I
have been increasingly alarmed with trips taken to Washington, D.C. by former
rock stars to declare to our legislators their recommendations regarding
national policies of all kinds.
It
is not clear to me what special contributions they think they can make to the
discussions that are any different from any other concerned citizen. Perhaps
they feel that their opinions matter more than others and they are wise to the
fact that the regular citizen will pay attention to their opinions, many
assuming that these stars know more than they do.
The
sad fact is that these people’s lives are very different from anybody else’s.
They often fly around in private jets to avoid the hoards of adoring fans that
constantly approach them wherever they go. This is quite reasonable, as all
people need some time to themselves where they do not have to be “on.” But do
you get mobbed whenever you go out for dinner by “fans” or do you get phone
calls, get stalked or receive love letters from people you don’t even know?
Probably
not -- but what you can see is that their lives are very different from ours.
Because of that, their life experience is very different, and therefore their
opinions should be taken with that very large boulder of salt. Why they command
so much attention on political policy matters is beyond me. Your opinion is far
more real.
Norman
Did
you see the two movies, “City Slicker I” and “II,” a few years back? They were
pretty entertaining and very popular. From a rancher’s viewpoint, they were
fairly true tellings of the story of some visitors to
a dude ranch and their various mishaps.
One
of the most endearing parts of the movie was the birth of the orphan calf the
dudes named Norman.
We
now have a calf at the ranch that we believe was a twin and was
left behind by its mother, which apparently thought she couldn’t raise two
calves. For those of you not in the cow business, twins are not as common among
cows as they are among sheep, and some cows will leave one calf behind to fend
for itself.
We
were fortunate in finding our very own Norman, dehydrated as he was and a bit
weak, for coyotes and other varmints look for just such a meal. We brought
Norman into the foaling barn where we started bottle feeding him. He was very
responsive to our ministrations and soon became a growing, healthy ranch pet.
He
has become quite a popular ward with some of the employees, who describe him as
beautiful with all black fur, big brown eyes, and the longest eyelashes they’ve
ever seen. I wonder how they will feel about him when he reaches 600-700 lbs.
and isn’t quite so friendly?
It
is hard to tear one’s feelings away from these little creatures, especially
when they depend on us for their care. In any event, I am glad that Norman is
doing well and will have a happy and healthy upbringing.
Secrets
I
just got a notice announcing a public hearing titled “Procedures for Acceptance
of General Plan Amendments and Rezones in the 3rd District Draft Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Area,” a planning commission
hearing on Wednesday, Nov. 7, at the Santa Barbara County Engineering Building,
Room 17, 123 E. Anapamu, Santa Barbara. Now what
could this be?
As
a member of the public who attended most of the meetings of the development of
the community plan, and as a member of the Valley Planning Advisory Committee,
which took over after the General Plan Advisory Committee was dissolved, I have
considerable interest in the result. This plan also impacts my ranch in
unfortunate ways in that two parcels were cut off from the rest of the ranch
and placed into the inner rural category, rather than the outer rural category,
and a design review overlay was placed on those two parcels, both of which are
and will continue to be a horse breeding facility and cow pastures.
I
have asked Supervisor Firestone to remove these designations and put those two
parcels back in the same category as the rest of the ranch – but with no
response.
Having
been to years of meetings, I am quite familiar with the topics and issues
discussed. I am also very familiar with the procedures that follow throughout a
general plan and community plan process, so I am very confused when I read that
“the purpose of the public hearing is to reconsider (emphasis is mine) and
clarify the existing procedure and propose acceptance of general plan
amendments and/or rezones prior to adoption of the Santa Ynez
Community Plan if the proposed project is found to be consistent with the Draft
Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan and/or provides a public
benefit.”
So
what are the rezones “of public benefit” that the county is willing to provide
new rules to accomplish before the plan is adopted? What is the project and why
all the secrecy prior to the meeting? Why is this astounding new procedure occurring?
