volunteer and professional (4 years)trail worker, that is absurd.

In the instance discribed above, Mr. Dittes behaved in a profoundly unscientific and unprofessional way by delivering his uninformed political opinions to the policy-making body that was concurrently recieving his professional report. I've never seen of such a crossing of the professional/personal line elsewhere.

Note that my comments (in the original post) about checkerbloom appearing to grow better in disturbed areas were based on the observations of the senior botanist in Butte County and that Mr. Dittes knew better than to challenge that.

One of the Park Commissioners told me (this is hearsay) that Mr. Dittes told him that he (Dittes) was going to "get me" and block the Annie Bidwell Trail. Mr. Dittes has been successful. So when you see the trails in the south side of Upper Park eroding, and widening, and you wonder why they aren't sustainable like normal professionally engineered trails, John Dittes (along with others, especially Dennis Beardsley) are to blame.

Mr. Dittes may feel satisfied, given his ignorance of sustainable trail design. But if at some time he learns of proper trail design, he will surely feel profound remorse for the harm he has caused to Bidwell Park.

Michael Jones
Chico Hiking Association president
-BA 1985, BS and DDS 1989
-former owner of Pacific Trails Co.
-former Mount Whitney trail crew member
-current member California Native Plant Society
-former Trail director Backcountry Horsemen of Calif, Sutter-Butte Chapter
-former Park Commissioner (brief, :-))

Hello all,

My mistake, please accept my apology...from reading this Blogg, I thought sarcasm was a running theme (e.g., Commission Impossible)...I obviously made a mistake in tone...I admit that.

Thanks to all of you for so gently and kindly pointing it out. Point taken.

Having said that, I'm open to a discussion of the matter. It's a really big leap to say disc golf is increasing the number of rare plants on the courses or trails without discussing the possible reasons for it, or alternative explanations to their presence, or potential negative affects. Saying that all of these rarities require human disturbance is just not accurate.

And Anthony, I don't go around telling anyone about the "Norwegian Cyclone Model" because I recognize that I just don't know much about it. I couldn't imagine publicly and repeatedly writing my opinions about it. And further, if I wanted to find out about it, I'd be more than willing to ask someone who knows (you).

Also, Anthony, I've never publicly called other people's opinions "not worth warm spit", or publicly labeled someone as "liberal scum"; so you're in kind of a funny position to criticize my tone.

It's funny that anyone bringing up a topic like this is labeled as an obstructionist, elitist, etc. Yowee.

Again, I really am sorry for my tone. I assure you it won't happen again.

Have a good Blogg,

John D.

Michael,

Regaring Lowell, the "senior botanist", he's one of my best friends, we have a lot of respect for each other, spend alot of time together in the field, and we agree on some things, and disagree on others. If at any point in time, you want to sit down and discuss the matter of plants with both of us together, I'd be happy to set up a meeting. Are you game? Please just say the word.

Regarding the Annie Bidwell Trail, you are right, I did what most have said is a very good professional job as a consulatant for trail analysis. And then as a citizen of Chico and a public park user, I stood up for what I cared about. The reason I wrote that followup letter was after Dennis told me that the project was going to be covered in a Negative Declaration. I did at that time what I'd do with any client who informed me of their intent to break the law...I dropped them. My subsequent letter to the city did not mix with the objectivity of my report. Sure, I don't know everything about trails (e.g., your example of brush removal). I'm always willing to learn something though.

Also, please recall that I never opposed an Annie Bidwell Trail outright. I just opposed your specific design, because it was overly duplicative and almost completely disregarded existing surfaces, to the extent that there would be three closely paralelling trails and you proposed a fourth in-between. Also, please recall, I was suggesting that access and trail conditions could be improved greatly by engineering the existing trail(s) to fix site-specific problems relating to erosion, slippery surfaces, steep slopes, etc. (that's hardly "Anti-Access, or "Anti-People", wouldn't you say?). Please recall that I specifically proposed a system of water-bars, carved steps, constructed rock berms and walls, handrails, and boardwalks over wetlands, etc.

This did not seem to be acceptable to you, I can only venture to guess because it did not allow for you to build new trail according to your design. So instead of working with others to improve the existing trails and public access...you simply disappeared.

Also and importantly, beside you and a few people to whom you made (self-admitted) campaign contributions, hardley anybody else from the public, at any of the meetings, or in any other public forums ever supported your trail. I remember NOBODY. Do you recall anyone else lobbying or writing letters? If I'm mistaken on this please correct me, I'm happy to learn of it. That, I believe though is a fact of historic record. Nobody but you, a few lobbied Council-memebers and several park commisioners ever spoke in favor or it. To the contrary many dozens of people over two years, the vast majority of whomI don't know, I've never met nor have ever spoken with, voiciferously opposed it.

