Hiking Is Not A Crime; Done Dirty By Diktat

Posted on February 9, 2023 by Jack Elliott

“What does accessibility mean?

Is there any spot on earth that men have not proved accessible by the simplest means—feet and legs and heart? …

A venturesome minority will always be eager to set off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks, for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches—that is the right and privilege of any free American.”

—Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

Apparently the Forest Service threw wet noodles against a wall to see what might stick as justification to close the entire forest.

Their parboiled arguments are foolish and have fallen flat.

They threw the entire boiling pot against the wall trying everything they could think of and made a tremendous hot mess of it.

Incredibly, they said the people are a threat to the forest and the forest is a threat to the people.

Incredibly, they said the people are a threat to the forest and the forest is a threat to the people.

And so under threat of violent force, and exhibiting a remarkable strain of ham-fisted prior restraint, they declared from on high that the forest and the people must be separated for 60 days. 

The Stubbs diktat:

Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a), and to provide for public health and safety, the following act is prohibited within the Los Padres National Forest. This Order is effective from January 13, 2023, at 12:00 PM through March 14, 2023 at 12:00 PM.

Going into or being upon any area of the following National Forest System administrative
units:

a. Monterey Ranger District
b. Santa Lucia Ranger District
c. Santa Barbara Ranger District
d. Ojai Ranger District
. . .
Christopher J. Stubbs
Forest Supervisor
Los Padres National Forest

When we look to the law, 16 U.S. Code § 551, to see the basis upon which authorities claim power to bar the public from public lands, we see its clear intent is the protection of forest and wilderness areas from wanton destruction and plundering. 

This law does not apply to the people they have deployed it against, the common walker of the public wood, who poses no threat of destruction or depredation whatsoever. No threat!

From Cornell Law School:

16 U.S. Code § 551 – Protection of national forests; rules and regulations

The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and national forests which may have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside under the provisions of section 471 [1] of this title, and which may be continued; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction;

And so we must ask in disgust:

How does the common hiker pose a threat of destruction or depredation, that they must be prohibited from entry?

Answer the question, Stubbs. You signed your name to it.

That is outrageous! The Forest Service is treating innocent walkers like thieves and rapists.

If we accept the premise of the expulsion we are currently facing, that in our mere presence we pose an unacceptable threat, than it follows that our public lands might be taken from us at anytime anywhere under the pretense of “preserving the forests thereon from destruction.”

The precedent for this is currently being strengthened with this latest blind closure.

Danny Mac at Noozhawk has informed us these closures appear to be happening more frequently and to be more extensive in total reach. 

Why is this extraordinary law of protection necessary for Los Padres National Forest, but not for other forests across the country?

What makes the Los Padres exceptional from other forests?

Of course, the idea hikers depredate or threaten the forest is silly. 

The Forest Service is operating in a parallel dimension unguided by science and insensitive to public health needs. 

They’re using a law clearly designed in its letter, to say nothing of its spirit, to be employed against bad actors who intentionally harm public lands.

Why the hell are they doing this to us?!

They’re turning this law against the innocent walkers and wielding it like a dull weapon to cleave the people from their land. The wound might be healed someday, but the scar will remain.

I’m never letting it go. And I’m never coming back. The Last Straw.

The despicable treatment of recreationists does not go unnoticed. And we will never forget.

Posted in Santa Barbara | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Hiking Is Not A Crime; Hiker’s PreCheck Forest Entry Pass

Posted on February 8, 2023 by Jack Elliott

Why is the Forest Service treating us like this?

The Transportation Safety Administration treats people differently when conducting security screenings.

Thousands of lives are on the line. Not just on planes. In buildings all across the country. Not throughout any given day, but in any given moment. 

This is deadly serious business. This is truly an issue of public health.

Nevertheless, some security measures are waived for travelers with TSA PreCheck passes. All other passengers must submit to the full rigmarole deemed necessary to protect national security.

