The Wine Empire's ad in the PD today and a response by Preserve Rural Sonoma County

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...3_14-39-23.png

Today's PD has an ad placed by the Sonoma County Wingrowers. It claims that they are "Growing a Sustainable Future." They co-opt and green-wash the term "sustainable." They clam that "we're growing a better place for us all to live, work, and play."

With their over 60,000 acres planted to the mono-crop of wine grapes and only around 12,000 planted to food crops, tell that to the food farmers who want to grow food here. Tell that to the rural people whose wells go dry when a vineyard moves in next door. Tell that to the people who have been displaced by wine tourism from the possibility of living here.

Preserve Rural Sonoma County has responded to their false claim with the following evidence-based refutation. PRSC focuses on the Dairyman Winery Event Center on Highway 12 in the greenbelt between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa. If you want to respond to this ad, you can do so by an email to the ad-makers at [email protected].

Dear Sustainable Wine Industry Folks;

Here is what you call sustainable:

On 42 acres of grapes located on the Wagner/Dairyman Winery Event Center:
A proposal to produce 1,200,000 gallons of wine and 250,000 gallons of distilled spirits in the Laguna de Santa Rosa on imported grapes (the property is capable of producing 15,000 gallons of wine).
A proposal for 62 events with up to 250 persons at the majority of events, most scheduled to go until 10PM(beyond daily tastings)

Mr. Wagner now has another vineyard on Taylor Lane, and this is the list of chemical applications that drift onto his neighbors' properties:

Here is the list of pesticides applied on 16895 TAYLOR LANE in 2015.

EPA Reg No	Product Name
2935-50185-AA	R-56(R) SPREADER STI
51036-352-AA-2935	SULFUR DF
80289-3-AA	BADGE SC
100-1262-AA-2935	LAGUNA
2935-50142-AA	R-11(R) SPREADER-ACT
80289-8-AA	METTLE 125 ME
2935-50189-AA	SYL-COAT
7969-199-AA	PRISTINE(R) FUNGICID
62719-375-AA	QUINTEC
66330-35-AA	ELEVATE 50WDG
100-1317-AA	INSPIRE SUPER
524-549-AA	ROUNDUP POWERMAX HERBICIDE
2935-50171-AA	CAYUSE PLUS
71512-18-AA-88783	MISSION
59639-99-AA	CHATEAU HERBICIDE SW

We think your idea of SUSTAINABLE only applies to cash flow for the big guys.

And if it doesn't, then why not come out against the UNSUSTAINABLE practices that some your members engage in?
--
Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/preserveruralsonomacounty
Visit our website at - https://www.preserveruralsonomacounty.org

Sorry to bother you again, but it gets worse. The full page ad in today's PD may have been paid for by your federal tax dollars. The following is from the North Bay Business Journal. Read, weep, and then send an email, like the following, to [email protected]. We are loosing our cherished natural Redwood Empire to this "branding campaign" of their commercial Wine Country, while paying for it.
Carpe diem, Shepherd

I can do no better than to send what Neighbors to Preserve Rural Sonoma County has already sent you and request your response. I'm a 40 year resident of west county, now living in Sebastopol, with grave concerns for the fate of this county. A non-sustainable non-food crop that brings tourism, displaces long time residents and trades, and takes too much, giving too little back. Not sustainable, not community-minded, not acceptable.
Sincerely, DH

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...14-44-08-1.png
Sonoma County Winegrowers receives $377,000 state grant
October 21, 2014

SANTA ROSA -- The Sonoma County Winegrape Commission, also known as Sonoma County Winegrowers, said it received a $377, 282 federal grant to help continue funding the "Sonoma County" branding campaign. The grant will be used to raise awareness for the “Sonoma County” brand to initiate trial, build loyalty and increase purchases of Sonoma County wines, which increases demand and prices for grapes. The branding campaign is in partnership with Sonoma County Tourism and Sonoma County Vintners.
{snip}
In January, Sonoma County Winegrowers announced a commitment to become the nation’s first all- sustainable wine region through a three-phase, five-year program. The group of predominantly family- owned wine grape farmers is well on its way to meeting its 2019 goal and is now taking the next step to inform and educate wine consumers on the eco-friendly benefits of buying a Sonoma County wine with what is believed to be the first national advertising campaign specifically focused on sustainable winegrowing practices.

Continues here

Thanks for the heads up about this, Shepard.

You know, I remember back in the early 90's The Anderson Valley Advertiser proposed making the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter our state bird.

At the time I thought it was funny. Now I think I agree with them.


