The way you look at this story will tell you a lot about yourself.

For instance, you could say the accident Tom Gutcher survived three months ago was a stroke of terrible luck.

That’s one way to view it.

But the string of events that followed might convince even the worst cynic among us how lucky Tom truly is. And how fortunate we are to have heard the tale — if we take its lessons to heart.

On May 20, Tom was taking his two daughters, Sarah, 16 and Laura, 19, to Valencia to buy a new car.

They made it as far as Taft Highway when dust obscured the road. Tom slowed and was rammed from behind in what became a multi-car pile-up.

Tom’s seat collapsed and he flopped backwards. Sarah hit her head and suffered a gash above her left eye. Otherwise, he thought at the time, they were OK.

He called his wife, Linda, from the accident, asking her to come retrieve him and Laura, but then thought better of it and rode in the ambulance with Sarah to Kern Medical Center.

That’s stroke of luck No. 1.

At KMC, Sarah was rushed to a trauma room and doctors began quizzing Tom about her. As he answered their questions he complained about pain in his head. Within minutes, he was on a gurney next to his daughter, screaming in agony.

Only a curtain separated them.  Linda tried to keep Sarah calm as she listened to what was happening just steps away. Tom’s pupil was blown, she heard. She knew that meant his pupils were fixed and dilated. Not good.

The next thing Linda knew, Tom was in surgery. It just so happened that a neurosurgeon was on staff that day. Stroke of luck No. 2.

“If he hadn’t gotten in that ambulance, he would have been dead. And if it had been any other hospital, they would have had to call a surgeon in and they wouldn’t have made it in time,” Linda said.

Tom’s brain had shifted inside his skull by more than half an inch, Linda said.

“It was about as bad as it could have been,” Linda said.

After the surgery, Tom was in a drug-induced coma for 10 days and stayed in the ICU for three and a half weeks. That was followed by another two weeks in the hospital before he was discharged June 25.

Along the way, he was never, ever alone. His wife, his daughters, his brothers, his mother, his father and a platoon of loyal friends were there standing over him, sitting next to him, holding his hand and, when they couldn’t keep it in any longer, weeping for him.

They noted every finger twitch. And when Tom’s eyes finally opened, they rejoiced.

On Father’s Day, his brothers, Gregg and Jim, were headed to Kernville for a visit with their dad. They stopped at KMC to look in on Tom, who still hadn’t spoken.

“Hi, Gregg,” he rasped through his tracheotomy. “Hi, Tom.”

“I just broke down,” Gregg recalled. They went to Kernville and told their dad. “It was the best Father’s Day present he ever had.”

As Linda and his other family members recount those days, Tom just smiles.

He has no recollection of that time from the accident to about seven weeks later.

“When I finally had some idea what happened, it was a shock,” said Tom. “A stunning shock.”

When he finally left KMC, he went to the Centre for Neuro Skills, which has a residential rehab facility with 24-hour care.

He’d come so far already. But even so, he couldn’t walk more than 10 feet, he’d lost more than 40 pounds and was so weak he couldn’t sit up straight. He was also confused and had no short-term memory. Talking was difficult.

He would make up words and even memories, said Mike Raney, his case manager at Centre for Neuro Skills.

That happens with an injury like Tom’s, Raney explained. The brain tries to fill in gaps when it can’t connect to real memories or words.

Raney described Tom as the “walking wounded” when he first arrived at the Centre.

“It’s nice to see him improving by leaps and bounds and getting his life back on track.”

Raney attributed Tom’s success to getting the right help right away and having a large support network that was so committed to Tom’s recovery.

Stroke of luck No. 3 — the one that both Linda and Tom hold most dear — is friends and family.

They speak with amazement at the length his friends went to on Tom’s behalf. On man came all the way from Trona every week to visit Tom. Others were at the hospital even before Linda and some visited the hospital every day, twice a day, to make sure Tom knew someone was always there for him.

When he was in 24-hour rehab, Jim and Gregg dropped in daily.

The support has been phenomenal, they said.

Through all the worry, the fear, the anger and plain hard work, that has been their greatest blessing, they said.

On July 28, Tom finally came home, but only on weekends.

“He didn’t remember that this was our house,” Linda said. “He walked in and said, ‘Hey, this is a cool house, who lives here?’”

Linda said his personality hasn’t changed.

“He’s still quick witted,” she says. “A smart ass!”

“I am not!” Tom protests.

Though he’s home full time now, Tom still goes every day, all day, to therapy.

He’s a geologist by trade and one half of Smith-Gutcher and Associates.

“I’m the Gutcher,” he tells me, in case that needed clarifying.

He’s impatient to get back to work, he says. Besides, “Smith wants me back.”

But he knows his journey isn’t complete and part of what he’s had to learn is accepting that fact.

Tom never bought that new car. Instead, their oldest is driving a used car at college in Fullerton.

That’s OK, he says.

He shrugs and gives me a big, dopey grin that makes me smile right back.

“I’m just lucky to be here.”

Once again, leadership has taken a backseat to politics in Washington, D.C.

Now, more than ever, we must have a national energy policy that takes a pragmatic view of what we need short-term and a visionary view of what we can achieve long-term.

Instead, Democrats flounced out of town Aug. 1 for a five-week vacation while oil and gas prices fluctuated between tortuous and merely painful for average American families.

And Republicans, who only recently put up their own energy bill, are playing the spurned lover at drama queen levels by hollering daily in the darkened House chambers for the Democrats to come back.

One word: Sheesh!

Meanwhile, a vitally important tax credit is being held hostage, which could have serious implications for the future of wind and solar energy in Kern County.

The production tax credit for renewable energy is set to expire Dec. 31. Two bottled-up bills — one sponsored by Democrats, one by Republicans — contain an extension of this tax credit.

So both sides recognize its importance. But they’re too busy politicking to actually do anything about it.

If they can’t pull their collective heads out and get this credit passed in time, it could be a major problem right here in little ol' Kern County.

