How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
- Details
- Written by: Nelson Strasser
In the afternoon I walk my dog down to the lake. She is 13 years old and has lost the urge to swim, so she merely stands and luxuriates in the water. I do not share her love of cold water, so I let her off leash for her plunge.
Mazie gets spooked when she hears load noises. And that day, there were gunshots coming from some distant location. Instead of walking into the water, she trotted off down a trail on the shoreline.
I followed after her but I could not find her, so I walked up and down Main Street looking for her but to no avail.
I walked home to get my truck, and just as I walked in the door, the phone rang. A Good Samaritan had found Mazie on Main Street and brought her to the animal shelter.
I raced over to the shelter and the front desk called to the kennel to bring up my dog. As the agent approached, I could not see her coming down the hall, but, something was amiss. I only heard two feet shuffling down the hall, I should have heard six.
Soon, the mystery resolved itself: the agent was carrying a dog, and the dog was the same color as Mazie, but about 75 pounds lighter, and thus could be picked up and carried.
Another agent soon came out with the real Mazie, looking just as happy as if she had good sense. I was happy to reunite with my dog, but my jubilation was short-lived: “That will be $78.”
Forty of that was kenneling. I was thinking that Mazie had been in the shelter for an hour, so the daily rate would compute to $960!
Mazie had had her rabies shots, but she apparently needed some other vaccine. In addition, there was a $20 fine for the expired license. I had always paid my license fee when it arrived in the mail, but I had moved, and so I did not get the bill.
In fairness, the staff at the shelter did their due diligence: the phone number on the ID tag was old, but they were able to make out the name of my vet on the rabies tag, and got my number from her.
The good news is that I am reunited with my dog. I doubt that she learned anything from this experience.
Nelson Strasser lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News Reports
The recent Lake County Land Trust annual benefit dinner was a success due to the help of many people who made it possible and to all of those who attended.
Thank you to our sponsors: The Lake County Winegrape Commission, Brad and Kathy Barnwell, the Law Office of Dennis Fordham, Hanchett Publishing, Peter Gruchawka and Nancy Summers.
Delicious wines were provided by Six Sigma, Wildhurst, Steele, Ceago and Shannon Ridge. Thanks to all of the silent auction donors who are too numerous to mention here but are very much appreciated, including local businesses and individuals.
Tom Nixon and Doug Kauffman provided great music during the social hour and also allowed the use of their fantastic sound system so everyone could hear.
Ciao Thyme Catering provided a plentiful and delicious meal and the facility and helpers at Rancho de la Fuente made the whole evening perfect.
Thanks to Bonnie Piccolo for overseeing the organization of the dinner as well as Sherrie Hidalgo; and many thanks to Shannon Gunier, our wonderful and interesting guest speaker.
Thanks also to all Land Trust volunteers and employees who worked during the evening to assure a successful event.
Hard workers also included a great group of teens from Kelseyville High School, thank you to them and their advisor Michele Malm.
Last but not least, thank you to the 135 people who attended to support the Lake County Land Trust – thank you for sharing our special evening!
Roberta Lyons is president of the Lake County Land Trust, serving Lake County, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: JoAnn Saccato
I am quite dismayed to hear of the deception being promoted by the No on Proposition 37 campaign. Everything from misrepresenting endorsements, to scary possible scenarios to fabricating quotes from the FDA.
Unfortunately, the reporting of the deceptions probably receives much less attention than the well financed advertising of the No on Prop 37 campaign. (I applaud LakeCoNews' recent coverage of these falsities.)
Labeling costs would not be significantly different than any other labeling costs. Most likely just a displacement of some information in exchange for other information. Remembering that over 50 countries worldwide require the labeling of GE produced food, there seems to be no massive increase in food costs, lawsuits, and farmers going out of business as a result. This sounds like a scare tactic.
I was intrigued by the logic some are proposing: to instead label those products WITHOUT genetically engineered materials. That would be like asking food producers to label that a product doesn't have vitamin B, or cobalt, or? (Now that WOULD increase the cost of food significantly if we were to begin labeling food for all the things that aren't present!)
In listening to a debate from the Commonwealth Club last evening, some opponents seem really concerned that genetic engineering c/would go away if the labeling of these food products in the U.S. were to happen. This slippery slope logic is flawed, of course, but if anything, the labeling of GE foods may force the industry to become more accountable for its claimed goals. It may also end up having to refine its intention, better its practices and begin to produce what it has promised from the beginning (but which has failed thus far): less costly food, less pesticide use, an answer to unfettered population growth (!) and feeding the world.
It’s time to hold this industry accountable for its practices and actions and that begins with labeling. Our right to know. Maybe then, the market can truly decide whether it wants/needs these foods. Additionally, maybe some honest assessment of these products can begin to take place, rather than relying on sparse industry led studies.
I was pleased to hear recently that the faith communities are coming forward to insist on, at minimum, labeling GE foods. Christian, Jewish, Hindu and others believe that genetically engineered food should be labeled. Some believe it is interfering with the natural food made by God.
My vote is secure in support of Proposition 37, but I wonder how many others have been swayed in recent weeks by the prolific and sometimes deceptive advertising put forth by the No on Proposition 37 campaign? In an era when political spending knows no bounds, and catching inaccuracies may be too late to impact the audience that heard them, it will be interesting to see how the campaign turns out.
An ABC analysis in June revealed that 93 percent of Americans believe the federal government should require the labeling of GE foods ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&;page=1#.UJPuxBgsltQ ). Let's see what the final numbers are at the polls in California this week.
JoAnn Saccato lives in Cobb, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Janis Irvin
Voting yes on Proposition 37 is like saying no to those corporate interests that include money, money and money.
Not too many years ago Monsanto was claiming to end world hunger with their newly developed GMO foods.
What happened that they no longer want us to even know that our foods contain GMOs?
Testing, that’s what – test animals either out right died or their babies died.
Remember, this is the industry that brought us Thalidomide, asbestos (after 50 years of denial), Agent Orange, Baycol, Vioxx and Dexatrim.
They caused death, cancer or deformity. Now they want us to believe them when they say it’s safe … I think not.
At the very least I want to know and have the choice.
Janis Irvin lives in Middletown, Calif.