:gravapple::dragonfly::tiphat:

those words they string together "sustainable wine growing practices"...hummm
what is sustainable for OUR county about wine growing?, except that it brings in tourists...and how does that help us
again...i know i don't get it...after ALL the wine industry gives Us..i guess wine instead of Food, i guess pesticides instead of healthy agricultural region ( i think it's actually Religion i meant to say)...guess wine instead
of "sustainable food growing practices"...
peace
M

Padi Selwyn of Preserve Rural Sonoma County has sent the following letter to the PD editor in response to the outrageous ad below, paid for in part by your tax dollars. Please let the PD know what you think about this ad and the false claim of the wine industry as "sustainable."

Dear Press Democrat Editor,

No one would disagree that the wine industry is a vibrant and important component of Sonoma County’s economic picture. However, as Carolyn Stark noted in her opinion piece:

…”Most Sonoma County wineries are very small, these “mom and pop” wineries rely on direct marketing to sell their wine by reaching out to current customers and attracting new ones. They don’t have the time, money or resources to market their wines through grocery stores, wine shops and restaurants. “

That is why it is so baffling that the industry is pushing against the increasing community outrage to stop the out of control development of more and more wineries and event centers. Why would any business fight so hard to invite more competition?

Growth for growth’s sake is not sustainable. Sustainability takes into account the environment, balance, safety and economic security for all (including a living wage for workers) and the quality of life for our community.

If we are going to talk about sustainability, our county supervisors and Permit and Resource Management Department need to get a handle on how granting more and more winery and event center permits, while ignoring the destructive cumulative impacts upon rural neighborhoods and our environment, is unsustainable.

Padi Selwyn, Co-chair, Preserve Rural Sonoma County
Sebastopol, California

Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/preserveruralsonomacounty
Visit our website at - https://www.preserveruralsonomacounty.org

Geologist Jane Nielson, Ph.D., a water expert, adds the following. It is important to get scientists verifying this information.

What is sustainable wine growing in Sonoma County?

The County’s vineyard ordinance (commonly called “VESCO”) sets minimal standards and does not ensure sustainability of soil and water resources. California winegrowers also have the “California Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Workbook,” from the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, Wine Institute, and California Association of Winegrape Growers. This is a compendium of winegrowing practices, which guides winegrowers to evaluate their own methods and determine how sustainable they are. The 90 “Joint Committee” members, who provided “leadership and guidance” includes several highly-sustainable wine growers.

Undoubtedly, the workbook is full of good information and if winegrowers truly implemented all or most of the recommended practices, they would move toward sustainability. But to my knowledge, the workbook has not been peer reviewed to ensure that advocated practices truly are the most sustainable ones, supported by scientific data and observations. It acknowledges CalEPA input, but none from State Water Boards or NOAA fisheries.

The winegrowers certify themselves, so there’s no check for a “sustainable” rating. Paul Hobbs, for example, claims his vineyards are sustainably farmed using this workbook.

But the fact is that ANY set of practices which clear forests from hills, and laps across stream channels, or crowds to the top of stream banks, cannot expand unendingly and remain sustainable, no matter what practices are followed.

Jane Nielson, Ph.D., PG

This is sure not the county I moved to in the mid-70s. It was an easy going place that had horses and other nice things. :):

:stoptheinsane:

Now, Santa Rosa is the city where landlords are allowed to kick poor people out of housing by raising rents. My niece and her kids who were born and raised here were in that predicament and had to actually leave this state---their home state--and move to the damn mid-west!

This is a place where the rich are taking over and it is not pretty or welcoming. Makes me sad and worried.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...5_14-00-45.png

To date, most attempts to fight greenwashing (like GreenPeace's StopGreenWash.org) have been reactive and uninspiring. More effective -- and fun -- would be this ad at the right.

1. a sustained "Wino Tourism Bureau" parody campaign, designed to heap scorn and ridicule on the most egregious examples of greenwashing and tourism uberhype (i.e., use adbuster-style tactics and humor to undermine the existing mainstream campaign), and
2. a serious "Real Sustainable" wine scoring system website/app (like Barnivore or Seafood Watch, but simpler) that rates wine brands based on their local ownership and documented environmental practice metrics (public data or third-party verified claims).

URLs have already been registered, so next step would be to write this up as a formal marketing plan. I have about a half-dozen proven tactics already in mind to get us started, but to make a real impact, this would take a bit of money (for creative/legal support, PR contacts, etc.).

In theory, both of these ideas are fully compatible with the stated objectives of CSWA, so presumably we might even ask them for funding (with the cameras rolling of course).

Anyone else up for a fun project like this?

Better ideas?