The 3,549 turbines churning in the hills around Tehachapi produce 710 megawatts of clean electricity — enough to power about 250,000 homes annually.

But that’s the tip of the iceberg.

There are five major wind projects now going through the application stages with the Kern County Planning Department.

One was just approved for eastern Kern that will generate 300 megawatts, and the California Energy Commission has calculated that the Tehachapi resource area has the ability to accommodate enough turbines to generate between 4,500 and 6,000 megawatts more.

These are important numbers because California has created a deadline of 2010 (that’s just two years away!) under which utilities must obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. That increases to 30 percent by 2017, according to Linda Parker, spokeswoman for the Kern Wind Energy Association. Statewide, less than 5 percent of the state’s power now comes from renewable sources.

That production tax credit helps keep wind energy competitive with coal and oil by helping with research and development that in turn brings down the cost of generating electricity through wind.

“It is a big deal to the industry,” Parker said.

And because Congress would rather play games than get down to business, a number of wind companies are already passing us by, according to Randall Swisher, spokesman for the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C.

“This has gone on so long that business planned for 2009 has been delayed and is not moving forward,” he said.

Even if the tax credit were taken out of the competing bills and passed on its own tomorrow, he said, companies have already pulled out of projects or decided not to locate in the United States.

“We’re blowing it,” Swisher said.

International companies that might be interested in locating their manufacturing operations in the U.S. are already setting their sights elsewhere because of our lack of a stable, consistent policy.

This is real-life stuff. We’re talking about jobs and sustainable energy that won’t foul our air or indebt us to foreign nations.

I would think Congress would take this kind of thing seriously.

Instead, the Democrat-sponsored bill that included the tax credit came up eight times — but was killed eight times because it had stuff that no Republican would vote for, such as reducing tax incentives for oil and giving them to renewables.

On July 29, the Republicans fronted their own bill, but it, likewise, has stuff no Democrat would allow, such as opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Finally, on the eve of the congressional recess, a bipartisan bill was introduced that I hope will merit some serious discussion.

This bill, co-authored by Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, allows offshore drilling but doesn’t open ANWR. And it gives a percentage of the royalties from offshore drilling leases to a renewable fund.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, has signed onto the bill, along with several other valley congressmen, both Republican and Democrat.

Though McCarthy is also a co-signer on the other Republican bill, he said he signed on to Costa’s as well because he’s committed to working with whoever he can to get a national energy policy off the ground.

Judging by the inaction so far, I fear we’ll be grounded for some time to come.

These are Lois Henry’s opinions, not necessarily The Californian’s. Her column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Call her at 395-7373 or write lhenry@ bakersfield.com.

There’s a reason children aren’t allowed to do grown up things, like drive cars.

They can’t handle the power of such a machine.

Speaking of power, machines and Bakersfield City Councilman Zack Scrivner (weren’t we speaking of Scrivner?), someone needs to take away that boy’s Hot Wheels.

That someone ought to be political consultant Mark Abernathy. But clearly, the lust for one more vote on the Bakersfield City Council clouded his judgment.

So, Abernathy’s political machine cranked up to run over Harold Hanson, apparently because the Ward Five councilman vexed Scrivner during a vote last winter regarding city employee health care.

Hanson crafted a compromise that saved the city $285,000, as opposed to $383,000.

The measure passed 4-3 with the Abernathy bloc — Scrivner, Jacquie Sullivan and Ken Weir — voting in opposition.

Afterward, Scrivner was furious.

“Harold, you’re finished,” he told Hanson, in earshot of others.

From anyone else, such a threat would be laughed off as the temper tantrum of an arrogant, immature blowhard.

But Scrivner has something other arrogant, immature blowhards don’t: the backing of a political machine that has dominated local elections and Republican politics for more than 20 years, putting its candidates into seats at every level of government from Congress on down to school boards.

We’ve seen this level of arrogance and attempt at intimidation before, when Weir tried to dump Planning Commissioner Russell Johnson in mid-term, simply because Johnson wasn’t Weir’s pick.

This is not an indictment of all Abernathy clients.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy excels at understanding policy and knows how to bring people together. I don’t always agree with him and he definitely holds to the party line. But he also remembers who he works for.

And I’ve found Kern County Supervisor Ray Watson to be a somewhat independent thinker on several development issues where I would have predicted an all development, all the time vote from him, a common theme among his Abernathy teammates.

Otherwise, the Abernathy crew has not impressed me with their whiz-bang grasp of policy nor their ability to effect change that benefits all constituents rather than an elite few.

Even worse, Scrivner’s focus seems to be power — amassing it and using it either to crush the opposition or move to the next political rung.

Speaking of Scrivner and his ambitions, he’s apparently letting it be known to anyone who would dare think of running for higher office, such as assembly, that he has access to hundreds of thousands of dollars for just such a run.

I left repeated phone and email messages for Scrivner. And several messages for Abernathy as well. I called and emailed Weir. Nothing. I’m starting to suspect these guys don’t like me!

Anyhoo, speculation has it that when state Sen. Roy Ashburn (NOT an Abernathy person) is termed out in 2010, Assemblywoman Jean Fuller (a definite Abernathy person) will run for his seat. Scrivner, who works for Fuller, will be ending his term at the same time. Instead of a bid for re-election to the council, we’ll likely see his name on the ballot for Fuller’s seat.

How very tidy.

I hope when that race comes up, voters remember the words, “Harold, you’re finished” and chose a candidate who is truly up to the challenge of representing Kern County, rather than bullying people just because he thinks he can.

The reality, though, is that money is the lifeblood of politics and it’s hard for any opposition group, even another Republican wing, to scrape up enough to make a legitimate run against the Abernathy group.

At one time, the Bakersfield Republican Assembly seemed to be independent and gaining strength.

But that died two years ago when a coup was staged by a rush of new members brought in to oust Mike Maggard, a former city councilman and now a Kern County Supervisor. Maggard’s crime was being one of seven council members who supported the hillside ordinance that limited development on the bluffs above Hart Park.