This
is precedent-setting, something never done before. It has always been policy
during consideration of a community plan that rezones don’t happen until after
the plan has been finished and accepted. Why, all of a sudden, is there the
need for rezones which no one knows about until the meeting? From what I hear,
this topic has come before the planning commission before but they were
unwilling to support it with only four commissioners seated. Remember, the 3rd
District has been without a planning commissioner while the county dealt with a
conflict of interest charge made by Vincent Armenta
in a six-page letter to the board of supervisors.
When
this item first came to the planning commission, it was defeated 2 to 2. The
3rd District now has a seated Commissioner, C.J. Jackson -- is this why this
topic is coming back, to be accepted? Is there some master plan of which the
citizenry is unaware, a plan that we have been prevented from seeing? What is
this project that requires pre-plan approval? For further information, please
contact Derek Johnson, Project Manager at (805) 568-2072 or
djjohnson@sbcao.org.
Litter
Every
so often, while driving down a highway, you will spot a sign announcing a fine
of $1000 for littering the highway. I am sure you have seen them. But have you
ever heard of someone actually being fined for this? I have heard that some
fines have been levied, but the consensus is that it is one of those laws that is difficult to prosecute because the way it is written; one
has to be seen doing the littering. It is not enough to think someone is
guilty.
Last
week, while riding the fence around Armour Hill, the
piece of ground that Armour Ranch Road encircles, two
ranch employees decided to pick up what they thought would be about six or seven
glass bottles they spotted from the road.
By the time they were done, they, to their astonishment, had collected
48 glass bottles, some still whole and some smashed.
Of
course, broken glass in a pasture containing animals is extremely hazardous,
not just to domestic animals, in this case mother cows and calves, but also to
the wild animals that live in that pasture as well. Feet can be cut or left
with pieces of embedded glass that can lead to infection and subsequent
inability of the animal properly to forage for food.
This,
of course, leads to inadequate nutrition, and in severe cases possible death.
While foraging, animals can eat pieces of glass, which will have a very
detrimental effect on their digestive systems and also potentially can lead to
their deaths.
So
what kind of unthinking people throw their glass containers out of their
windows as they pass by a pasture inhabited by all sorts of animals? I am
shocked that we have so many of them living here or perhaps visiting. In any
event, this is the height of animal cruelty, and I ask you to please report any
such incident that you might witness to the local sheriff’s office, complete
with car license number if you can. This sort of thoughtless behavior needs to
stop.
Uncle
Ted
As
I look out of my window and enjoy the beautiful day with a soft, warm breeze
blowing, I am remembering my uncle Ted, whom I lost this past week. He
had had a very long, full life doing many things the rest of us only dream
about. He owned the White Horse Ranch, which, according to all who had been
there on the eastern border between Oregon and California, was nothing short of
spectacular. He took great pride in the cattle he raised and in the employees
he had had for many years.
He
was also a sailor, a tennis player, and he enjoyed numerous business ventures.
He and his wife, Pauline, had three beautiful daughters, and they enjoyed a
very busy social life. They are a very close family and I am sure that they
will miss him terribly.
Although
Uncle Ted was never a resident of the valley, he was my father, Jack
Crawford’s, first cousin. I know that many of you knew my father, and Uncle Ted
often visited the valley to consult with Father on ranching matters. Both men
loved with a deep passion their ranches, their livestock and the resident
wildlife. They were familiar with every part of their respective ranches, to
such a degree that many of their employees frequently would ask for the history
of a given part.
Several
years after my father’s death, Uncle Ted called me and quizzed me on all
aspects of the operation so as to reassure him -- and me -- that things were
going in the right direction. After comparing calf weaning weights and
discovering that mine were around 100 pounds more than his, he changed the
subject. On this beautiful valley fall day, I can only hope that father and
Uncle Ted are together again, talking about how ranching has changed. I will
miss them both.