- Perro

Original transformed for parody (Fair Use) - New art by Perro Aullando (CC by 4.0)

If you check it out, you will find out what sustainable vineyard cultivation means. Hopefully but not always, in addition to pesticide free and other cultivation best practices, it includes better water resource use including dry-land viticulture. This industry includes many responsible vineyard owners and wineries.

Since vineyards are such an important piece of our economy, why not celebrate and support the best practices and make it worth the while through this celebration and support for all vineyards to follow suit?

As for how tourists help us, study the economic facts-revenue- to understand their role in our economy.

Just a few thoughts.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

those words they string together "sustainable wine growing practices"...hummm
what is sustainable for OUR county about wine growing?, except that it brings in tourists...and how does that help us....

---

The term "sustainability" as currently used by the wine industry is just political marketing spiel. It's self-serving double speak. True sustainability does not equate to destroying nature and blithely steam rolling over the communities of people and animals that live on the land. Sustainability does not take, it leaves. It's concept is rooted in spirituality, not economics. It rests on the understanding that all of life is connected. It is protective of life so that all of life can flourish for future generations. Big, big difference.

COUNTERPOINT

The innocent, and others that seek to travel and drink responsibly, might consider the below.

Because the local wine industry lays claim to our countryside literally calling it, "Wine Country", and because they have launched a campaign to brand the minds of locals and prospective travelers, we must insist that the health of our regions watersheds and groundwater resources be included in any definition of sustainability. The Sonoma County wine industry's recent use of an important environmental concept--sustainability, does not do that. The attempted manipulation of the consumer to believe that something currently unsustainable is sustainable is, in my opinion, dishonorable. A branding campaign like the one the industry has launched cannot hide the fact that local watersheds are suffering negative impacts on wildlife, water supply, and old time residents.

True sustainability is a community wide process that takes into account all impacts in order that they can be analyzed and avoided, or fixed some how. As the impoverished conditions of our regions streams, forests, wildlife, and wells demonstrate, the major land users in our watersheds are acting in an UNsustainable manner. Until the public's interest in healthy watersheds are protected in perpetuity, the Sonoma County wine industry, a major developer in local watersheds, is UNsustainable.

Until stream flows are reliable, fish run naturally, forests and woodlands are properly protected, groundwater is managed like one manages their check book, and until the industry embraces transparency and cooperation, the Sonoma County wine industry is UNsustainable.

True sustainability means that there are, and will continue be, living streams with water, fish, and salamanders, and that there are protection policies that place a proper value on trees. In this respect too, the Sonoma County wine industry in UNsustainable.

True sustainability is transparent and verifiable. Independent certification by reputable parties is a basic tenet of programs that can stand up to the light of day. The Sonoma County wine industry is not there yet. A program based upon self certification and with a narrow focus that is used as much as a marketing ploy as anything else does not equal true sustainability.

True sustainability is something the industry could be proud of. The industry, should welcome independent and comprehensive certifications. Our region, despite proclamations to the contrary, is home to an UNsustainable wine industry. The industry as a whole is producing wine next to rivers and streams devoid of salmon. It has ripped up ground that once supported cooling trees whose root systems created pathways for rainwater that refilled groundwater aquifers. Groundwater is now a finite resource. The current intensive agriculture is unsustainable insofar as much of it occupies grounds where once tall redwoods touched the sky and cooled and wetted our watersheds.

And finally, the development of groundwater pumping systems, wine grape installations, and construction of processing facilities continues a pace in the absence of adequate controls and proper monitoring, and despite the severely degraded conditions in our watersheds. Coastal grass lands and ancient soils are being ripped 6-feet down and the complex soils tossed up into the daylight in order to wipe out older root systems. Vast amounts of chemicals continue to be used, and removal of woodlands and forests continues.

The wine industry has the power, funds, and truly green economic incentives to change all this. The smart and honorable thing to do would be for local growers and tasting rooms to adopt a watershed and fix it - ensure adequate flows, caretake their own healthy runs of salmon, increase riparian buffers, phase out chemicals and irrigation, and honor the limits of extraction embodied in the concept of sustainability. Until then, I eagerly look forward to the day when the Sonoma County wine industry in coordination with the community is run in a sustainable manner. It will be a proud day.

Humbly, KB

Here is a song I wrote when I realized that the wine industry had done a PR campaign on Sonoma County to get everyone to buy into the mystique of wine which garnered support of development and prices simultaneously. Hope I don't offend anyone with the tone. It was how I was feeling at the time.