The Bakersfield Republican Assembly’s endorsements last spring — Matt Brady for Superior Court judge, Fuller, Watson, and a resolution supporting Weir (all Abernathy clients) — leave no doubt who’s pulling its strings now.

Though the group's president Ken Mettler insisted it is absolutely independent, other political observers I spoke with doubt that.

Which may answer an earlier question I had about how Abernathy chose the candidate he recruited but failed to put on the ballot against Hanson. The candidate, Beau Woodward, is a close associate of Chad Vegas, a Kern High School District trustee who

I had thought was a maverick and a thorn in the side of the Abernathy machine. And who told me he knew nothing of Woodward’s potential run for council until a day before the filing deadline.

But Vegas is also a member of the Bakersfield Republican Assembly and exercises with Scrivner at a bootcamp in the mornings, which could explain Woodward’s sudden lurch toward politics.

It appears Abernathy’s grip on Republican politics in Kern County is nearly complete.

It had slipped a bit starting in 1998 when voters turned out council incumbent Kevin McDermott, an Abernathy client. And until the end of 2004 the council wasn’t dominated by any single group or faction.

Those days are gone.

With the words “Harold, you’re finished,” we can be assured at least one member of the Abernathy group is ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Here I was all set to blast State Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, for letting politics get in the way of progress, when common sense and fiscal responsibility got smack in my way.

His, not mine.

I’m talking about high-speed rail, of which I’ve been a proponent since I first wrote about the prospect of clean-fuel trains zipping people up and down the Golden State way back in 1995.

That’s a long time to wait for the Legislature to get off its duff. They first approved a ballot measure back in 2002 to bond for about $10 billion to actually build this thing. In fact, Ashburn cast one of the deciding votes to approve the ballot measure.

Then it was put off to 2004 because of bad budget times, then delayed again until 2006, and then again until this year.

Face it, there IS no good time to borrow $10 billion. But if we continue to do nothing, we’ll continue to have nothing and our air and freeways will simply continue to get more polluted and more crowded. Sometimes it costs money to achieve what’s called “vision” and that takes something called “leadership” — sorely lacking in politics today.

But here we were earlier this month, with Proposition 1 solidly on the ballot asking voters to invest in California’s transportation future.

Finally! I thought.

Then Ashburn, seemingly out of the blue, tried to kill the proposition. When that didn’t work he made a list of demands to a bill that would amend, or “fix,” the proposition. (The bill is now the birdie in a game of badminton between the Legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger over the governor’s refusal to sign legislation until a budget is passed.

We’ll have to see if the fixes make it on the ballot depending on whether the Secretary of State extends the deadline. Sheesh. Kids in a sandbox!)

But back to Ashburn. Being the jaded gal I am, I chalked up his apparent Luddite ways to his plans to run for the Board of Equalization when he’s termed out in 2010. No one has a prayer of winning that office with out the blessing of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and I’d just seen an editorial in the Orange County Register by the Jarvis group repeating Ashburn’s points nearly word for word.

Ah HA! I thought. This is just Ashburn feathering his future nest by dumping on the constituents in his current nest. The first phase of the 800-mile train corridor, after all, would be built from Bakersfield to Merced, giving us access to clean rapid transit before the rest of the state.

What the heck was Ashburn thinking?

Actually, he was thinking about making sure this project comes to fruition responsibly by not getting caught up in the emotion and instead sticking to facts.

Facts such as the High Speed Rail Authority’s business plan was last updated in 2000 and they didn’t plan to do a new one until October, meaning anyone voting absentee might not have a chance to dig into the particulars until after their ballot was cast. Under the fix Ashburn advocated, the business plan must be updated by Sept. 1.

And facts such as, under the existing proposition, the authority could stick its hand in the cookie jar and spend that $10 billion willy nilly with little or no oversight. Under Ashburn’s amendments, the authority must request money through the budget process, which means a lot more public scrutiny.

I’d vote for the proposition either way. California must solve our ever worsening air and traffic conditions.

But I’m glad Ashburn is asking some tough questions and keeping an eye on the bottom line.

I do disagree with Ashburn’s take that the authority has only a vague idea of how the train would operate, its ridership numbers, proposed fares, alignment and technology.

Almost all of that has been ironed out in painstaking detail, according to documents on the authority’s website (http://www.cahighspeedrail.... and according to Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the authority.

“It was a real surprise and mystery and disappointment to us,” he said of Ashburn’s opposition.

He said they know exactly how many miles of new track must be built, the exact station locations and the alignments coming in and out of towns. They have the technology picked out (steel wheels on rail/electric trains), they’ve estimated fare costs, done engineering and even have environmental clearances.

“If right of way was in danger and we had the money, we could buy it right now to preserve it, that’s how far we are,” Morshed said.

He felt the proposed changes to the proposition were fine. More fiscal accountability is perfectly acceptable, he said. And other changes create more flexibility, such as allowing the first phase to extend to Anaheim, rather than Los Angeles’ Union Station, which he said studies showed was more efficient and cost effective.

But he was still stunned by Ashburn’s about-face.

“It’s exactly the same as what people voted on in 2002,” he said.

I think Ashburn’s point was that’s what the problem was. And on that point, Ashburn and I agree. (Just don’t tell Inga, I’ll never live it down!)

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. C

all her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Houston, we have a council race.

I had feared the three incumbents, Sue Benham, Jacquie Sullivan and Harold Hanson would get a free pass to another four years rather than undergo the voter scrutiny all elected officials should squirm through. I think it’s healthy to stir the pot with fresh blood.

But only one council member, Hanson, Ward 5, will face an opponent, Beau Woodward.

This race should be a doozy.

Already it has a few twists.

Woodward was recruited by Mark Abernathy, which isn’t so strange. Abernathy is a regular king maker in Kern County, after all, and already has three team members on the council, Sullivan, Zack Scrivner and Ken Weir.

A fourth Abernathy vote would put them in the absolute majority — a delectable thought for such a power broker.