The TSA follows risk-based protocols, because not all people represent the same degree of risk and so should not be treated the same.

Treating everybody the same with a blanket policy is not smart nor efficient and sometimes can be counterproductive.

Why shouldn’t the Forest Service when serving recreationists operate with at least as much consciousness and intelligence as the TSA? 

What is sufficient in protecting national security is surely more than sufficient in satisfying our public health needs in the National Forests. 

For those hikers eager and willing there should be a system through which they can apply for and obtain a precheck entrance pass to the public lands when otherwise closed by diktat.

Contraband imagery secreted out of the condemned forest.

“Are you from the trails council,” she asked.

That was the first thing she said when she caught us entering the condemned forest. We had climbed over the top of the closed sign a minute earlier. We hadn’t bothered caring to be sly.

I could tell you her name and link to the County of Santa Barbara page with her details. She would remember our rather long conversation. 

“No,” I said.

She then informed us that the forest was closed.

“Why?” I asked.

And she tried to sell us the company line, saying something about how there were rockslides and wash outs and trail damage. The forest was dangerous.

“Oh. You mean it’s a mountain?” I said sprightly.

She feigned a faint chuckle and gave us a fake smile, friendly like. What else could she do?

The reasons for the closure were ludicrous and I was hanging it around her neck rhetorically like a lead anchor.

Her job was to try and sell the garbage to conscious, intelligent people who could see through the flam from a hundred miles away, with one eye closed, looking backwards over their shoulder through a mirror.

If I had said I was with the trails council she would have let me pass.

Why? The forest is a threat to public health, says Stubbs.

Cell phone snapshot, face to face, Santa Ynez Mountains, January 2023

Do the men whose names we see credited on outdoors photos published in local media outlets possess some special skill set or degree of competency that permits them to enter and move about the closed forest, while the common man is barred from entry for sake of his health?

We know they do not. 

Wearing a fedora with a white strip of paper in the hatband that says “press” does not make them safer operators in the forest than everybody else.

Let the good people do their good work.

But don’t then tell everybody else no based on some fuzzy undefined theoretical generality, a nonsensical excuse.

It reeks of hypocrisy.

Allow me to translate this sign along Arroyo Burro Trail: Welcome to your public lands. Enjoy!

There are all sorts of exemptions to the forest closure.

If you associate with the right outdoors social organizations you can go into the forest legally. Somehow the threat to public health, poof, vanishes instantaneously upon signing up.

The clique is the key to the locked door. Join and you’re in.

Why? 

Do any of these volunteers possess something special that protects them from the alleged threat to public health? No.

Do they undergo some physical fitness test? Classroom examination? Nope.

What do they possess that sets them apart from the rest of us common folk? 

If there is truly and honestly a problem facing public health should Condor National Forest remain open, then a precheck hikers forest entrance pass is the solution.

The Forest Service cannot honestly tell us such a pass is somehow unworthy and insufficient when the federal government secures the entire nation following such thinking. 

The pass would provide forest access to people for whom there is no reasonable basis for exclusion.

Those people of lesser interest outdoors would be fine waiting out the closure period. Most Americans at large are not conscious to any of this and so don’t care one way or the other.

Such a system, I would posit, would tend to self-select for the most able-bodied people who are of lower risk; the most enthusiastic people wanting a pass to get into the forest during a closure would tend to be the most experienced and of the least concern.

Surely such folks would be at least as safe in the forest as those people that sign up with a trail maintenance group or a group that monitors sensitive cultural sites. 

And of importance as well, the pass would provide an opportunity for the Forest Service to save face, and to stop the hemorrhaging of social capital and trust that’s been pouring from their self-inflicted wound caused by the nonsensical blanket closure.

Posted in Santa Barbara | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

County Dumps Debris In Sensitive Habitat Off-Limits To Recreational Spearfishermen

Posted on February 6, 2023 by Jack Elliott

An angelshark swimming up Goleta Beach Slough, a State Marine Conservation Area.