Larry Hanson


The Holy Wine Grape

D G
The palate of some seem so divine
A D
Turning streams into their wine
G
The image of this gets us irate
A D
There is no escape from the holy grape

D G
There is a balance of numbers of vines
A D
Having too many crosses that line
G
Sucking up water at too fast a rate
A D
Fish could not escape the holy grape

Chorus
D
We got graped (yes, we got graped)
G
But some say rape (some say rape)
A D
By the holy, holy wine grape

(Repeat)

D G
Millions of spheres with juicy water
A D
Causin’ the balance of nature to totter
G
Bottled and shipped exported by freight
A D
Water could not escape the holy grape


D G
They cut down forests for vines galore
A D
A kind of devastation a kind of war
G
Converting watersheds into grand estates
A D
Trees could not escape the holy grape

(Chorus)

D G
Not all vineyards do all this harming
A D
No irrigatin‘ all dry farming
G
A nobel tradition one to imitate
A D
But there’s no escape from the holy grape

Chorus

D G
Water’s for drinking and growing food
A D
E-nuff for the fish and to be canoed
G
We have our story now in debate
A D
How we got raped by the holy grape

:hmmm:

This may see off-message, but I find it interesting, to say the least, that the top story on Page One of the PD today, above the fold, is about the custody battle for a cat, which pits a Fairfield woman with one in Kenwood.

The Lytton Tribe project, HR 2538, a land use matter (including a winery) opposed by many in Windsor, lands back on Page One of the Empire section. Something off balance, here, or am I just too cynical?

Bear in mind that the PD is owned by Sonoma Media Investments, a consortium that includes Darius Anderson and Doug Bosco and other heavy hitters. For its newspaper holdings and other owners go to: https://www.sonomamediainvestments.com/leadership-team/

And, oh yes, Sonoma Media Investment also owns five market-leading radio stations in Santa Rosa, including KSRO-AM, Froggy 92.9 FM, 97.7 The River FM, Mix 104.9 FM and Hot 101.7 FM. The combination of stations is the largest ratings and revenue group in the Santa Rosa market.

(Read more at https://rbr.com/kevin-wodlinger-join...wv7DMGoGdPQ.99 )

Isn't all this scary? Control of the media means control of the message. Stay tuned.

I like suggestion #2 regarding a way to rate wineries re sustainable best practices. In my opinion,
suggestion #1 although a "parody" is not funny at all, just an adolescent style way of getting short term attention. As I've stated before, there are positive ways to communicate publicly that can point out the facts and are more effective in the long run. Ask any communications professional..
My 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aullando:

To date, most attempts to fight greenwashing (like GreenPeace's StopGreenWash.org) have been reactive and uninspiring. More effective -- and fun -- would be this ad at the right.

1. a sustained "Wino Tourism Bureau" parody campaign, designed to heap scorn and ridicule on the most egregious examples of greenwashing and tourism uberhype (i.e., use adbuster-style tactics and humor to undermine the existing mainstream campaign), and
2. a serious "Real Sustainable" wine scoring system website/app (like Barnivore or Seafood Watch, but simpler) that rates wine brands based on their local ownership and documented environmental practice metrics (public data or third-party verified claims).

URLs have already been registered, so next step would be to write this up as a formal marketing plan. I have about a half-dozen proven tactics already in mind to get us started, but to make a real impact, this would take a bit of money (for creative/legal support, PR contacts, etc.).

In theory, both of these ideas are fully compatible with the stated objectives of CSWA, so presumably we might even ask them for funding (with the cameras rolling of course).

Anyone else up for a fun project like this?

Better ideas?

- Perro

Original transformed for parody (Fair Use) - New art by Perro Aullando (CC by 4.0)

---

The following insulting, co-opting, green-washing ad has now appeared in at least today's Bohemian, p.2, and Sonoma West, as well as possibly elsewhere. Your responses can be sent to [email protected] and [email protected]., the sooner the better, since today's news soon becomes old.

If your letter does not get in, it supports other letters to be published. This needs to be a community effort with various points of view. The more specific and personal you are, the better. Letters need to be 250 words or less.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Today's PD has an ad placed by the Sonoma County Wingrowers. It claims that they are "Growing a Sustainable Future." They co-opt and green-wash the term "sustainable." They claim that "we're growing a better place for us all to live, work, and play."
--
Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/preserveruralsonomacounty
Visit our website at - https://www.preserveruralsonomacounty.org

---

In response to Perro's questions below after his delightful parody, I am up for a fun project like this. I can be reached at [email protected]. Might others like to join us? What might a next step be?
Shepherd

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aullando:

To date, most attempts to fight greenwashing (like GreenPeace's StopGreenWash.org) have been reactive and uninspiring. More effective -- and fun -- would be this ad at the right.