I wanted to talk with Woodward Friday at City Hall when he turned in his petition, but a “handler” from Abernathy’s office wouldn’t allow him to answer questions. No doubt who’s running this show.

What’s weird about this whole thing is that Woodward is a founding member of Chad Vegas’ church.

This is the same Vegas who has been a thorn in the side of the Abernathy camp for years.

Politics in Kern County lines up like this: Republicans are in charge (with a few exceptions) but they’re broken into different camps mostly along social issues.

In general, there’s the Abernathy camp (less socially conservative) and a bunch of smaller, constantly shifting camps (more socially conservative).

The Vegas crowd is in the most socially conservative group.

Considering that, this actually may be a brilliant ploy by Abernathy.

Woodward will get backing from the usual Abernathy group, plus pull in those who would typically vote anti-Abernathy just on principle.

Recruiting Woodward is either dumb luck or “evil genius,” as one person told me. (Knowing a little about Abernathy, I’m leaning toward evil genius.)

That’s twist No. 1.

Twist No. 2 is that Woodward is, apparently, a political ingenue. He’s not a member of the Kern County Republican Central Committee nor any other political groups, according to Vegas, who counts Woodward as a close friend.

Woodward is the consummate family/business/church-going guy whose main extracurricular activity is playing tennis at the Bakersfield Racquet Club.

Vegas told me he knew nothing of Woodward’s desire to run for council until Thursday when Woodward called him for advice.

So, how’d Abernathy come across Woodward? And why would Woodward want to jump into the fray at this high level?

Abernathy didn’t return my call.

Sigh. Guess we have to put the pieces together on our own.

Here’s twist No. 3, which could actually help clear the fog a bit.

Hanson, while not an Abernathy guy, hasn’t exactly bucked the Abernathy team on most votes. In fact, as vice mayor he put Abernathy’s people in powerful committee positions.

Even Hanson acknowledged as much.

“I tend to think along their lines,” he told me Friday in between calls to start revving up his campaign. “I’m Republican and I’m fiscally conservative. If you looked at our voting record, I would vote with them most of the time. Of course, most council votes are 7-0.”

Woodward wouldn't talk to me but Channel 17 got a quick interview with him when he pulled his papers at City Hall.

He told the television station he was running because he thinks it’s important to make sure we don’t squander the highway money we got from Rep. Bill Thomas (Abernathy camp).

No problem there — Hanson has always said the same.

And, Woodward said, he’s concerned about the unfunded pension liability.

Bingo!

That has been a key talking point for both Scrivner and Weir since their council infancy.

There haven’t been any votes on pension funding since this council incarnation, but

Hanson may have “crossed the line” on two closely allied issues.

Last September, Hanson voted to make up the difference in pay for city employees on active duty in the military so they wouldn’t suffer a cut in pay to serve. Scrivner and Weir opposed the so-called differential pay.

Then in January, Hanson proposed a compromise on city employee health care that saved the city $285,000 as opposed to $383,000. It was opposed by Scrivner, Sullivan and Weir and passed 4-3.

At the time, Weir took a dig at Hanson saying it’s easy to say you’re fiscally conservative, but another matter to back it up with your vote.

Hmm. Perhaps Weir was giving Hanson a warning.

Interesting side note: When Hanson first ran eight years ago, he did so without backing of the city firefighters union, who favored his opponent, Sara Takii. I wonder who they’ll back this go around?

Politics is such fun, isn’t it?

I’ve disagreed with Hanson on several issues, but have always felt he was a fairly independent vote on the council, a sentiment shared by other political watchers much more astute than myself.

Vegas said Woodward is likewise his own man. Abernathy’s backing won’t change that, he said.

This will be one race to keep your eye on.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

This gentleman took issue with my take on how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to manage the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge. The response I sent him follows.

Wow!   

Lois Henry, you mow over an agency for cattle!

You are very good at slinging cow chips about subjects in which you have no formal training and obviously know very little to next to nothing about!   You got any salsa to go with those chips?

Let us review your bull dung, you wrote, together shall we?   Her work is within quote marks my words are not.

You are very good at slinging cow chips about subjects in which you have no formal training and obviously know very little to next to nothing about!

Let us review your bull dung together shall we?

“If you've never visited the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge area, you should. It's incredible country in southwestern Kern County. Its rugged, stark beauty can take your breath away.”

You are probably right on here.   The dung you write also took my breath away.

“Unfortunately, it's being run by a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that also leaves me breathless (OK, sputtering), for their incredible arrogance.”

Your ignorance of range management, refuge management, and Wildlife Management is astonishing and your arrogance really irritates us folks with degrees in the Natural Resources Profession.   Oh yeah you are a journalist so we are used to your type getting it all wrong.   I have a BS degree in Wildlife Management, which one of us might have a clue as to range management techniques on a refuge.   No I do not work there.   I just find your ignorance/arrogance so irritating and annoying that I had to respond. :-0

And remember, it is not you I dislike; it is the cattle dung you write that really pisses me off.

“I learned about the Bitter Creek controversy last week when the Kern County Board of Supervisors was told by the Planning Department that refuge managers, located in Ventura, proposed to limit grazing as a management tool on the refuge and instead use fire - on more than 9,000 acres. Granted, they wouldn't burn it all at once, but that's a lot of grass to torch, even a little at a time.”

Burning is a natural occurrence and a valid management tool.   Try too remember that Good folks managing our National Wildlife Refuges have at least a 4 year degree (not in journalism), some have MS degrees, and many have PhD's in some specialized biology or other natural resource field.   The bottom line is they know what they are doing and Joe, Jill Public, and Lois Henry likely Do NOT!

“Fish and Wildlife held no public meetings on the proposal and when our Planning Department stumbled over the plan (they weren't even notified) and requested a public hearing, Fish and Wildlife said no.”

“In its environmental assessment, Fish and Wildlife says a public meeting wasn't considered because of the limited “intensity of environmental impacts anticipated” and the lack of “anticipated controversy.”

