Retired Officer Exposes Everything: How Environmental Policies Hurt The Environment | John Baker

In the name of green energy, we're sacrificing wildlife species, but because of the power mandates we have been really relegated to being unable to enforce the take of that. There is a lot of policies that are passing through these last few years. We are so focused, laser focused on climate change, we could be destroying entire species of wildlife in the name of saving the planet, and it's really sad. They will rationalize it by saying, taking these efforts on climate change, we will save far more species because we're not superheating the climate. I beg to differ with that. My guest today is John Baker, retired assistant chief with California Fish and Wildlife Department. Today he'll discuss the double standards he experienced while enforcing California's environmental laws. I think everybody thinks they're trying to do right by the environment, but I don't think that they have thought through what that cost is to us as Californians and what that cost is to the environment as a whole. What are you willing to trade off for your green power? Are you willing to risk the extinction of certain species in the name of green energy? Which is the greater bargain? Which is the greater concern? I'm Siamak Khorrami, welcome to California Insider. John, it's great to have you on, welcome. Thank you, thank you. Happy to be here. We want to talk to you about something that's really important to Californians, is the environment. You have been working with the Department of Fish and Wildlife in California for your whole career, right? Yes. And you have seen it all. There is a lot of policies that are passing through these last few years on climate change initiatives. Can you tell us what is going on in this state? Again, I'm really happy to be here. When I've seen a number of your programs on different things, I reached out and wanted to talk basically about how it's especially specific to energy issues and how the climate has hijacked the protection of our fish and wildlife species in the whole climate argument as it's a Faustian bargain, if you will. We have mandated through legislative efforts and through initiative to buy a certain amount of power from renewable and green sources. And as a result of that, you take wind turbines and you look at the number of large predatory birds, raptors we call them, eagles, hawks, both golden and bald eagles, falcons and other migratory species that use those corridors where they tend to locate those wind power plants. And you're seeing an entire swath of migratory territory taken over by these wind turbines. And we're finding a number of dead eagles and dead bird species that were pretty obviously taken by these turbines, but because of the power mandates and because of the focus of green energy, we have been really relegated to being unable to enforce the take of that. In the California Fish and Game Code, Section 3800 of the Fish and Game Code is a strict liability section which says that any species that's not a game species in California is a non-game species and if it's not specifically provided for, you can't take them. And so if a turbine does in fact kill a bird, you can be held criminally liable for that. And this has been going on for a very long time. You're familiar with the ultimate pass and going into San Francisco from the valley, you see all those little wind turbines there. And they've known for a long time that that is a major corridor for migration for golden eagles especially. And it's what they call a bird sink. And what that means is you have entire migratory patterns that are having to change and there's a void of birds there because so many of them have been taken there. And they finally brought a criminal or a civil case against the people that generate the power there. And I believe that was in 2009. And what happened was they agreed to try to take mitigation measures to put in different turbines to stop operating turbines when they knew things were migrating through. And so there was very little follow-up with that. And just recently, one of our preservation groups has sued them again because they continue to take. And it's really interesting to me. Like I said, it's a Faustian bargain in that we are, in the name of green energy, we're sacrificing entire corridors of wildlife species. And it really runs counter to the whole environmental argument and what I signed up to do when I originally started working for Fish and Wildlife. John, you were overseeing about 14 counties. So I had the Eastern Sierras, I had the South Delta, I had the Kern County oil fields, I had the Kern County wind farms. I had all that valley farmland to deal with, water issues, delta smell, all of that stuff was part of our bailiwick. The idea of protecting the resources for the enjoyment of all of California, that's on the hearts and minds of every one of the folks that works there in the law enforcement division. We were a relatively small part of the department. The department has about 2,800 people. There's about 400 wildlife officers within the department. I always told my troops, our focus is on resource crimes and the protection of our wildlife resources, our fish and wildlife resources. And so we would really focus on stream bed alteration enforcement, making sure that people weren't poaching, hunting illegally, and