David Bacon pinned a righteous note to the bulletin board over at Noozhawk decrying the dumping of tons of sediment from local creeks into Goleta Bay.

Santa Barbara County has options for where to dump excess mud and debris after major rains, yet they choose Goleta Bay apparently because it seems to be the easiest to get dump trucks and bulldozers into and out of.

In doing so, they turn a thriving ecosystem into a wasteland, drive away wildlife, and take food out of the mouths of underprivileged children and adults.

Can you tell I’m upset? I sure am! And this isn’t the first time. The county has done this repeatedly, each time we have a wet winter that causes mudflows.

Bacon did not mention the federally listed, critically endangered southern steelhead in this particular article, which we know transit through Goleta Bay and into the slough and up into local creeks.

Signs noting the presence and protection of the steelhead are posted around Goleta Beach Park and fishing for them is not allowed.

Bacon has previously written of this: Goleta Slough Flowing to the Sea Opens Up Possibilities for Steelhead

We’ve seen the steelhead in the creek through the years. I’ve made it a point to bring the kids and check a certain creek in a certain place every winter, rains providing, to search for the fish once the waters clear from runoff sediment. 

The steelhead do come, but so few and never often.

We wonder what the fouling of the bay has done and might do to the steelhead, and everything else. 

With the torrential rains this may be the best season in a decade or more for the steelhead, but for the murk in the bay from being artificially infused with muck.

Goleta Slough is a State Marine Conservation Area.

In addition, in further recognition and protection of the important biological systems at play here, the law also prohibits spearfishing or even the possession of a spear within 100 yards of the slough mouth.

That means, by my reading, 200 yards total of shoreline surrounding the slough is protected and off-limits to spearfishing due to its biologically sensitive nature.

At least, this is what authorities tell us in justifying the restrictions.

Bacon has previously noted, “Goleta Slough can serve as a major spawning, feeding and nursery area for numerous fish, including such favorites as halibut.”

Halibut is what I’m after, but not there, as per the law. 

Men once speared running steelhead with pitchforks in the mouth of the Santa Ynez River: Native Steelhead Of Yore.

Likely today’s prohibition against even so much as possessing a spear near a creekmouth stems from those old days of excess, when supply seemed limitless and restraint unnecessary and we knew much less about how it all worked.

We understand how times have changed, and that it’s probably best to let the slough alone as a nursery.

Instead, harvest those fish elsewhere, in other habitat that can better absorb the pressures of constant human activity, while sustaining healthy wildlife populations.

The common man can see the commonsense reasoning upon which the law is founded.

We can understand the law, but not why the County acts contrary to its spirit.

We live with restraint for sake of conservation, but then here comes Santa Barbara County dumping tons of dirty debris into the ocean and waters we have been told are too sensitive to sustain as part of the local recreational spearfishery. 

We recognize the County faced an extraordinary event in the dangers and burdens of heavy rainfall and as such chose to act with extraordinary measures.  

Yet, as a result, none of what we have been lead to believe regarding conservation now seems to matter a whit, as they drop a biological bomb’s worth of sediment and muck into the sea.

We can see the mudline in the Santa Barbara Channel from the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains.

A thinking person cannot help but wonder how spearfishing for halibut 75-yards down-shore from the slough mouth harms or threatens the fishery in any measurable way, while the mass dumping of muddy sluice for days on end does not matter.

We come to wonder why the rules appear to be applied most heavily against the least among us treading most lightly, and not at all to the most powerful whose footprints are the heaviest and the largest.

A spearfisherman wonders why, for conservation’s sake, it is illegal for him to harvest dinner for his family from the same waters the County has then chosen to use as a dump.

Related Post On This Blog:

Halibut Surf Fishing

Posted in Santa Barbara | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hiking Is Not A Crime; Bull Moose and Titmouse

Posted on February 5, 2023 by Jack Elliott

The bull moose and the titmouse.