“Uh. Wrong.”

Uh. Correct!   You may be incorrect?

“Funny thing, but we in Kern County might think burning off thousands of acres of grass would have an “Intense environmental impact” on our already fouled air basin. And some of us might like to have a say in the matter before it's a done deal.”

Yeah, air quality is a concern for all of us.   The stink you write is hard to tolerate too.

“That's just scratching the surface, though. Dig deeper and things get worse.”

“After reading the environmental assessment, which includes the bone-headed burning proposal, I was shocked by the contradictions contained in the document as well as what it lacked.”

“But here's the bottom line: They don't like cows.”

Not true, however, livestock grazing has caused all the problems you mentioned below plus a few more even you are unaware of.  

“Seriously, if Fish and Wildlife could load up a crop duster with “cow-b-gone,” I think they'd coat that refuge an inch thick, no matter how much the Fish and Wildlife spokesman I spoke with might deny an anti-cow bias.”

Yeah, maybe, Journalist-B-gone would be nice too.   Boy I would like to have a patent on that.

“Chris Barr, deputy project leader for the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes Bitter Creek, stressed that the proposal prefers seasonal grazing. It's really a pro-grazing document, he told me.”

I believe that to be true, however, you seam a skeptic?   It is about grazing in season when the forage is at its best for cattle.   I'll bet you that most all of these folks eat beef, thus, it is not an anti-cattle thing.   It is a refuge management concern.

“But seasonal grazing as outlined in the proposal wouldn't be economical for ranchers, according to Richard Snedden who ranches next to the refuge and Art Steinbeck who had leased the ground for nearly 20 years before he was shut out by Fish and Wildlife in 2005 while they “rested” the land.”

Most grazing allotments operate on a seasonal basis, because the forage is seasonally green and edible.

“The seasonal grazing concept doesn't allow ranchers any flexibility, they explained. The document even lays out what type of cattle are preferred - steers, not cows. Steers, according to Fish and Wildlife, don't bunch up like cows and don't revisit already overgrazed areas.”

I am not a cow expert, although, cows do bunch up, steers may be a better grass management tool on this refuge.

“Actually, according to both ranchers and a U.C. Davis rangeland specialist I talked to, the exact opposite is true. Clearly, a rangeland specialist did not help prepare the environmental assessment.”

You do know that rangeland specialists are usually very biased towards cattle, i.e. pro cattle, pro-rancher, anti-wildlife that get in their way.

“The assessment also states that “stair stepping” - the trails cattle make across hillsides - promotes erosion. The rangeland specialist I spoke to said he'd never heard of a study showing that to be the case.”

Stair stepping, the trails cattle make across hillsides, promotes erosion is a fact.   I can show you areas, around Bakersfield, the Kern River Valley, and Slo County, of livestock induced erosion.

“Responsible grazing is a natural way to reduce fire hazards and increase biodiversity, Snedden said.”

The refuge manager is trying to use seasonal responsible grazing as a management tool.   I can show you many examples of irresponsible over grazing in the Kern River Valley.

“They know they need it, but there's just a negative bias toward cattle,” he said.”

“For background purposes you should know that Bitter Creek was a working cattle ranch for more than 100 years before the U.S. government bought it in 1986 as a refuge for the California condor, which had been feeding and nesting there, right alongside the cows, for as long as anyone can remember.”

“The environmental assessment, however, is rife with anti-cow angst.”

Someone is rife with anti-agency management of a Federal Refuge for wildlife, not for cattle.   I do not believe we have a cattle refuge, maybe you are thinking of BLM Public land?

“It cites a number of studies (some not specific to the land in question and many from decades past) that say, among other things, that cattle introduce noxious weeds and non-native grasses, cause soil compaction and erosion, push out native deer and other hooved animals, foul the water, step on kit fox burrows and are just flat ugly.”

Cattle and other livestock types do introduce noxious weeds and non-native grasses, cause soil compaction and erosion, push out (compete with) native deer and other hooved animals, foul the water, step on kit fox burrows.   You do know all of this is true and well documented in many scientific journals, although you seam to believe it is not true.   Oh yeah, you are just a journalist whom does not verify fact before going to print.   Oops!   Shame on you Lois Henry for not verifying your false facts in which you put in front of the public.

Cattle may be dumb looking, but in a cute way.   We call them white-faced deer or slow elk, with affection of course.

“I'm not making that up. Of all the alternatives listed in the study, only cattle get an F in “aesthetics.” (Oh, the refuge is closed to the public, by the by, so I'm not sure who's so offended by the sight of cows.) Cows are also dinged because their manure is visible from the road. Not even burning and its inherent scarring gets a mention for aesthetics.”

“Once you read something like that, it's hard to take the rest seriously.”

It is difficult to take you seriously.   It is closed to the public to protect wildlife and the California Condor.   Some wildlife does need human protection from stupid humans.   Sad, but true, we have met the enemy and it is us.

“My biggest concern, however, was about what wasn't in the document - studies that show whether grazing has adversely affected the condors, or any other species for that matter.”

Dead cattle do feed the Condors this is a good thing.   Especially since the cattle, other livestock, and ranching has pushed out the native wildlife in which the California Condors historically fed upon, such as deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, and desert mountain sheep.

“Not in there.”

“Barr told me that surveys had previously been done on the land, such as one in 2002 that assessed the grazing fees and program.”

“That's not the same as a study that looks at whether responsible grazing harms a species. I asked several times about baseline studies as well as why a rangeland specialist wasn't consulted and continued to get a polite but evasive, non-responsive response.”

There is lots of data if you know where too look.

“As for the lack of public input, Barr told me the agency has received 53 comment letters and would accept any new ones even though the official public comment window has already closed. But the National Environmental Policy Act doesn't require public hearings.”

“Supervisors and U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy are still going to try.”

“They've sent letters to Fish and Wildlife seeking a hearing and, if they decline, McCarthy and the Planning Department will hold their own hearing and Fish and Wildlife will be invited to participate.”