those kinds of things. And that's how we got involved in the marijuana enforcement because of the environmental crimes associated with that. There came about more recently, probably in the last five or six years, with the focus on climate change. There's been a sharp shift away from that more traditional enforcement mode with a kind of a tunnel focus on crimes associated with the oil and gas industry and the focus of the resources of the department on carbon sequestration, the study of climate science as it relates to wildlife. Everything always had to relate back to our original mandate, but in order to get funding for it, you would see our science side start developing these scientific studies rather than looking at species. It was always looking at species in relation to climate change. And there's a real, there's a subtle difference there because there's really a challenge for a scientist to continue to get funding and to tell the truth if the truth that you're telling is not what the people giving you the funding want to hear. And I think a lot of people forget about that. We look at our, you know, politics is telling people what they want to hear when they want to hear it or convincing them what they want to hear when they want to hear it. And in the political world, if you're not telling them what they want to hear, when they want to hear it, or how they want to hear it, they'll cut the siphon off. They'll cut the money off. The spigot gets turned off. And so if you're going counter their argument, you're not going to get funded. And people don't, I mean, and it's not overt, you know, it's not something that's, you're going to point to it and say, that's where it happened. It's really subtle. It's just the way it kind of evolves and the way it happens. And I saw that happen over a number of years to where if it didn't relate back to the story that they wanted told, it didn't get funded. I've had the opportunity to testify before the Fisheries and Wildlife Committee at the Legislature. And at the time, we were right in the middle, I think it was 2012, we were right in the middle of the marijuana enforcement. And the legislature was all about the environmental crimes. We had really sold that. And I was feeding them a narrative and a story that they wanted to hear. And as a result of that, we got more funding because it meshed with what they wanted to hear. They didn't want to hear about protecting deer species. But if you were talking about marijuana and how it, how the illegal growers were destroying the environment, it meshed up with the desire to legalize marijuana in the state of California. So it all worked for everybody's, you know, the direction the politics wanted to go. John, was there a moment that you realize something has changed in this department? Because you've worked there for over 30 years, right? There was. I guess it probably started when we started doing our marijuana enforcement efforts. So in 2008, we led one, along with a number of other agencies, we were a part of a large marijuana enforcement effort in Tulare and Fresno counties. And it was called Operation Locust. And during Operation Locust, the focus was not so much on the marijuana gardens, but on the environmental damage that was associated with that. And we actually got a lot of traction with that. You know, they're mixing pesticides in our water supply and pumping it directly onto their plants. They put out rodenticides and other poisons in the gardens. And so we would have deer, during deer season, somebody would harvest a deer and they would open it up and be as blue as your suit inside. And that's because it was eating rodenticide. They were poisoning entire areas of our forests. And that's why we got involved. It was not so much because we wanted to deal with marijuana, it was the environmental crimes associated with it. And so initially, for a few years, we got a lot of traction with that. And then of course, the effort to legalize marijuana came along. And so a lot of that kind of fell off, if you will, and went by the wayside. And the focus started to become more and more on carbon sequestration and different policies within the department. And it moved away from our environmental enforcement role and our role more in the conservation as it relates to climate change and what we could do for climate change. Because as most agencies, sadly, we tend to chase funding. It seems like our current legislature, especially in the last probably five, six years, that if it doesn't relate to climate change, they don't really want to hear. So did you see an impact on this on your job when you were dealing with the wildlife? We did. We would... So going back to the wind farms, many of the wind farms, when they would have a bird strike, there is a requirement in their permit to self-report. And so we take them at their word that there were these strikes. There was a lot of... So they will have to self-report that there is a bird that got hit by... Right. Exactly. And when a wind farm is put into place, it goes through an environmental impact report. So every agency out there can review and comment on what impact that will have. And of course, our department plays a major role in that because of the impacts on wildlife species. And so we would tell them what the risks were, but again, going under our strict liability section for taking on raptors, there was no way