Chaparral Wisdom
To celebrate the magic and beauty of Nature & the chaparral
Please Vote NO on Prop 4 – Protect the Chaparral
Proposition 4 will fund Cal Fire’s master plan to clear hundreds of thousands of acres of chaparral across the State of California – $1.5 billion worth to grind up, burn, and spray herbicides on California’s most characteristic native ecosystem, or as the State now views all of Nature, “fuel.”
Please help us stop this madness by voting NO on Prop 4 in the upcoming election. We are fighting Cal Fire’s plan in court. This is your opportunity as an individual to fight it at the ballot box.
Disguised as being used for “forest health” and “wildfire protection,” $1.5 billion is tucked into the $10 billion bond that includes a number of environmental goals in an attempt to bribe the public into supporting it. Another $1.2 billion is designated for “restoration” of natural areas, which in Cal Fire’s Orwellian view of Nature means even more habitat clearance, logging, and herbicide use.
The analysis of the proposition by the state suggests that some of the bond money “could” be used to purchase land to be set aside – a cynical play on gaining the support of land conservancies. However, the question that needs to be asked is, “What good does it do to borrow billions to acquire or expand natural areas when Cal Fire or State Parks will only end up destroying the habitat through their clearance projects?”
We’ve lost enough Nature. It’s time to say no more. Let’s protect what’s left.
Please, vote NO on Prop 4.
(see additional details below)
Added 10/10/2024: We’ve been receiving a lot of additional questions about the proposition, namely that there isn’t a specific place in the bond that mentions that Cal Fire will be clearing native, chaparral habitat.
Such language is not in the bond because that state does not want to say they will be logging, clearing, and spraying herbicide on 10 million acres of native habitat (their stated goal). Such language would not be conducive to getting the bond passed. We are being lied to.
Here’s some additional information that will help clarify the situation, copied from our comments below:
The writers of the bond measure use Orwellian euphemisms like “forest health and fire resilience,” “restoration of natural ecosystem functions”, and “chaparral restoration” to mask what the $1.5 billion will actually be used to fund (Pgs. 83-85 in your Voter Info Guide – Section 91500).
Based on Cal Fire’s Vegetation Treatment Program (VTP), and what Cal Fire is currently doing, what these euphemisms really mean is logging, grinding up native habitat with masticators, and spraying of herbicides to clear whatever natural habitat is deemed “fuel.” Their target – 10 million acres. A large percentage of their targeted landscape is covered by chaparral. Much of the $1.5 billion in Prop 4 will be used to fund that clearance effort. Some of the additional $1.2 billion in Section 93500 will be used in similar ways for undefined “ecosystem health” and “restoration” of rangeland (i.e. native shrublands to weedy grasslands) projects.
Cal Fire is the administrator or actual contractor for the habitat “management” objectives outlined in the proposition.
Many of us have been fighting Cal Fire’s effort to domesticate Nature for over 20 years. You can read about our fight, and why we are in court fighting Cal Fire now, here:
https://californiachaparral.org/threats/cal-fire/
How will all this translate on the ground?
A devastating example is the ecological damage California State Parks and Cal Fire have caused to Rancho Cuyamaca State Park. They are attempting to do the same thing at Tomales Bay State Park now. You can see the impact at Cuyamaca on our web page here:
https://californiachaparral.org/threats/cuyamaca-state-park/
Adding more fire to the landscape in the form of prescribed fire, which the Prop 4 will fund, can eliminate native chaparral habitat, one of the primary targets of Cal Fire’s VTP. Cal Fire see natural stands of dense, biodiverse old-growth chaparral as “decadent” and in need of removal. They are currently calling for landscape-scale clearance operations to do so.
Here’s a good explanation of the damage such “treatments” can cause:
https://californiachaparral.org/threats/prescribed-fire/
Nearly all the habitat clearance projects to be funded by Prop 4 are justified by the false notion that most of Nature is sick as a result of past fire suppression and needs to be cleaned out. While some forested systems have dodged a fire or two due to firefighting, the fire suppression fallacy is utilized to justify clearance projects regardless of ecosystem type.
You can learn more about the Fire Suppression Fallacy here:
https://chaparralwisdom.org/2023/05/02/the-beginnings-of-the-fire-suppression-fallacy/
Will Prop 4 provide funds that will be used for positive things? Yes. But due to Cal Fire’s influence in Sacramento, they have been able to include funding for their efforts to clear 10 million acres of habitat throughout the state, hoping to fool the public into thinking this is a purely environmental bond. Cal Fire is cynical enough to believe that ploy will work. We need to let them know we won’t fall for it.
Receiving money for favored projects, no matter how good they are, is to betray Nature across the entire state.
Additional Sections in Proposition 4 that fund habitat clearance
Section 90100
“Restoration” includes “Prescribed burning and other fuel hazard reduction measures” (Section 90100(i)(1)(F).) So every time “restoration” is mentioned, the funding could support prescribed burning and habitat clearing.