“I hope someone in U.S. Fish and Wildlife figures out that this refuge is a part of Kern County.”

I'll bet they are better with map and compass than you will ever be.   Remember, this is range and wildlife management not politics.

“But they're already so far out there, we may be waiting till the cows come home.”

Someone is pretty far out there and I believe it is you, your false facts, untruths, pro-cattle anti-wildlife bias ignorance, and arrogance in which you think you know how to manage a wildlife refuge.

“Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her   column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com”

False opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not those of any intelligent Wildlife or Rangeland Professional.

My ideas are not opinions.   My thoughts are my own, yet based on a solid education and 29 years of biological experience.

Have a nice day!

Sincerely not yours,

Bruce

Desert Mountain Sheep Specialist

A Wildlife Professional not a journalist!
 

My response to Bruce

Dear Bruce,

Thanks for providing your thoughts. I didn’t see it on my blog. Do you want me to post this?

As I said in my column, the science isn’t provided in the environmental assessment.

And public input was not sought even though the preferred alternative would have serious environmental impacts to our air quality. By “our” I mean the public, us folks in Kern County who were neither consulted nor even notified of this plan.

If cows are a detriment to this land, which is owned by the taxpayers, then keep them off, or limit them severely. That’s fine. But the agency should provide the evidence and proof to back up the plan.

That information wasn’t included. And when I asked Barr about it, it was clear studies don’t exist to show exactly how previous grazing practices, which had been in place more than 20 years, have caused problems to the wildlife or habitat.

If that information does exist, it should be in the proposed management plan and easily accessible.

You repeatedly refer to refuge managers, and yourself, as having high degrees in resource management as if that negates my asking questions.

I would think if you and your colleagues have such a wealth of knowledge, you would be happy to include it in the environmental assessment. And that you would be happy to answer questions and explain the plan.

Instead, I’ve received evasive answers from the agency. And now, from you, outright vitriol, over my being so uppity as to question the assessment.

I find that very telling.

Thanks again for reading and please let me know if you’d like me to post your thoughts to my blog.

Lois Henry
 

If you’ve never visited the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge area, you should. It’s incredible country in southwestern Kern County. Its rugged, stark beauty can take your breath away.

Unfortunately, it’s being run by a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that also leaves me breathless (OK, sputtering), for their incredible arrogance.

I learned about the Bitter Creek controversy last week when the Kern County Board of Supervisors was told by the Planning Department that refuge managers, located in Ventura, proposed to limit grazing as a management tool on the refuge and instead use fire — on more than 9,000 acres. Granted, they wouldn’t burn it all at once, but that’s a lot of grass to torch, even a little at a time.

Fish and Wildlife held no public meetings on the proposal and when our Planning Department stumbled over the plan (they weren’t even notified) and requested a public hearing, Fish and Wildlife said no.

In its environmental assessment, Fish and Wildlife says a public meeting wasn’t considered because of the limited “intensity of environmental impacts anticipated” and the lack of “anticipated controversy.”

Uh. Wrong.

Funny thing, but we in Kern County might think burning off thousands of acres of grass would have an “Intense environmental impact” on our already fouled air basin. And some of us might like to have a say in the matter before it’s a done deal.

That’s just scratching the surface, though. Dig deeper and things get worse.

After reading the environmental assessment, which includes the bone-headed burning proposal, I was shocked by the contradictions contained in the document as well as what it lacked.

But here’s the bottom line: They don’t like cows.

Seriously, if Fish and Wildlife could load up a crop duster with “cow-b-gone,” I think they’d coat that refuge an inch thick, no matter how much the Fish and Wildlife spokesman I spoke with might deny an anti-cow bias.

Chris Barr, deputy project leader for the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes Bitter Creek, stressed that the proposal prefers seasonal grazing. It’s really a pro-grazing document, he told me.

But seasonal grazing as outlined in the proposal wouldn’t be economical for ranchers, according to Richard Snedden who ranches next to the refuge and Art Steinbeck who had leased the ground for nearly 20 years before he was shut out by Fish and Wildlife in 2005 while they “rested” the land.

The seasonal grazing concept doesn’t allow ranchers any flexibility, they explained. The document even lays out what type of cattle are preferred — steers, not cows. Steers, according to Fish and Wildlife, don’t bunch up like cows and don’t revisit already overgrazed areas.

Actually, according to both ranchers and a U.C. Davis rangeland specialist I talked to, the exact opposite is true. Clearly, a rangeland specialist did not help prepare the environmental assessment.

The assessment also states that “stair stepping” — the trails cattle make across hillsides — promotes erosion. The rangeland specialist I spoke to said he’d never heard of a study showing that to be the case.

Responsible grazing is a natural way to reduce fire hazards and increase biodiversity, Snedden said.

“They know they need it, but there’s just a negative bias toward cattle,” he said.

For background purposes you should know that Bitter Creek was a working cattle ranch for more than 100 years before the U.S. government bought it in 1986 as a refuge for the California condor, which had been feeding and nesting there, right alongside the cows, for as long as anyone can remember.

The environmental assessment, however, is rife with anti-cow angst.

It cites a number of studies (some not specific to the land in question and many from decades past) that say, among other things, that cattle introduce noxious weeds and non-native grasses, cause soil compaction and erosion, push out native deer and other hooved animals, foul the water, step on kit fox burrows and are just flat ugly.

I’m not making that up. Of all the alternatives listed in the study, only cattle get an F in “aesthetics.” (Oh, the refuge is closed to the public, by the by, so I’m not sure who’s so offended by the sight of cows.) Cows are also dinged because their manure is visible from the road. Not even burning and its inherent scarring gets a mention for aesthetics.

Once you read something like that, it’s hard to take the rest seriously.

My biggest concern, however, was about what wasn’t in the document — studies that show whether grazing has adversely affected the condors, or any other species for that matter.

Not in there.

Barr told me that surveys had previously been done on the land, such as one in 2002 that assessed the grazing fees and program.