for us to issue them a permit to take. Now, on the federal side of things, they have actually addressed that and they now allow a certain amount of take of raptor species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when they do issue permits. But I was actually in meetings when, prior to any prosecutions, where we had a wind farm that was really, I think we picked up five or six eagles in the space of one migratory period, which is about three months. And so they were having a real big impact on the species because one of the unique things about raptors is they don't reproduce as quickly as other bird species. And so you can have a far greater impact on their overall population dynamics by taking a few birds out of that migratory corridor. One of the things that really frustrates me about this is you'll see these graphs where they'll say cats take so many millions of birds. Yeah, this is what I noticed when I was looking this up. And there is like a lot of birds die for other reasons, but yeah. And blunt force trauma and all that. And it's true. But it's a logical fallacy in that they're generalizing from that particular data. So when your bird goes out and kills a finch, there are millions of finches out there. There's not millions of golden eagles out there. And so those birds do have an impact. Don't get me wrong. Birds have an impact. Humans have a definite impact on avian species. No getting around it. But because of where these turbines are placed in the migratory corridors that they're in, they have a much greater influence and impact on those species than those other methods of take you'll see from humans. And so it's really interesting to me to watch preservation organizations justify the wind power taking these species because they will rationalize it by saying by taking these efforts on climate change, we will save far more species because we're not superheating the climate. I beg to differ with that. I really do. I believe if we all have the ability, humans and animals, to adapt to a changing climate, we've been doing it for millennia. Old country soaps are handcrafted, long-lasting soap bars made on a farm in South Dakota with soothing natural ingredients without harsh chemicals that can dry out your skin. They can produce a creamy lather unlike anything you've tried before. Just a great American-made product that will leave your skin feeling soft and smooth all day long. The soap is multipurpose. You can also use it for your hair. It's great for shaving and safe for pets. Every order comes with an exfoliating soap bag. It can hold smaller pieces of soap and can prevent soap bars from slipping out of the hand. After each use, just leave the soap bar inside and hang dry. It will last a long time. This company does not sell on Amazon, so go to oldcountrysoap.com and reward yourself and your loved ones. Use promo code INSIDER and get an exclusive 20% off your order. Let's support a company that brings back traditional American values and American manufacturing. So you saw these environmental organizations change their stance on... Exactly. And was there a story, was there a moment you saw it in person to see the first time? I did. We had this situation with this particular wind farm that was taking eagles, and we actually had, and I won't say what the organization was, but they didn't provide the support that I would have expected them to provide for the prosecution of these particular takes of those species. And it was really shocking to me. But again, the rationale was, well, climate change, we're doing far more for the environment by generating clean wind power and helping to reduce the temperature of the planet through that than we will by prosecuting these guys for take of individual species. And the other thing is, even if we prosecute, and one of the things that I've noticed, there was a recent prosecution, I think it was in 2022, where they finally settled a case on a wind farm that we, some of the eagles I've talked about that we recovered were part of that case. And so they settled, I believe, for $150 million, if I remember correctly, and my numbers could be off. And they have ongoing mitigation measures, they call, in order to try to prevent future take. But every time they take one, I think it's close to a $30,000 fine, well, the wind company might be paying that, but they're just going to pass that on to a rate increase for buying new green power. And you and I, as power purchasers, whether it's Southern California Edison or PG&E, are going to be paying more for our power because they're being fined for the take of these species. And so it's just a cost to doing business at the end of the day, and it's really sad. It's really sad. It's the same thing can be said for, we mandate that the power companies purchase green energy at a certain percentage, and that percentage continues to go up over time. If I remember correctly, I think 50% of the power is supposed to be generated by, purchased in California is supposed to be generated by green energy by 2030. And it's really interesting how the games that they play, and I won't get into that, I'm not a power purchasing expert, but I will say that, so as a result of that, going all the way back to when that law was passed, I think, in 2006, when they started that, the power companies had a choice to make. You can fix your aging infrastructure, which is falling apart, or