“As a result of his 1903 visit to California, Roosevelt was to create the Santa Barbara National Forest out of the Pine Mountain and Zaca Lake Forest Reserves. This was the land that McKinley had set aside on March 2, 1898. … later known as Los Padres National Forest.”

—Walker A. Tompkins, The Yankee Barbarenos

Has anybody checked President Teddy Roosevelt’s gravesite since the Forest Service closed our forest? That dark day of infamy.

He must be spinning faster than a whirligig in a Cat 5 hurricane. 

Roosevelt created Santa Barbara National Forest, later to become Los Padres, someday to become Condor. 

He also created the Forest Service.

The same Colonel Roosevelt charged about on horseback amid the flying lead in the Spanish-American War of 1898. “The great day of my life,” he said of combat.

In his speech of 1899, “The Strenuous Life,” he called on Americans to stand strong in the face of toil and hardship and to not shrink from danger.

President Roosevelt began:

. . .I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.

And President Roosevelt finished:

Let us therefore boldly face the life of strife, resolute to do our duty well and manfully; resolute to uphold righteousness by deed and by word; resolute to be both honest and brave, to serve high ideals, yet to use practical methods. Above all, let us shrink from no strife, moral or physical, within or without the nation, provided we are certain that the strife is justified, for it is only through strife, through hard and dangerous endeavor, that we shall ultimately win the goal of true national greatness.

The same President Roosevelt shot in the chest in 1912 while standing before an audience gathered to hear him speak. 

“I don’t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot,” Roosevelt told the crowd.

He parted his jacket to show a bloody shirt. People gasped.

 “It takes more than that to kill a bull moose,” Roosevelt said still standing.

He then delivered his planned speech, with a new ad lib intro.

“Fortunately I had my manuscript, so you see I was going to make a long speech, and there is a bullet—there is where the bullet went through—and it probably saved me from it going into my heart. The bullet is in me now, so I cannot make a very long speech, but I will try my best.”

These days the chief ranger of Roosevelt’s Forest Service, Christopher J. Stubbs, insists we shrink from some purported danger lurking in the forest that he refuses to identify.

This is incomprehensible.

If the public is facing such a terrible threat that it requires a two month closure of the forest, backed by threats of incarceration, then it is incumbent on Stubbs to specifically identify this purported threat to the people.

He must do this.

Or he must end the blanket closure or implement a more intelligent, finely-tailored policy that allows a much greater degree of freedom of movement for the public within the public lands.

No more stretch-to-fit vague and meaningless generalities banning access to wide swaths of country. We know it’s not true.

Stubbs created this problem with the blanket closure. If Stubbs fails to address this problem in a meaningful manner, it will do further damage to the reputation of the Forest Service and further erode legitimacy and trust. He must apply a patch to the hole or it will get bigger. 

What would Teddy Roosevelt say about the timid two month forest closure and the people pushing it under false pretenses to supposedly protect it and public health? 

That a man cannot walk in the forest. That combat veterans returning from foreign wars are told the forest is too dangerous to “go into.”

What happened to the backbone of the United States Forest Service?

They’ve gone all wobbly on us.

No worries. We’ll take point and keep marching to higher ground. 

Posted in Santa Barbara | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Hiking is Not A Crime, Let Forest Be Thy Medicine

Posted on February 4, 2023 by Jack Elliott

Ranger: Howdy, sir. Sorry, the forest is closed.
Hiker: Why?
Ranger: Well, there’s been some slides and wash outs and rockfalls and trees fallen over and we heard tell of a big rut. 
Hiker: Oh. So you mean it’s a forest. You’ve closed the forest because it’s a forest. 

Over 1,000 scientific studies. That’s a lot the Forest Service is arguing against when they tell us the forest is a threat to our health and safety.

The Forest Service put forth the standard of public health and used it to take from the people their right to walk the public lands.