So Michael, when the meetings with EDAW started to prioritize development projects in the park, guess what...nobody, absolutely nobody listed your Annie Bidwell Trail as a priority. That is democracy in action, uncomfortable as the fact may be.

Also, contrary to what you've written in public on numerous occasions, Friends of Bidwell Park, Dan Nguyen-Tan and Maureen Kirk did not "reneg" on "the compromise". In fact, it's on the public record that the "Friends of Bidwell Park" wrote two letters to the City Council and Park Commission, reminding them TO SUPPORT THE COMPROMISE. Unfortunately, nobody, not even you, ever brought it up again at any of the CAC Meetings. It's the record.

Let me know about my proposed meeting with my "senior botanist" friend. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to "clear the air".

By the way, I'm still willing to give you my two cents worth about alternative solutions to fix southside trails to help "improve access". They do not involve too many new segments, but they will go far to improve public access and slow down the erosion. Like I mentioned to you several years ago now, if you are willing to compromise a little and work with others, you could start swinging your pick tomorrow! Let me know.

Your credentials are impressive!

John D.

Dear John,

Some clarifications:

1- I have never labeled a known individuals opinion as "not worth a bucket of warm spit", as I respect all opinions of those whom put there name to them, including yours. What I HAVE said is that "anonymous" opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, because I don't respect those whom don't have the courage to put their name to their words when they attack others. Thats why I don't like "Tell it to the ER" as its lack of personal accountability makes it a forum for the cowardly and misinformed.

Thats a big distinction from what you claim I've said.

2- Where do you get the idea that I've publicly labeled somebody as "liberal scum"? Thats news to me. If its a post in this or other blogs then its not true, as anyone can type in anybody's name or email address and post anything they want. There's no security check here. Somebody could post as "John Dittes" or myself and say anything as outrageous as they want, the only defense is the moderator and them knowing the participants.

3- Just because you aren't an expert on the "Norwegian Cyclone Model" doesn't mean you can't study it, learn about it, or have opinions on it. I think this sort of thinking that only experts can have valid opinions is where people get upset and start talking about intellectual elitism. Thats the vry reason I started www.meadowfoam.org because nobody in your circles seemed to want any information to be available to the public. Still waiting on the CNPS website for your chapter. Is it up yet?

I'd be happy to discuss weather, botany, TCP/IP or anything with you, and I'd point out any misconception you might have about it and counter with facts/references rather than using a sarcastic verbal baseball bat. Yet your tone indicates that myself, and others in this blog, aren't allowed to form opinions about the field you work in, even if we've taken the time to study it ourselves. That hardly seems fair. All I'm asking for is the courtesy of pointing out errors in a tacit way and to help educate.

4- I've not said a single word belittling you in this blog, yet you persist in doing so in your responses to me. Why is that? I stated an opinion, and you went on the attack.

5- I've asked once, and I'll ask again. I'm open to understanding why you believe my thinking is wrong on the subject of BCM. Enlighten me. You want people to trust and respect your opinions and knowledge on Vernal Pools, BCM, checkerbloom, knotweeds and the like well OK here's your chance. Like I said your biggest battle is PR. Opportunity awaits you.

6- All this noise deflects from the original questions about BC Checkerbloom and BCM and our "clinical" observations that these plants do pretty darned well when co-existing with human disturbance. You even wrote a letter to the ER agreeing with my stance on the issue related to grazing on the Bruce/Stilson/Doe Mill BCM population last year. Why the change now?

John mentioned a lack of support for AB Trail at EDAW’s meetings. There was strong support for Frisbee golf at those same meetings. It seems to me that he’s selectively choosing from a consultant’s fine work to bolster only his opinion.

BC Checkerbloom is locally abundant. Regionally it is not (hence the Butte County prefix). So the premise is that a locally abundant, non-endangered, plant needs to be protected to the point where human activity in its proximity needs to stop (50’ radii were discussed as keep-out areas). Before severe restrictions are supported by me you’ll have to convince me that the plant is not regionally abundant due to human activity. A lack of abundance regionally may have nothing to do with human activity, and abundance locally may be an indication that additional protection is unnecessary. Maintaining abundance locally could also be done by propagating the plant, as opposed to coddling it.

I used to have a hard time getting a handle on all of the preservationist doctrine. Then I figured out a great way to understand where they were coming from. Just put the words “In order to keep people off the land…� in front of their statements.