you can buy the cables, the power transmission lines, and all of those things, or you can buy the green power that we're requiring you to buy. But you can't do both unless you get more money. And so they chose to comply with the law and buy green power. As a result of that, you have these catastrophic fires up in Santa Rosa and up in Northern California where those power lines have come down and caused fires. And then the state turns around, thinks they're doing us all a favor by prosecuting these guys for those fires, for starting them, and they fine them a billion dollars. Well, now they're back at the legislature asking for a rate increase so that they can fix their infrastructure and still follow through with their green power mandates. And we want, as rate payers, wind up paying even more for our California power. And so what we're doing through our legislation, and I think it's all well-intentioned. Don't get me wrong. I think everybody thinks they're trying to do right by the environment. But I don't think that they have thought through what that cost is to us as Californians and what that cost is to the environment as a whole. Those fires that happened as a result of failing to maintain that infrastructure were far more detrimental to our wildlife, to our water quality, to endangered species than had they been able to actually fix that and prevent that from happening. You saw some hypocrisy from what it sounds like. Do you think people were misled or is it like hypocrisy? I think people were misled to a certain degree. I think what happens, and I've saw it with our own agency, I think what happens is people start chasing the funding, as I said with the marijuana enforcement. You start chasing money. And so we are so laser-focused on climate change that you try to focus all of your efforts on that and you forget about those unintended consequences of what happens. In order to, quote, save the planet, you will make these decisions and not realize the repercussions. Going back to wind power, they really aren't sure if they were to start putting some of these windmills offshore just how much of an impact on bird species that's going to have because nobody's really done the science to back up, are these platforms, were these windmills going to be attracting birds because they look like land out in the middle of the ocean? Will they change migratory routes? Will they be in the way of migratory routes? And then if there is a take because it's in the ocean, you're not going to know unless you're there 24-7 circling around those things. And so we could, and I don't know, I really don't have the answer, but we could be destroying entire species of wildlife in the name of saving the planet, and it's really sad. You have a lot of passion for the environment. Can you tell us more about this? I started working for the department because I love to be outdoors. I like to hunt, I like to fish, and I like to have those, I like to be in the outdoors and enjoy nature, I really do. And so I have a passion for protecting it. As I've said before, I'm very proud of the work that our department has done in order to protect fish and wildlife species in the state of California, and I'm still proud of that. But what I've seen is this evolution away from fish and wildlife species and more on climate. And so the decisions that are driving our department aren't necessarily focused on individual species. And I find it really interesting because the people of the state are willing to pay $100 million to do a wildlife overpass over 101 so that one mountain lion can traverse through there from Santa Monica into those other areas. And that mountain lion population, as amazing as it is, they're amazing animals. And you had the P20, P22 I think it was, the one that was photographed in front of the Hollywood sign, he's a worldwide sensation. And so I don't blame people for being attracted to that, but genetically, from a genetic standpoint, there's really no reason for us to spend all of that money when we could be doing far more for the greater species by helping the same, genetically the same animals in the Sierra Nevadas and other parts of the state. This isolated population is actually causing more harm to the environment. This is one of the things that really gets me. So instead of expanding your roads, instead of building more houses so that you can address some of our housing affordability issues and some of the homeless issues that actually affect the environment, because a lot of these camps are in riparian areas where they pollute the water with all the waste that comes from those camps is going into our water. And that's not good for any of us, and it's not good for the wildlife either. But they're using the species to prevent any of that kind of development down there, and so in essence, cars are parked longer, you're getting more greenhouse gases as a result of it. It really doesn't make any sense. If you're truly focused on fixing the environment, then this isolated pocket of wildlife species, as amazing as they are, we're sacrificing a whole lot more to try to protect them. And I get it. Everybody wants to save the individual animal, but we really need to kind of focus on managing entire populations and not individual animals. Now do you think this is kind of emotional driven, like when it comes to the environment? And what about your people in your