6 minute read
Letters to the Editor
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Proposed Ban on Rodeos, Circuses at Fairgrounds Raises Questions
Editor’s note: This letter was sent to Santa
Advertisement
Cruz County Fair Board of Directors and Dave Kegebein, county fairgrounds manager. •••
It has been brought to my attention that the Santa Cruz County Animal Services is bringing a new model ordinance to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors for approval soon. I understand it is going before the Santa Cruz County Fair Board prior to the SC County Supervisors.
I have reviewed different editions of the document and have many concerns.
One of my biggest concerns, that would directly affect the fairgrounds, is proposed ordinance 6.04.250 Prohibition on using live animals for entertainment and purposes.
This ordinance states: “The use of animals as a form of amusement or entertainment in events such as circuses or rodeos is detrimental to the safety of the animals and the public, including children and trainers.” This statement is very subjective and when left up to interpretation could be an issue for the Santa Cruz County Fair for all animal events.
“Wild animals pose a significant danger to audience members, trainers, and the public at large.”
I want to clarify that horses and cattle are not wild animals. They are domestic animals, livestock. To group together circuses and rodeos based on the use of “wild animals” is false representation of the groups. Additionally, to limit all circuses would be unfortunate as most events that call themselves circuses only have domestic animals in their acts.
There are many types of circuses that use domestic livestock, including horses that would be great for the fairgrounds to host, such as Cavalia. I enjoy taking my daughters to the reptile and insect tents and visiting the camels during the fair. In the ordinance, “Wild Animals” would include these species. Does this mean the snake wrangler and camel rides will be prohibited?
“Travel or confinement impairs the animals’ physical, psychological, and social needs, while close confinement, lack of exercise, pressure to perform, and other physical requirements of performing render the animals unable to express natural behaviors and socialize appropriately.”
This is false information about how rodeo livestock are handled and maintained. When not at a rodeo, rodeo livestock live in large pastures and are under great care.
“This section does not apply to equestrian events except for those banned by the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF).”
The USEF should not be the only governing body for equestrian events. The USEF excludes many events and breeds, including the largest breed associations in the United States, the American Quarter Horse Association and the Jockey Club that registers Thoroughbreds. It also excludes many disciplines, such as cutting, reined cow horse, roping, team penning, team sorting, gymkhanas, and barrel racing.
These disciplines are represented under American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), National Cutting Horse Association (NCHA), National Reined Cow Horse Association (NRCHA), among many other associations.
Not being more inclusive of the governing body(ies) for equestrian events in this ordinance will have a negative impact on revenue for Santa Cruz County fairgrounds, as many events not governed by USEF are hosted at the fairgrounds.
I am afraid blanket ordinances banning one type of event like circuses and rodeos will inadvertently ban many events that the fairgrounds currently supports and hosts.
I sincerely hope the Santa Cruz County Fair Board thoroughly reviews all aspects of the new model ordinance presented by Santa Cruz County Animal Services. I am afraid our ranching and farming heritage, and the future of what county fairs represent are at risk.
There is a lot at stake for the Santa Cruz County Fair if the model ordinance gets passed as it is being presented at this time.
— Kristi Locatelli
Bay Area Health Officers’ Statement About COVID-19 Vaccines
As local health officers, we fully support all three currently available vaccines for COVID-19. All three vaccines are safe and have been shown to be highly effective at preventing symptomatic illness and hospitalization.
The clinical trials for all three vaccines demonstrated that they were 100 percent effective in preventing deaths from COVID-19. There is also growing evidence that all three vaccines help prevent asymptomatic illness, too. This means that people who have been vaccinated are not likely to spread of COVID-19 to others who are not vaccinated.
There has been much debate about the advantages of one brand of vaccine over the other, but it’s difficult to compare their efficacy. The different brands of COVID- 19 vaccines have not been studied in head-tohead comparisons.
The vaccines have each been studied in slightly different groups of people and tested at different phases of the pandemic. The rates of community transmission and presence or absence of COVID-19 variants differed across studies.
What we can say with certainty is that all three vaccines provide levels of protection that are comparable to some of the best vaccines we have for other serious infectious diseases for which we routinely vaccinate people.
With COVID-19 continuing to circulate as we work toward community immunity, our collective medical advice is this: the best vaccine is the one you can get the soonest. The different vaccines have different storage requirements and with supplies of vaccine currently limited, the same brand may not be available at each vaccine site consistently.
If you have questions about vaccine, speak to your medical provider if you have one. You can also learn more about vaccines on the state’s COVID-19 website. — This statement has been approved by health officers representing the city of Berkeley and the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma. •••
Fire Safety Road Rules Would Create
No-Build Areas, Make Homes Scarcer
Editor’s Note: Aptos resident Becky Steinbruner submitted this letter to the state forestry board assessing the impact of the proposed fire safety regulations creating no-build zones in Santa Cruz County where homeowners cannot afford to pay to bring their roads, often old logging roads in steep forested mountainous terrain, up to the new standards. •••
Ihave participated in recent Board Workshops, Meetings and Special Meeting, and have made multiple oral testimony. I would like to now submit the following written comment. I live in Santa Cruz County. 1) There is no language in any Articles that provides information about the appeal process that would be available once these Regulations would be available. If the appeal would be before a local jurisdiction, I ask that the Regulations specify that an Appeal Committee to handle these types of appeals be formed and consist of local qualified building, construction and timber harvesting professionals. 2) I live on a substandard existing road that is longer than 1 mile. It is impossible for our community to comply with the regulations requiring turnouts every 400’ (Section 1273.09). The County refuses to assume maintenance of our road, which is an old logging road from the 1920’s. We have formed a County Service Area and have made major improvements to the safety and quality of the road, but our community could not financially support installing the improvements that the proposed regulations would require. 3) It could be impossible for my community and the ridge-top community adjacent to change the gradient of steep portions of our roads. While I am not sure if the road gradients are over 25%, there simply would be no way to change this if they were. Local fire agencies have Type 3 engines that are able to successfully respond. Type 2 engines regularly respond to emergencies. 4) My neighborhood is a FireWise Community, and residents are working together to reduce roadside vegetation as best as possible without causing future erosion problems. Local efforts to reduce fire risks need to be given consideration in whether there are triggers for these new Regulations. 5) I request that ADU’s (accessory dwelling units) be exempted from all new building regulation triggers to help address the affordable housing shortage in Santa Cruz County and throughout the state. 6) I request that all regulations exempt any and all fire re-builds and addition of ADU’s and mobile home/modular homes from the new regulation triggers.