That’s not the same as a study that looks at whether responsible grazing harms a species. I asked several times about baseline studies as well as why a rangeland specialist wasn’t consulted and continued to get a polite but evasive, non-responsive response.

As for the lack of public input, Barr told me the agency has received 53 comment letters and would accept any new ones even though the official public comment window has already closed. But the National Environmental Policy Act doesn’t require public hearings.

Supervisors and U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy are still going to try.

They’ve sent letters to Fish and Wildlife seeking a hearing and, if they decline, McCarthy and the Planning Department will hold their own hearing and Fish and Wildlife will be invited to participate.

I hope someone in U.S. Fish and Wildlife figures out that this refuge is a part of Kern County.

But they’re already so far out there, we may be waiting till the cows come home.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Send comments to:
Mike Stockton
Wildlife Refuge Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 370
Maricopa, CA 93252
mike_stockton@fws.gov
(661) 343- 3332


Chris Barr
Deputy Project Leader,
Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(805) 644-5185
chris_barr@fws.gov


Dan Walsworth, USFWS Sacramento
2800 College Way, Ste. W2606
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 414-6464

The Hon. H. Dale Hall
Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW
Mail Stop 3138
Washington, D.C. 20240

Download the environmental assessment here
Click on Grassland Habitat Management and Restoration Plan.”

Be patient, it’s a large PDF file.

Road trip!
If you’d like to visit the area, it’s a very nice drive and not too far from Bakersfield.
Head west on Highway 166 past Maricopa.
Just past Soda Lake Road look for Cerro Noroeste Road on your left.
Almost as soon as you turn, you’ll be surrounded by the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
About 8 miles up, there’s small turnout next to a “Bitter Creek” refuge sign where you can look back into the valley and Bitter Creek Canyon.
This is a twisting, turning mountain road that takes you up the back way into Pine Mountain Club where you can stop for a snack.
You can come back down the way came up or head through Fraizer Park and out to Interstate 5.
 

Ready, fire, aim!

That’s the feeling I was left with after sifting through the ashes of the proposed 1-cent sales tax increase that went down in flames at the Kern County Board of Supervisor’s meeting last week.
Lets recap:

The proposal, pushed by the Kern County Taxpayers Association, would have had to be rammed through in two meetings to get on the November ballot; there wasn’t a wide coalition of support and several key community members had no clue it was coming; there was no legal guarantee the tax increase would be spent on the goodies listed in the proposal (roads, health care and public safety); and the proponents hadn’t even talked to other Kern cities, including those that had already passed, or are gearing up to pass, their own sales tax increases.

Oh yeah, and it stumbled directly onto the toes of a 1/2-cent sales tax increase that absolutely must come before voters in the next year or two so we can raise matching money to finish the Thomas Roads Improvement Project (TRIP), which is already underway.

Wow. It’s hard to imagine a more ill-conceived plan.

Supervisors tabled the issue until November. They should have killed it outright. It was the wrong tax, wrong time, wrong approach and it will likely muddy the waters for the 1/2-cent transportation tax.

After talking with Michael Turnipseed, executive director of the taxpayers association, I understand his reasons for bringing this proposal now — it was right after budget hearings, so money was top of mind for Supervisors, the state is likely to do something drastic to get out of its own budget mess and that’ll probably involve swiping local money. On top of that, the general election will generate a high voter turnout, and with it a stronger possibility for getting a tax increase passed.

I also think he’s absolutely right that we have needs beyond roads in Kern County. The jail expansion alone will be a huge challenge. We have access to $100 million in state money for the expansion, but we need matching money. Not only that, where will the money for increased operations come from?

We definitely need to find a money tree somewhere.

But I disagree that his proposal was the way to go.

We are midstream on fixing our roads and must pass the 1/2-cent sales tax — with the money legally bound to roads — to get all the way across.   

This is not a tax-happy county. Because that measure will need a thumbs-up from two-thirds of the voters, it’s going to be an uphill battle even without another stray tax proposal wandering around to confuse people and make them feel squeezed.

“Timing is everything,” I was told about mounting a successful campaign to coax voters into approving the 1/2-cent increase.

There was a very specific plan in place to get that done.

First, the TRIP team would get a few major projects finished, such as Fairfax-Highway 178 interchange and 7th Standard Road expansion. Traffic impact fees would be increased so people would see that developers are paying their fair share. A wide coalition of political and community support would be established. Finally, voters would be asked to increase the tax to make the final push toward finishing TRIP.

I’d heard about this plan and was told by several county folks that former Congressman Bill Thomas had laid it out several times to people involved in TRIP.

Supervisor Michael Rubio, one of only two supervisors who favored the 1-cent tax increase, told me he hadn’t heard the 1/2-cent increase was in the offing.

Come on. If I knew about it, it wasn’t exactly a state secret.

So, the 1-cent proposal backers didn’t know about the 1/2-cent plan. And I’ve heard from the 1/2-cent backers that no one from the 1-cent crowd brought them into the tent.

Hmmmm. This left-hand-doesn’t-know-what-the-right-hand- is-doing dance seems a bit contrived. Could it be....I don’t know....politics?

Maybe I’m being unkind to think that different political factions are flinging tax proposals around to try and get the upper hand while jeopardizing the success of roads projects that we, the peon citizenry, desperately need. But maybe I’m right.

Rubio said several times during our conversation that “we have to come together” to move forward. Rubio was the only supervisor to meet with the 1-cent proposal backers prior to the issue coming to the board. Perhaps, in the interest of “coming together” he could have picked up the phone and talked to a few people, such as Thomas or anyone in the TRIP office.

Then he dropped the “L” word.

“We need leadership on this front,” he said with some frustration. (I nearly snorted in disbelief that he would actually say that to me!)

Other than the obvious “Isn’t that why you were elected?,” he’s right. We need unity and leadership on these issues.

The 1-cent initiative, however, clearly lacked both.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

It’s a sad fact of life that when people and wild animals collide, the animals usually lose.