department? Very much so. I remember we had a situation where we had a bear that broke into a home in Tehachapi, and the chief of police up there, because we didn't have an officer in the area, they wound up, for want of a better word, dispatching the bear. And it was a bear that was very aggressive, and we probably would have done that. He told me, he says, I would rather have a shootout with a homicide suspect than deal with the aftermath of killing a bear, because it's such an emotional issue for people. And it really is. And I get it. I do. The bears are amazing critters and whatnot, but at the same time, a lot of our environmental friends will forget to take the human part of our overall food web, if you will, out of the equation. We are a natural part of that food web, and so humans do take animals and have for millennia. And so you can't just say that there's no more take anymore. And yes, the idea of coexisting is very important. It really is. We have moved into their habitats and their territories, and we need to be aware of that. We need to take the appropriate measures to guard against that. But at the same time, when a landowner is experiencing the loss of their livestock or severe damage, I mean thousands of dollars of damage to their homes, and they've taken all of the appropriate measures, that offending animal should be removed from the population. And it has no impact on the overall population. But it is a very emotional issue, and so as a result of that, we wind up not taking those offending animals and having to live with the property damage and all that. And we create this friction that creates this us-and-them mindset with conservatives and liberals, if you will. And it really is sad. It leads to that whole... And if we were to pull back and look at it rationally and logically and remove the emotion from it, I think we'd all get along a whole lot better. And the wildlife species would actually be better off as a result of it. Now, in terms of environmentalism in the state, you have colleagues in your department, and you guys are working very closely with the environment. Is there much discussion, or has it become very emotional, like my way or the highway? It's interesting. We used to have this terminology, the vernacular hooks and bullets guys, so hooks being fishermen and bullets being the hunters. And then we had the environmental side, and there was definitely two sides, if you will. As the climate change argument and other things have gone on, the environmental side has kind of gobbled up the hooks and bullets guys. And what's really interesting to me is this goes way back to the start under Teddy Roosevelt of the foundation of what I call the conservation movement. Our language has been commandeered. There were two schools of thought. There was preservation, which was no use of the resource, and there was conservation, which was a wise use of our resources. And we are here on the earth, and we have to use resources. There's no getting around it. So I'd prefer for us to use those resources wisely. The preservation mindset is they want to remove human beings from the equation. They want to return things as much to a pristine state of nature as it was, or as possible. And so this preservation mindset is the thing that I think has corrupted the environmental movement as a whole. And people have forgotten, you know, humorous story, people have forgotten where their food comes from. There's a little clip of an ad in a newspaper that all hunters should buy their meat in a grocery store wrapped in cellophane so they don't have to kill animals to get it. You know, this is beyond, people don't understand where their food comes from. And a lot of young people get passionate about this, and they live in the cities, and they go to the grocery store, and they don't know what's going on. They have no idea, exactly. And that is happening more and more. I remember when my kids were little, I would read the, there was a story in their third grade reader, I think it was, about the game warden came to, they had a community garden, and everybody in the community in this empty lot grows a garden. And the deer start to come in and eat the garden. And the game warden comes to take the deer out, and he's portrayed in this story for these third graders as this evil conservation officer that's going to kill this deer. And they stage a protest, and they prevent it from happening. And this is, my kids are reading this in third grade, and I'm a wildlife officer. And my kids are coming home going. Why do you do that every day? So I wound up going to their class and talking to them about it, saying this is not what we do. And I talked to them about carrying capacity, and the fact that one of the reasons that deer's probably in that garden is because it doesn't have enough habitat to sustain it elsewhere. And so it has to come in, and it starts creating problems. And if the deer species get overpopulated, then it can lead to disease outbreaks, which then are detrimental to the whole population. And so by selectively removing some of those species, we're actually protecting them. And I have a whole drawer full of thank you cards from their classes when I used to do that. But that is the emotional side of this that kids are getting, and they don't understand, like you said, where their food comes from, or they don't understand what overpopulation for these