91500 provides 1.5 Billion to be appropriated by the legislature for wildfire prevention, “including reducing community wildfire risk and restoring the health and resilience of forests and landscapes.”
Section 91520 grants $1.25 Billion to the Natural Resources Agency…”to reduce the risk of wildfire spreading into populated areas from wildlands…
Section 91520(c) grants 1.75 million to the “Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [for] ….prescribed fire, prescribed grazing, cultural fire…”
Section 91520(f) grants 200 million specifically for the “restoration of natural ecosystem function…and may including prescribed fire, cultural fire, environmentally sensitive vegetation management…science based fuel reduction.” Such section specifically includes chaparral and coastal forests.
Section 91520(g) make 50 million in grants available to others for fuel reduction
Section 91520(h) grants 33.5 million to the Sierra Nevada Conservanc for “chaparral and forest restoration” (“restoration includes prescribed burning (90100)”
Section 91520(o) grants 15 million to California Fire Foundation to support vegetation mitigation and fuels reduction projects.
I have read the bond myself and I don’t see any funding for CalFire in the bond language? Where is the concern about Chaparral endangerment concern coming from?
Hi Kelly. Please see the first response we offered to Chris above. It should cover most of your questions. If not, please feel free to keep the conversation going.
I don’t see anywhere in the bill that directly funds Cal Fire’s destruction of Chaparral. Can you be specific and show where in the bill or what parts of it will contribute to Chaparral destruction? I’m just trying to understand this as clearly as I can because I’m split on this.
Hi Trevor. Please see the first response we offered to Chris above. If you have any additional questions, we’d be more than happy to continue the conversation.
I am trying to make sense of both the Proposition language in my voting guide and the information above. Can you more specifically identify the portions of the Proposition that set aside the $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion you note above as well as Cal FIre’s master plan that you reference as to be funded and that you are fighting in court? Thank you!
Hi Chris. The writers of the bond measure use Orwellian euphemisms like “forest health and fire resilience,” “restoration of natural ecosystem functions”, and “chaparral restoration” to mask what the $1.5 billion will actually be used to fund (Pgs. 83-85 in your Voter Info Guide – Section 91500).
Based on Cal Fire’s Vegetation Treatment Program (VTP), and what Cal Fire is currently doing, what these euphemisms really mean is logging, grinding up native habitat with masticators, and spraying of herbicides to clear whatever natural habitat is deemed “fuel.” Their target – 10 million acres. A large percentage of their targeted landscape is covered by chaparral. Much of the $1.5 billion in Prop 4 will be used to fund that clearance effort. Some of the additional $1.2 billion in Section 93500 will be used in similar ways for undefined “ecosystem health” and “restoration” of rangeland (i.e. native shrublands to weedy grasslands) projects.
Many of us have been fighting Cal Fire’s effort to domesticate Nature for over 20 years. You can read about our fight, and why we are in court fighting Cal Fire now, here:
https://californiachaparral.org/threats/cal-fire/
How will all this translate on the ground?
A devastating example is the ecological damage California State Parks and Cal Fire have caused to Rancho Cuyamaca State Park. They are attempting to do the same thing at Tomales Bay State Park now. You can see the impact at Cuyamaca on our web page here:
https://californiachaparral.org/threats/cuyamaca-state-park/
Adding more fire to the landscape in the form of prescribed fire, which the Prop 4 will fund, can eliminate native chaparral habitat, one of the primary targets of Cal Fire’s VTP. Cal Fire see natural stands of dense, biodiverse old-growth chaparral as “decadent” and in need of removal. They are currently calling for landscape-scale clearance operations to do so.
Here’s a good explanation of the damage such “treatments” can cause:
https://californiachaparral.org/threats/prescribed-fire/
Nearly all the habitat clearance projects to be funded by Prop 4 are justified by the false notion that most of Nature is sick as a result of past fire suppression and needs to be cleaned out. While some forested systems have dodged a fire or two due to firefighting, the fire suppression fallacy is utilized to justify clearance projects regardless of ecosystem type.
You can learn more about the Fire Suppression Fallacy here:
https://chaparralwisdom.org/2023/05/02/the-beginnings-of-the-fire-suppression-fallacy/
Will Prop 4 provide funds that will be used for positive things? Yes. But due to Cal Fire’s influence in Sacramento, they have been able to include funding for their efforts to clear 10 million acres of habitat throughout the state, hoping to fool the public into thinking this is a purely environmental bond. Cal Fire is cynical enough to believe that ploy will work. We need to let them know we won’t fall for it.
Receiving money for favored projects, no matter how good they are, is to betray Nature across the entire state.
If you have any other questions, please let us know.