There are reasons for that, good ones. I understand that.

What I don’t understand, what I’ll never understand, and will continue to rail against, is when government treats us mere citizens as if we don’t have any rights.

In the case of the recent bear attack in the Piute mountains, I’m having a big problem with the fact that the Department of Fish and Game has withheld key information about the attack.

They had the victim’s statement last week describing the attack, including a description of the bear, but refused to release it.

“It’s an ongoing investigation,” I was first told by Fish and Game public information officer Steve Martarnao in the Sacramento office.

The game wardens who were tracking the bear are just like cops, he said.

Really? Such investigatory documents typically are withheld under a specific exemption to the California Public Records Act so suspects don’t change their appearance or flee the country.

Were they worried the bear would get a dye job?

It turns out the real reason Fish and Game withheld the information was in deference to the family of the victim which asked Fish and Game to keep it under wraps,  Martarnao said.

The search for the bear has been called off. I wonder if releasing the statement immediately would have improved the chances of finding the bear. We’ll never know — since we can’t be trusted with that information.

I feel bad for the victim. She was horribly injured and I’m amazed at her presence of mind to be able to drive, bleeding and scared out of her wits, to a fire station. I hope with all my heart she comes out of this OK and is able to overcome it.

But if I lived in that area —  and people do — I’d want to know as much about exactly what happened, where and when so I could protect myself.

I mentioned that to Martarnao, since the reason Fish and Game was hunting this bear was for “public safety.”

No dice. He wouldn’t release the statement nor provide any legal authority for keeping it secret.

Fish and Game was trying to be sensitive to the family’s wishes, he said.

I’m sorry for the family. I am.

But Fish and Game doesn’t work for the family. They work for the taxpayers and we have a right to know how this attack happened. It may have happened on private property, but it was a public issue involving a lot of man-hours at taxpayer expense.

Some people have protested the need to kill the bear at all. Even if the bear had stalked this woman and attacked her in her kitchen, there would be some people who wouldn’t want it killed. I’m not one of those people.

Fish and Game’s policy, which seems reasonable, is that when a normally skittish wild animal attacks a human, there’s something dreadfully wrong with that animal and to prevent further attacks, it must be put down.

Keeping the process secret only fuels the belief of some people that Fish and Game is up to no good.

When will government learn that?

Instead, they just want us to trust that they’re doing the right thing.

I say trust is earned when they actually do the right thing, such as honoring state law with regard to public records.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

OK, so we suck.

By just about every measurable standard, the southern San Joaquin Valley is hardly a garden spot.

We’re either tops at the bad stuff (air pollution, teen pregnancy, pedestrians getting run over in crosswalks) or we’re at the bottom of the heap for the good stuff (income, education and, I’m not making this up, romance).

The latest entry in this never-ending parade of “why do we live here?” reports was “The Measure of America,” which came out earlier this month and looked at human development in terms of income, education and life expectancy.

In a nutshell, we’re poor, ignorant and shouldn’t make plans past the age of 77.

This report was somewhat more notable than all the rest in that it broke out its findings by congressional district. District 20 (represented by Jim Costa, D-Fresno, covering western Fresno and Kings counties then squiggling south through Delano and over to Lamont) was dead last of the nation’s 436 congressional districts. Dead last!

To be fair, the surrounding valley districts weren’t quite as bad, coming in at between 235 and 403. Collectively, though, we have lots of room for improvement.

The kicker is that Costa was right when he told the paper this latest report didn’t offer many new insights.

We’ve known for years how bad things are in the valley. If we didn’t know it anecdotally, a 2005 Congressional Research Services study commissioned by Costa and his fellow valley representatives put it in cold, hard numbers. The study was specifically designed for the valley reps to use as leverage to get more federal money for local programs.

We have squeezed more money out of the feds here and there, going from $3 billion to Kern for education, job training and health care programs in 2003 to $3.9 billion in 2006, according to Congressional Research Services. That seems like a decent chunk of change until you consider our demographics.

I’m talking about illegal immigration, so hold onto your hats.

First, some basic numbers:

Between 1995 and 2003, more than 104,000 foreign-born people came to the southern San Joaquin Valley, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. More than half of those people hadn’t finished high school and about half were poor, according to the institute.

Using Census figures from 2000, the most recent numbers, about 43 percent of Kern children living in poverty were foreign born.

So, we have a large influx of new people, many needy and many of them children, every year and it looks like a lot of them are settling here.

Back in 2005 The Californian took an exhaustive look at the cost of illegal immigration.

Studies are often tinged with politics so we hunted far and wide for objective numbers and did a lot of our own crunching. The bottom line was that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources — schools and health care mostly —even though the vast majority are working hard and paying taxes. The flip side, of course, is that illegal labor keeps costs low for consumers, people like you and me.

Even Marc Grossman, spokesman for the United Farm Workers union, agreed that a large illegal immigrant population also keeps wages low because they’re afraid to unionize and demand more. They also don’t climb the economic ladder as readily because employers with better paying jobs are more likely to check citizenship status, according to  Steven P. Wallace, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health who studies immigrant issues.

I asked Costa about the “Measure of America” report and illegal immigration and he told me that he and other valley reps have been working hard to get more federal money but the Bush administration has been tough on social programs.

When I pressed on the issue of illegal immigration, Costa chose his words carefully.

“Any region with a large population of immigrants is going to have more social and economic challenges,” he said. “But there is also a level of energy and dynamics that are beneficial. So, it’s always a two-sided coin with short-term challenges and long-term benefits.”

I disagree that these are “short-term” challenges. As Costa himself pointed out, the numbers in the “Measure of America” report aren’t new. In fact, they’ve been about the same — bad — for decades.

Illegal immigration was the news du jour for a brief time in Washington, D.C., but the issue proved too intractable.

Costa hoped a new administration would bring new energy to the problem.

I wish I shared his optimism, but I’m betting next year, and probably the next and on into the future, about all we can expect are more reports with more dismal numbers.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com