species will do when it comes to hunting and fishing, and it really is sad. Now, John, is there a way for us to fix this? If tomorrow you were in charge? I think there is. I mean, if you're truly serious about green power, there are some things. There is a, they have developed a new wind turbine that goes along the roadside. And instead of being this big spinning fan, it's a cylindrical, it sits like this on the roadside. And they're pretty good size. And as the cars go by, even if there's no wind, it will generate power, because the trucks and stuff as they go by it. And they use it in Turkey now. And if you Google it, you can find the articles. There's quite a few of them on it. If we were serious about green power, we'd be doing that along our roadways because we already have cars going up and down that. You're not going to have wind already. And you've got wind and you've got the power lines run down, you've been down I-5. You know that the power lines are right there. You can tap right into the grid and deliver that power. So you're going to have a much smaller impact on the environment if you do that, versus if these giant wind turbines that they're putting out there. And then the other thing, you could put solar panels down the center median if you wanted, again, to generate power. And you're not taking up whole areas, you know, acres and acres of land that wildlife could be using the way that they're supposed to be using it. And so it's really cost effective. It's actually a much better way to deal with this than, and the example's already out there to do that kind of thing. And so on the power generation side of it, it is doable. It's fixable. Same with, you know, I was telling my wife as we were driving down here, I've been coming down here for different reasons since I was an officer. And in 92 was the first time I've popped out. And you couldn't see the mountains when you came down here, you know. You'd be coming from the valley and you couldn't even see the smog and everything. I love the fact that our air is much cleaner than it used to be. And, you know, the emission standards that we've set and whatnot, there's some real benefit to that. There really is. But the vast majority of the particulate matter that's coming from brake dust and things like that that's in the area that we don't even address, we don't even think about. And, you know, I'm sorry, but natural gas and natural gas power plants are probably responsible, more responsible for cleaner air in the United States because we burn far less coal than we used to because we have such large natural gas reserves. John, you have been there, done all that, 30 plus years. You've seen a lot of things with the environment. And if you had one advice to give to Californians that do care, all of us care about the environment. We have the best beaches. We have the best hiking, you know, and we have the best weather. Yes, we do. Can you give us an advice of how to deal with, how to understand the environment better? In reality, I would say to step back and maybe try to think of some of the unintended consequences of what we do when we pass these laws and these different standards and think about their impact on people that maybe are less fortunate than you are. One of the things that I find incredibly sad coming from the valley is there are, everybody has amazingly good intentions and they don't want people living in poverty. They don't want people living in labor camps or living along these rivers and stuff in these homeless camps. And yet we continue to pass laws and do things that perpetuate that happening. And rather than looking at ways that might make things less expensive and that allow these people and still improve the environment as a result. Like I said, the example of not being able to build houses because you're protecting a certain small piece of habitat that a species that really has no genetic impact on the rest of it, maybe you don't do that. Maybe you allow that to be developed so you can have more housing. You allow that to be developed so that cars aren't parked on the road and polluting our air. And, you know, think through these things. The idea of critical thinking for Californians and remove the emotional aspect of it and really give it some serious thought. The idea of green energy is wonderful, but it's so dependent on being able to store that power for future use and, you know, until we have the battery technology. And even then, think of the amount of minerals. My son works in the mining industry. Think of the amount of fossil fuels that are used to mine the materials that go into those batteries. You may think that you're really helping the environment, but in fact, you may be hurting it because if they're not going to mine it here, they're going to mine it somewhere else where they don't have our rules and regulations. It's one of the things about the oil industry that I find fascinating is coming from, I supervised Kern County for years. So you have seen how we're dealing with oil, right? Oh, yes, very much so. And, you know, in Kern County, it's ironic. Kern County has the most windmills of any county in the United States, and they're the top oil-producing county in the state of California. And California, I think, is the fourth largest oil-producing state in the United States. And so, you know, you've got these great big power generations down there. I