Thank you for your reply. I had read the pages you referenced in the voter information booklet and yet still couldn’t quite connect the dots. As I understand it now, most of the monies in Chapter 3 beginning with section 91500 can be seen to be used in ways which would assist in carrying out the California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. (And, in fact, section 91550 specifically says that the projects funded in the chapter shall be consistent with the plan.) That plan, in turn, relies on something called the California Vegetation Treatment Program, which you are challenging in court, and other policies and methods which while purported to restore or build health and resilience in Nature, you have seen and believe actually make things much worse. For anyone else looking to your reply for reference, I believe the Section 93500 reference may be a typo. Chapter 7 which begins with Section 93500 outlines the expenditure of $300 million aimed at farms, ranches, and working lands. Chapters 4 and 6 deal with expenditures of $1.2 billion each. Chapter 6 (beginning Section 93000) seems likely to be what you were referring to and yet, I believe, the argument could be made that some of the monies in all three of the chapters could be subject to policies and methods that could make things worse for Nature. I know that I would not know how to spend money to “help” Nature and not make things worse. The question I wrestle with now is whether it is better to withhold authorization of the money until I believe it will be used to do no harm, or to authorize the money and work to minimize the harm while it is used for the good.
Hi Chris. Thanks for taking the time to research this. We wish more people would. We identified Section 93500 within the lead section (93000) because of the vague language used in 93500 that could be seen to justify the clearance of so-called “working lands” which include landscapes that coastal sage scrub and chaparral have tried to recolonize after attempt extirpation by agricultural interests.
Yes, there is money in Prop 4 that will be used for good things. But what the state is asking for you to do is to sell out Nature on a landscape basis for the benefit of other interests. Although some will see this as the reality of politics (the art of the possible), we reject that position, as did John Muir and David Brower. The same level of compromise allowed Glen Canyon on the Colorado River and Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite to be dammed. Those places are now lost, as are all the beautiful life forms that depended on them. For what? To satisfy the selfish desires of powerful men long since gone.
The wildland fire lobby represents what Muir labelled as “temple-destroyers.* It is powerful enough to demand more than a billion dollars in the bond to carry out what is arguably the biggest threat to Nature in California outside of climate change. The impacts of facilitating that threat will long outlast any positive conservation projects being funded by the proposition – 10 million acres being logged, cleared, and sprayed with herbicide, leading to type conversion, the spread of invasive species, and a significant reduction in biodiversity.
Chris, it really boils down to a matter of personal values. We value undisturbed Nature over any effort to “manage” it. That also means, we will not support the destruction of one native landscape for another. We know this goes against what many politically minded conservation groups say like the Nature Conservancy or smaller conservancies who are willing to take Cal Fire money to support their bureaucracies in trade for clearing some of their “conserved” land. That’s one of the reasons we are a volunteer organization that depends on small personal donations rather large grants.
Thanks again for your dedication to search for the truth.
* In The Yosemite (Ch 15): “These temple-destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar. Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.”
I’ve been torn about this Proposition, but we’ve been waiting for funding for several years so that we can conserve 300 acres in our valley. We’ve almost gotten there a few times, but with funding limited, we’re on-hold. We are counting on Prop 4 to open up funding for our parcels. The Wildlife Conservation Board needs those funds, otherwise millions of acres won’t be conserved. The acreage conserved wouldn’t be “treated” by CalFire, necessarily since the managing party would be responsible for conserving the species, right?
Hi Pamela. Conserving native species in inconsistent with the kind of habitat clearance that will be funded by Prop 4. When large areas of contiguous habitat are cleared as planned, the destruction of most species in the area, from Wrentits, to manzanitas to lichens, will be guaranteed.
There is nothing in the proposition guaranteeing any land preservation, only that it may be funded. What is guaranteed is funding of the 10 million acre clearance target Cal Fire has established.
We can’t allow ourselves to fall for a deal that may conserve a favored corner of ours for this level of state-wide habitat destruction. Cal Fire is cynical enough to believe that ploy will work. We need to let them know we won’t fall for it.
Hi, Rick,
We so desperately need immediate funding for so many “shovel-ready” projects that I really want Prop 4 to pass. It seems that CalFire’s poor fire management techniques need to be addressed separately.
What can we do to make changes in their actions so that funds they receive will actually be used correctly? How can we help with the Court process? I’ve been following the John Muir Project webinars with Chad Hanson and they are great. I’ve attended others and found that so many districts and agencies, not just CalFire, think that thinning everything is the answer. Time and time again I ask about the fact that the thinned areas turn into dry landscapes with singular trees/shrubs struggling in dry, cleared soil that eventually accelerate any on-coming fire. I only get the answer that the “fuels” need clearing. So it’s more than CalFire that we have to convince.
Pam
Pam, it’s all about the money. Billions of dollars are allocated to wildfire agencies to clear habitat. The only solution involves court action, which we are currently engaged in, and legislature which has proven to be incredibly difficult as fire lobbyists collab/lunch with legislators on a near daily basis. Cal Fire is the big gorilla up in Sacramento. Court wins are our best chance to knock them off their perch and protect Nature.