Now, if you were talking to a conservationist you would use the words “In order to keep people on the land…�

I don’t know if John’s a preservationist or conservationist, or a bit of both. But I do know that being mean and condescending won’t win converts to either doctrine.

Last year an award was posted for the removal of BC Checkerbloom. There was no plant at the locale last year (no partial plant either). My premise is that when the mountain bike ramps were built (which is why the holes were dug), the Checkerbloom was pulled, along with a lot of grass to pack into the ramp. Since the roots remained intact the Checkerbloom has grown back. That is one tough plant.

Now that we’ve solved the mystery of the missing checkerbloom, lets move on to the real threat to the park… all that non-native air that keeps blowing in there.

Hey guys, I sincerely apologized for the tone of my first note..Lon, could you let up a little?

Anthony, I suggest we get together and talk. You have my e-mail, please drop me a line. If I don't hear from you first, I'll be contacting you. Regarding the BCMF and disturbance, I agreed with you that reduction in competition is beneficial for the species, but I disagreed with you about the kind of grazing. If you recall, I said that cattle are the way to go, and that goats, which you specifically suggested, would likely eliminate the species. This is an example of what I was trying to get at, that yes disturbances can benefit, but the nature of disturbance can make a very big difference. Just trying to point out that it's not a black-and-white issue. Again, drop me a line.

Lon, you criticize my tone and in turn are relentless in using it yourself in replies. If you want to talk about Butte County Checkerbloom at some point in the future, let me know. Also, regarding your question about my preservationist/conservationist views, well if you are interested, I believe that there are places appropriate for preservation, places for conservation, and places for all-out use. I believe that private land owners rightfully should have a big say about resources on their own property. I disagree with significant parts of the ESA, particularly as they relate to private land. Striking a balance on public land is a bigger challenge, for obvious reasons. Also public support for the disc golf course (or lack thereof), and "keeping people off the land" was not, and has not been the subject of the discussion here.

Again, if any of you want to sit down and talk, I'm open...(you too Michael). I think I'm done with this blogging business for a while though.

Later,
John D.

John,

Sorry if you felt I was being hard on you.

Maybe I'll take you up on a chance to meet and we can walk the park. I'm always happy to learn more about nature.

We could meet at the frisbee golf course and play while talking. You might learn something as well.

Lon

Actually all this sparring puts me back to an idea that I had back in '03 that I proposed to a couple of people, but didn't get any traction. Maybe now is the time to try again.

I think we need an environmental summit between the varied interests.

My take on it is this:

We have a conundrum of the "irresitible force meets the immovable object" when it comes to land use in Chico. Yet both sides share interests and views of the other.

What gets us in shouting matches is when public land is blocked for use by over-broad policy. We have Bidwell Park, Highway 70/149, Bidwell Ranch, and Canyon View High School all having environmental roadblocks tossed at them.

Yet I think if you'll set down with the proponents of these projects, you'll find us to be reasonable decent people, many of whom share views of conservation. Michael Jones is a good example, he just wants people to appreciate nature more and to allow public access to public lands. With environmental education and field trips to these areas, that can be a good thing. Again John, opportunity awaits you.

For example in my case, I'd be willing to get down with a shovel, rake, mapping, or other tools to help preserve many of the species we have in contention. There can be a balance. I don't want to kill all the Meadowfoam, I just want kids to have a decent school, and I'll put sweat equity into making it happen on the environmental side.

I think perhaps we all suffer from myopia a little bit. Bidwell Park has these things, but what about the other places nearby? These plants grow just as well in adjacent canyons. Why does the public have to give up safety, recreation, or a new school when we can focus our energy in places where both sides can win and the species can be preserved?

I think its almost criminal that the City of Chico has a Meadowfoam preserve that nobody maintains, including BEC or CNPS, yet here we are fighting the battle to "save" these things while we are ignoring maintaining whats already been done.

From an out of towners view, we must look like Israel and Hamas.

I propose that we setup a summit, with the goal being to exclude secular interests, but work towards resolutions. After all, we can all win, and we are all intelligent thoughtful and passionate people. There ought to be a way to capitalize on that. Maybe that summit can start small, at a coffee shop and grow into something more official from there.

I very much agree, this would be great!

There are huge challenges and huge opportunities here.

Let's not back away from any of them.

Sounds good..I recall you suggesting this before Anthony.

I'd also like to take you up on your offer Lon.

Perhaps we could get together for a chat over coffee sometime during the coming weeks.

John D.