can tell you if a bird hits an oil sump in Kern County, they're going to get prosecuted like that. There's no questions asked. We've been there. We've done that. So, and it's really interesting how we treat them so differently than we do the wind power companies. And, you know, they kill the same species, but we don't prosecute them the same way. And it's, you know, because fossil fuels are bad. And the reality is that technology has gone to the point where they're not necessarily as bad as you think they are. And we continue to make strides in cleaner burning and better ways to pull that oil out of the ground, and more environmentally friendly ways. And we take the... There are so many endangered species in and around Kern County and around the oil fields. You've got the San Joaquin kit fox, which is, you know, a big species of special concern down there, or an endangered species down there. And they take extraordinary measures to protect them and make sure that things don't happen to them down there. And yet they're still able to pull that out of the ground. But if our current political structure, the people in Sacramento have their way, we won't be producing oil anymore. And then we're going to have to import it. And then you have to think about what happens when you import that oil. Well, you're either bringing it in by tanker, which is a huge amount of fossil fuels, just bringing that tanker across the ocean from wherever it's coming from. Or you're bringing it down from Canada via rail car and the potential for oil spills. We've had to create a whole new oil spill division within our department because anything that hits the waterways, we have primary jurisdiction for cleanup. And so when that oil hits, you know, train cars derail, tankers get holes in them, oil gets spilled. And so what impact is that going to have on the environment? And you can wipe out an entire section of river for an extended period of time with one bridge faltering or train derailment. And so think about these things before you agree to them and you vote for them. Because again, that law of unintended consequences is going to catch up to you. So you think we have become emotional in a sense, like we prefer certain type of energy over others, and then we don't see the plus side on others. So we've kind of become very emotionally thinking that these renewables are the best solution. And there's nothing wrong with them. And this is what we have to do. And we have to cancel everything else. Exactly. And there's a whole section of our voting population that refuses to look at any of the good things on the other side. And I would say vice versa. You know, there are good things done the right way. Because renewables can be very clean too, you know. They're amazing. Exactly. Yeah. You know, you get into the big solar array, you know. Photovoltaic solar systems, you know, the solar farms like you have on your house and those things, they're not that detrimental. They do take up a lot of space. I would prefer from an environmental standpoint and from a wildlife standpoint, much better to have those on rooftops because that space is already occupied rather than taking up whole, you know, hundreds if not thousands of acres and covering it with these things. But when you get into the mirror systems like you see at the state line going into Nevada, when you're going down the 15, you know, that mirror array super heats the air. And we have birds that will fly into there and they'll cinch their wings and they'll die. And they kill 6,000 birds a year doing that. And, you know, in the name of... And it's a $2 billion facility. So they're not going to give up on it. And, you know, but we are... And they are trying to do things, whether it's through acoustics or radar and other things to prevent this from happening. But so far they haven't found the answer. And so what are you willing to trade off for your green power? Are you willing to kill that many birds and that many species? Are you willing to risk the extinction of certain species in the name of green energy? Just, you know, which is the greater bargain? Which is the greater concern? John, do you have any other thoughts for our audience? I just, I want to thank you for allowing me to be here to talk about my agency. I'm very proud of the work that we've done and we continue to do. The men and women that make up the law enforcement branch of the Department of Fish and Wildlife are some of the best officers you'll find in the state of California. They have jurisdiction to do anything and everything out there. They're full state peace officers. And I was very proud to be a part of it and to lead them for a short while. And I appreciate you letting me tell their story. John Baker, Assistant Chief of California Department of Fish and Wildlife. It was great to have you on California Insider. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you having me here. If you like the show and our content, you should go to InsiderCA.com and sign up to our newsletter because we never know what can happen with social media and other platforms in terms of distributing our content. If you'd like to come on the show and be an insider, you can reach out to us at cainsider at epochtimesca.com. Again, it's cainsider at epochtimesca.com. We'd love to have you on the show to tell us what's going on in your field in California. Thank you for watching.