1. a sustained "Wino Tourism Bureau" parody campaign, designed to heap scorn and ridicule on the most egregious examples of greenwashing and tourism uberhype (i.e., use adbuster-style tactics and humor to undermine the existing mainstream campaign), and
2. a serious "Real Sustainable" wine scoring system website/app (like Barnivore or Seafood Watch, but simpler) that rates wine brands based on their local ownership and documented environmental practice metrics (public data or third-party verified claims).

URLs have already been registered, so next step would be to write this up as a formal marketing plan. I have about a half-dozen proven tactics already in mind to get us started, but to make a real impact, this would take a bit of money (for creative/legal support, PR contacts, etc.).

In theory, both of these ideas are fully compatible with the stated objectives of CSWA, so presumably we might even ask them for funding (with the cameras rolling of course).

Anyone else up for a fun project like this?

Better ideas?

- Perro

---

from today's Press Democrat:

Attacking the messenger
EDITOR: Since Ernie Carpenter’s commentary appeared in the paper on July 15 (“Is Big Wine the Big Oil of Sonoma County?”), at least three responses have been written finding fault with him personally. In each case, the defender of the wine industry has chosen not to speak to the issues raised by Carpenter. They attacked Carpenter personally. I say don’t kill the messenger.

Karissa L. Kruse (“In defense of local winegrape growers,” Close to Home, Monday) talked incessantly about “sustainability” but didn’t answer Carpenter’s criticisms.

Sustainable means able to be maintained at a certain rate or level. It also means not being harmful to the environment. Carpenter spoke about how the wine industry used taxpayer dollars (from a grant) to defend its practices in an advertisement. As with all marketing groups, the wine industry attempts to hide issues behind a cloud of hyperbole such as the words sustainable or even organic.

Apparently Big Wine gets what it wants from local governments under the guise that it benefits the county. There have been a number of ad hoc local groups that have fought winery and vineyard expansion in their neighborhoods.

It’s time for The Press Democrat to investigate Big Wine’s affect on the county without letting its advertising and accounting departments get in the way of inconvenient facts about the adverse affects of Big Wine on the county.

JOHN TRAVINSKY
Windsor

This week's Sonoma West also has a long defense by the Winegrower's Karissa Kruse. Fortunately, it also has a letter to the editor by Padi Selwyn of Preserve Rural Sonoma County. It would be helpful if more online comments and letters to editors were sent by more of us, rather than just we "usual suspects."

This week's Bohemian also has a good letter by Sara Alexandra of Graton regarding how a fungicide sprayed by the Dutton Vineyard caused her room-mate to throw up many times.

The following comment was taken from the Napa Valley Register in response to the Walt Ranch project in Napa county.

"The right to farm doesn't supersede the right to live on one's land without threat from a neighbor--it is a violation of what WE all believe."

:thinking:

The Walt Ranch Project is one that would convert woodlands into vineyards and accompanying "disturbed land", a wonderfully descriptive and apt phrase to use in scenarios such as this. The Napa Register story is worth reading; those opposing the project express their objections vividly. One of the "mitigations" proposed by the developers is "to erect temporary sound walls when construction is less than 150 feet from neighbors." Which implies, of course, that some of the constructions on the 2300 acres is proposed to be as close as 150 feet from neighbors. Ouch.
Please take note. Here it is:

https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/walt-ranch-opponents-use-signs-to-make-point/article_d2c4cbbb-8f39-5ecc-a060-e0c4d228514c.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dominus:

The following comment was taken from the Napa Valley Register in response to the Walt Ranch project in Napa county.

"The right to farm doesn't supersede the right to live on one's land without threat from a neighbor--it is a violation of what WE all believe."

---

Ernie Carpenter's article is excellent..and on point...my gripe with him sits with his nonchalant attitude around the Wine Industry when he very well could have held a reign on them when he was Supervisor...as he so conveniently blasts them Now, as if he had no hand in their destructive practices...in fact, if he had been more pro-active back then, when they were really slobs, we would not have to listen to Kruse preach how absolutely "vunderful" grapegrowers are today....and they have our best interest at heart....right! Imagine a county with Food growing, a region growing sustainable FOOD! instead we all have to walk around in the wine stupor of capitalist practices run amuk...

We are suppose to debate how the Wine Industry should just keep coming, as in more and more and more vineyards...but hey, so long as they practice nice nice sustainable agriculture, we shouldn't be worried...i mean for chrissake how much freakin Wine do We Need!!
beshiva