The forest closures and the criminalization of walking seem to be getting stricter and happening with increasing frequency.

As Danny Mac over at Noozhawk has informed us youngsters of more recent vintage:

“I’ve been tramping around back there since 1971, and my experience is that USFS tends to close it down more often and in a more ‘total’ fashion over the decades. 

Well, now we are going to hold the Forest Service to their own stated standard and use it to take back our right to walk our public lands. Because they are wrong.

The Forest Service made the unbelievable claim that the forest is a threat to our health.

How will they make the wilderness areas safe again so that we are permitted to enter?

The question is rhetorical and as asinine as the closure.

Of course, designated wilderness and national forest areas, to a lesser extent, are to be left largely untouched and “untrammeled” and allowed to remain as rugged as the earth can muster, as per the law.

The premise of the forest closure conflicts with the fundamental underpinnings of the wilderness and national forest reserve system itself, as defined by law.

This is an extraordinary confusion in policy that undermines the legitimacy of the Forest Service and erodes trust.

They cannot close the forest because it’s a forest and expect thinking, self-respecting folks to listen.

The naturally rugged character of the land is not a sensible basis on which to exclude people. For the love of Gaia it’s the bloody reason people go there! Good grief.

The land is supposed to be raw, sharp and loose and we hope there’s lots of water. 

The Forest Service tells us public health is their concern. But we see in practice that public health is a misused, meaningless phrase. It no longer carries any weight.

The shepherd has cried wolf too often and we no longer believe him.

Public health was the same phrase officials used to outlaw opening an umbrella on the beach during the pandemic.

The Forest Service closed down campgrounds during the pandemic, too, under the guise of protecting public health. The closure was issued despite the fact that campsites are well-spaced, outside in open air, campers can maintain social distancing protocols better than in the city and wear masks as easily.

In other words, camping fit in rather neatly with the health protocols being issued by the domain experts in the health sciences.

Yet, the Forest Service citing public health ignored it all and closed the entire place down anyway.

The elasticity of the phrase “public health” is only limited by the imagination of the officials in power, who can stretch it at will on any given day to cover any whim they wish without need of reason.

And they act without reason. They close beaches and campgrounds and the entire forest based on demonstrable nonsense and contrary to their own stated standards.

And here we bear witness once more to this outrageous behavior.

On the basis of the vague, abstract generality of public health, without citing any actual special threat whatsoever because none truly exists, the Forest Service issued a knee-jerk, reactionary blanket closure of all 2700 square miles of Condor National Forest.

The closure is an astounding abuse of power.

To your health, they said, and gave us a policy harmful to public health.

No wonder trust in government remains near historic lows.

Spending time in the forest makes people healthier and happier. That statement is a fact deeply rooted in reems worth of scientific data. The evidence is voluminous and compelling. 

Telling people the forest is a threat to their health and safety is utter nonsense.

But it’s even worse.

Pushing the false narrative is especially egregious in its tone-deaf insensitivity in these tender times following the pandemic and lock-downs and shut-ins. When now Americans are reporting record lows in mental health. 

Forest Service employees are supposed to be the experts in their respective field, but they appear insensitive and oblivious to all scholarly studies directly related to their domain.

The people are paying attention. The people are paying the price.

Would that the Forest Service heed the mountain of scientific evidence and not ban the people from their own land which serves their critical needs.

For sake of public health. 

Ecopsychology: How Immersion in Nature Benefits Your Health

A growing body of research points to the beneficial effects that exposure to the natural world has on health, reducing stress and promoting healing. Now, policymakers, employers, and healthcare providers are increasingly considering the human need for nature in how they plan and operate.

“Now it’s approaching and about to pass 1,000 studies, and they point in one direction: Nature is not only nice to have, but it’s a have-to-have for physical health and cognitive functioning.”

—Richard Louv author of Last Child In the Woods

—Yale School Of the Environment

Posted in Santa Barbara | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments