# Sustainability Starts Here



## Micro Thinfisher (Jan 27, 2018)

Sustainability starts with preservation of our environment.










Photo Courtesy of Now or Neverglades

Here are some organizations where you can get involved and make a difference:

Captains for Clean Water:https://captainsforcleanwater.org

Now or Neverglades: https://www.noworneverglades.com

Bull Sugar.org: https://www.bullsugar.org/#modal

Friends of the Everglades: https://www.everglades.org

Everglades Trust: http://www.evergladestrust.org

Supporters & Partners: https://www.noworneverglades.com/supporters/


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

You lost me at Bull Sugar!


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

DuckNut said:


> You lost me at Bull Sugar!


Hey Duck, 
I don't know all the ins and outs of that bullsugar but I did do a quick look on their website. I liked that they appear to be trying to get rid of sugar subsidies. Did I misinterpret? I'm curious what you don't like about them.

FWIW I think sugar is probably more problematic to this nation than weed. It's just so bad for you. It's amazing how many medical problems are linked to excess sugar. If I was in charge I'd tax sugar and corn syrup like crazy. But instead we have the government subsidizing the people supplying this poison and in the process of that they're killing the environment. It's either crazy or evil. Take your pick.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

paulrad said:


> Hey Duck,
> I don't know all the ins and outs of that bullsugar but I did do a quick look on their website. I liked that they appear to be trying to get rid of sugar subsidies. Did I misinterpret? I'm curious what you don't like about them.
> 
> FWIW I think sugar is probably more problematic to this nation than weed. It's just so bad for you. It's amazing how many medical problems are linked to excess sugar. If I was in charge I'd tax sugar and corn syrup like crazy. But instead we have the government subsidizing the people supplying this poison and in the process of that they're killing the environment. It's either crazy or evil. Take your pick.


BS is a social welfare organization hiding behind a non profit. During the last election one of their representatives came on here and told us to go join their cause and then vote for the candidates they donated money to. They had a comparison of the candidates and every single democrat was rated stellar and every republican was rated scum, including our current governor who is doing more for the waters of Florida than the last 2 dozen governors combined. It was so lopsided it was sickening.

When it comes to issues I look at news from both sides of the tickets. I read, listen and digest to draw my own conclusions to make what I believe is an educated decision. One item I always look for (also goes for the other thread you asked me a question) is Follow the money. This organization is known for its black money platform and has been called an environmental terrorist organization from people who don't follow their demands.

I don't have issues at all at true grass roots efforts to support things but this was reckless. There is an entire thread on the subject.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

paulrad said:


> Hey Duck,
> I don't know all the ins and outs of that bullsugar but I did do a quick look on their website. I liked that they appear to be trying to get rid of sugar subsidies. Did I misinterpret? I'm curious what you don't like about them.
> 
> FWIW I think sugar is probably more problematic to this nation than weed. It's just so bad for you. It's amazing how many medical problems are linked to excess sugar. If I was in charge I'd tax sugar and corn syrup like crazy. But instead we have the government subsidizing the people supplying this poison and in the process of that they're killing the environment. It's either crazy or evil. Take your pick.


“Weed” or cannabis is medicinal and linked to curing cancer along with the Gerson Method but big pharma shuts them down. Sugar is poison and good for nothing but cavities, feeding cancer and obesity. Sure it can be abused just like anything else but that is no reason to compare it to a substance with no true benefits. Look at ethanol and how corn farmers are linked in that whole debacle.
I agree with taxing the hell out of it (sugar) but the elite don’t truly care what’s best for the masses...


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

DuckNut said:


> During the last election one of their representatives came on here and told us to go join their cause and then vote for the candidates they donated money to.


I was always suspicious but when they added non-water related issues to their voting guide I became convinced. I mean...why is BullSugar asking me to vote to restore voting rights to felons? That had less than zero to do with water quality or environmental issues...

Captains for Clean Water and some of the other orgs listed are much better candidates for our support. My $0.02...


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

DuckNut said:


> BS is a social welfare organization hiding behind a non profit.
> ...
> Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.


Very Interesting. Thanks, Duck!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

crboggs said:


> Captains for Clean Water


More research needs to be done on this front as well. CFCW has not always played nice either. 

They are recipients of BS's black money so pay to play could be in store.

If I remember correctly BS (hiding behind 501c4) started Bullsugar Alliance and doing business under the name of Clean Water Party. Clean Water is also registered as a lobbyist.

BS started BS Alliance and then that transformed into Friends of the Everglades.

Clear as mud.

Where is gets real murky is Evergaldes Foundation. It is pretty much thought that Paul Tudor Jones is behind BS and CFCW but without financial reports (hence 501c4) this cannot be 100% confirmed. Also Jones donated between $1-5 million to EF. He was also convicted of pollution and paid a $2 mil fine. 

When someone gives a group a few million dollars they take it with a smile and fight for the donor.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Lots of misinformation/lies being spread by Duck here as usual. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding bullsugar.org, I am always happy to discuss, feel free to drop me a message.

We are backed/sponsored by Patagonia, and our board includes Sandy Moret (FL Keys Outfitters), Blair Wickstrom (FL Sportsman Magazine), Richard Trotta (Herman Lucerne). Hopefully no more needs to be said about credibility for those here who know any of us.

Bullsugar.org board of directors:
https://bullsugar.org/our-team/

Friends of the Everglades (501c3) was founded in 1969 by Marjory Stoneman Douglas. In early 2019, the FOE board decided to partner up with Bullsugar.org (501c4). A few details here:
https://amp.tcpalm.com/amp/1328326001

As far as who is ‘hiding behind’ anything here, maybe you should take a look in the mirror, Ducky. Not sure what your agenda is and don’t really care, but would appreciate it if you tried at least a little to stick to the truth/facts in the future.

-Dave Preston
(Board of Directors, Friends of the Everglades)


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Dpreston said:


> Lots of misinformation/lies being spread by Duck here as usual. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding bullsugar.org, I am always happy to discuss, feel free to drop me a message.
> 
> We are backed/sponsored by Patagonia, and our board includes Sandy Moret (FL Keys Outfitters), Blair Wickstrom (FL Sportsman Magazine), Richard Trotta (Herman Lucerne). Hopefully no more needs to be said about credibility for those here who know any of us.
> 
> ...


What’s being done? That’s all people care about.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Right now we (Bullsugar and FOE) are very focused on Lake Okeechobee operations. Because projects take so long and funding is sporadic, we are trying to get relief from discharges now by holding the lake lower during the dry season, and maximizing the existing system to send as much water south to the Everglades as possible throughout the year.

https://bullsugar.org/operations/

Last year we proposed a bill (HR6700) to Congressman Brian Mast - which he sponsored - to re-write the ACOE’s (antiquated) priorities for managing Lake O levels, and the framework of that bill has become the foundation for the current LORS (Lake O Regulation Schedule) discussion.

https://mast.house.gov/stop-discharges
https://bullsugar.org/bullsugar_endorses_brian_mast/

As a result of better/smarter management in 2019, the lake was held approximately 6-12 inches lower this year, and in combination with some luck - a dry year - we avoided discharges even under threat of a major hurricane, which in past years would have likely resulted in lake lowering/discharges due to the lake being held unnecessary high for US Sugar and FL Crystals who demand about a trillion gallons of water annually to irrigate 700sq miles of cane in the EAA.

Every 12'' we can hold the (730sq mile) lake coming into the wet season is around 150 billion gallons of additional storage we have to help avoid discharges to our east and west coast estuaries.

Needless to say, they are not happy campers, as for the last 50yr+ they have always gotten everything they wanted - that is finally starting to change, in large part thanks to the collective efforts of the groups named above. 

https://www.courthousenews.com/sugar-producer-sues-army-corps-over-lake-water-levels/

The good news is grass is starting to come back (a little) in the IRL due to a full year of zero discharges, and if we can continue this trend, maybe we will be able to provide relief for long enough for projects to get funded, built, and online to lock in some of the improvements - and better fishing - we are seeing.


----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

Stop the federal subsidies to the sugar industry and it would not be viable.Also, cancel the leases.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

topnative2 said:


> Stop the federal subsidies to the sugar industry and it would not be viable.


100% agree - we took a hard swing at the subsidies last year in the 2018 farm bill and the sugar lobby was just too powerful on this go-around. They swing a huge stick in DC (and Tallahassee) with BOTH parties, which is why they still have their WWII-era subsidies almost 80yr later. https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/l...own-sugar-policy-modernization-act/615802002/


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Dpreston said:


> We are backed/sponsored by Patagonia, and our board includes Sandy Moret (FL Keys Outfitters), Blair Wickstrom (FL Sportsman Magazine), Richard Trotta (Herman Lucerne). Hopefully no more needs to be said about credibility for those here who know any of us.


Dave,

You can trot those names out all you want but it doesn't explain Bull Sugar taking a stance on non-water related legislation while adding them to your voting guide.

That is explicitly where you look like a partisan organization operating behind the guise of an environmental watch dog / activist.

If you are going to advertise yourselves as being water-centric and non-partisan then you have to actually be water-centric and non-partisan in your behavior and advocacy.

Otherwise you ostracize alot of conservative sportsmen and anglers that share your environmental and water quality concerns even if we differ in other areas.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Chris, you guys can disagree with our policy and actions all you want, it is the lies and personal attacks I have an issue with. Not sure if you realize, but we have met and fished together in the Salty Fly a few times over the years and we have always gotten along fine in the past. I mentioned Sandy, Blair, etc. because it's absolutely relevant to this conversation to know who is behind our decisions making process.

Have we done everything perfectly over the last 4 years? Hell no. Are we experts at this stuff? Absolutely not. BS was started by 3 guys from Stuart (Chris Maroney, Kenan Siegel, and Kenny Hinkle) who were fed up with toxic discharges in their backyards and decided to do something about it. The idea was to take a non-partisan approach to the politics of the issue, which they felt was the root of our problems.

The plan from day one has been to follow the money, call out those in office taking it and enacting policy that works to everyone else's detriment. US Sugar and FL Crystals have built a perfect system for themselves in FL by controlling both parties for decades, and we have both endorsed and called out members of each party in the past few elections. The last governor's race, we (collectively) got every candidate (again, from BOTH parties) except for Adam Putnam to agree not to accept sugar money.

As far as the constitutional amendments, although I was not personally part of the decision to include them last election, the thought process was that it made sense to support policy that results in a more democratic process as special interests such as sugar regularly manipulate the democratic process to achieve their desired results in elections. Here is an example of how they manipulate the system to achieve their desired results:

https://www.treasurecoast.com/connection-ron-rose-chase-lurgio-found/
https://jacquithurlowlippisch.com/tag/write-in-candidates/

Anyways, in hindsight was it a clear cut decision to weigh in on that specific constitutional amendment (felons voting)? Absolutely not. Was it the right call? No idea. But to hyper-focus on this, attack us, and spread conspiracy theories based on that single issue, while glazing over the fact that we got 5 out of 6 governor candidates to swear off sugar money (along with +/-400,000 views of our clean water voter guides) and helped make clean water arguably the single biggest election issue last year - for the first time - seems to be missing the forest for the trees if you really care about fixing the problem.


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Dave, if you remember our conversation at Salty Fly you'll remember that I cautioned against the very thing that has happened...the conflation of water issues with other partisan / political issues that serve to divide us. 

You state...



> The idea was to take a non-partisan approach to the politics of the issue, which they felt was the root of our problems.


...so then take a non-partisan approach!

You have an opportunity in the upcoming election cycles to focus and act in a non-partisan manner. I (and others) will be paying close attention to your voting guides. If you don't want to be called out for being partisan then make sure your voting guides are focused on water issues and advocacy without straying outside your scope into partisan areas.

A huge portion of sportsmen and anglers in this state are politically and fiscally conservative while holding environmentally aware viewpoints. We spend too much time on the water and in the woods to feel otherwise. 

But when you obviously and vocally stray into partisan politics you push many of us away and you make us feel betrayed for supporting you in the early days when we hoped you'd prove to be non-partisan.

Prove that your organization is truly non-partisan and you'll have more voices aligned with you and fewer voices arrayed against you...

-Chris


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

All fair statements Chris, and well received - appreciate the feedback which is always welcome and in this case I happen to fully agree with. Hope we can win back your support next election!


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

I dont believe or trust any so called conservationist group or movement that is sponsored by 500 million dollar a year companies or roto molded soap box warriors, with fancy offices with 50 k plus boats hanging from ceiling or bolted to walls.i know the environment is what it was but really how many more right wing conservatives are going to keep giving these people money and keep bitching about bad water.Me,yes right wing conservative, me,yes I fish,me,yes I have a fancy skiff, me yes my grass is green,me yes I buy yeti,Me a bitching hypocrite, hell no! It is what it is ,.


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

Charles Hadley said:


> I dont believe or trust any so called conservationist group or movement that is sponsored by 500 million dollar a year companies or roto molded soap box warriors, with fancy offices with 50 k plus boats hanging from ceiling or bolted to walls.i know the environment is what it was but really how many more right wing conservatives are going to keep giving these people money and keep bitching about bad water.Me,yes right wing conservative, me,yes I fish,me,yes I have a fancy skiff, me yes my grass is green,me yes I buy yeti,Me a bitching hypocrite, hell no! It is what it is ,.


Sorry if I offended anyone but ...


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Dpreston said:


> All fair statements Chris, and well received - appreciate the feedback which is always welcome and in this case I happen to fully agree with. Hope we can win back your support next election!


Happy Holidays and Tight Lines!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Dpreston said:


> Lots of misinformation/lies being spread by Duck here as usual. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding bullsugar.org, I am always happy to discuss, feel free to drop me a message.
> 
> We are backed/sponsored by Patagonia, and our board includes Sandy Moret (FL Keys Outfitters), Blair Wickstrom (FL Sportsman Magazine), Richard Trotta (Herman Lucerne). Hopefully no more needs to be said about credibility for those here who know any of us.
> 
> ...


The only agenda I have to make sure people have all the information they need to make an informed decision.

You may recall we went through this exact banter two years ago. The topic of discussion was the exact organizations you speak of here. Back then you said if anyone had questions to ask you, I did.

Once again you say if someone has questions to ask you. I am.

I asked you to provide the list of donors to BS c4 and c3. You failed to provide it then and I am going to guess you will fall short again.

You say I am providing misinformation and even say I am lying. But you have provided exactly ZERO proof that anything I said was not accurate. When you provide the information and it is indeed contrary to my information/opinion I will retract it. Until then do not chastise me for questioning the organizations you are associated with.

Another item, why was the nonpolitical side of BS merged and the POLITICAL side remained? But you claim BS is not and does not have a political agenda. I guess the new paper reporter just made that up as well?

As I said two years ago when you were touting your political agenda, you have some esplainin to do.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

First of all, I never said we ‘’don’t have a political agenda’’ - of course we do - this is a political problem and needs a political solution and that’s why we exist. As far as disclosing our donors, I answered that question several times but I will do it again for the last time.

501c4’s are NOT required by law to release their list of donors, so not sure why you continue to act like we are doing something wrong by not disclosing such a list because you decided to demand it here. I listed several of our biggest donors here for you, which at the time we also happened to have had a scrolling display of those parties on the front page of our website.

Again, past donors to our orgs include Patagonia, Yves Choinard, FL Sportsman Magazine/Karl and Blair Wickstrom, Columbia Outdoors, Orvis, Herman Lucerne Memorial, Guides Trust Foundation (FL Keys), Renzetti, Engel, among others.

501c3’s ARE required by law to release their donor list to the IRS, so I’ll leave it to you do do the work there and feel free to share with the group as it is public information.

Lastly, merging does not mean either Bullsugar Alliance or FOE went away, what it means is the two orgs joined forces to create a strategic partnership by combining boards and staff. This was no secret or nefarious act as you imply - there was a press release and several stories run that can be located with a simple google search.

Here is one that explains further:
https://flylifemagazine.com/bullsugar-merged-with-friends-of-the-everglades/

I sincerely hope this clears up any remaining questions/issues as I am going back to tying nonpartisan tarpon leaders.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Greenwashing

BS and Everglades Foundation have been in bed together for quite some time, at least a few years. EF has donated to the BSc4 and remains anonymous by design. EF has a list of board members with much bigger names and a lot longer than BS and FOE and on the surface lend a ton of credibility.

Collier PAID EF for a study to be performed by their scientists on the viability of oil drilling in the glades. Months went by and Collier got their report. EF gave their blessing for oil and gas drilling in the Everglades. The exact opposite of their stated goals for the foundation.

This other foundation that you are in bed with has been not so good. They are perpetually suing everybody in their path in hopes they get what THEY determine is the ultimate solution. This organization is a big donor of BS.

The founder of EF is no saint of the environment either, is he? He has had run ins with the law over his stewardship of the environment as it is treated as his own sandbox. The founder of BS is no upstanding citizen either is he? Maybe you would like to clear this up.

Dave- I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am not attacking you as an individual because I think you are not the problem. I also think you are actually trying to do good for the Everglades.

However, where there is so much controversy surrounding these entities one can easily draw the conclusion they are dirty and not what they purport to be.

Greenwashing- pay someone to portray the image of an expert to receive the results you are looking for. Remember, follow the money.

BS and FOE are recipients of donations from EF and they supported oil drilling and actually were the experts used in court to be granted the permit to drill. You should have immediately seperated from them and publicly denounced the seperation, but you didn't. Follow the money even if it is dirty.

BS has not always been honest either, have they? Care to explain how a non profit made an illegal political donation?

Once again Dave I do not want you to think this is a personal attack on you. The shrouded secrecy employed is what I am having issues with and there has been zero information provided for clarity. I do understand why BS joined forces with FOE and I believe this is a good thing as it streamlines efforts and resources.

Greenwashing (noun, verb)- if the check clears pay no attention to its origin and possible subverted intentions. Follow the money.


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

So anyway...I went full hippie and now use those reusable grocery bags at Publix. Also started packing my lunches for work in paper bags instead of Zip Loc (actually Publix knock off Zip Loc).


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

1. BS/FOE are not funded by EF and/or Paul Tudor Jones.
2. BS/FOE do not always agree with EF. They obviously have played a major role in Everglades restoration historically and continue to do so today. Generally they have their path and we have ours with the exception of our joint involvement in the 2017 NowOrNeverglades coalition to advocate for an EAA reservoir and STA south of Lake O. 
3. I can't comment as to EF's position on oil drilling in the Everglades as I am not involved, but that does not sound right to me. Please provide proof/link to back up this claim.
4. I have no idea what you are talking about us making an "illegal political donation". Another flat-out lie, and again, *please stop with the baseless claims unless you have proof to back them up. *


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

SomaliPirate said:


> So anyway...I went full hippie and now use those reusable grocery bags at Publix. Also started packing my lunches for work in paper bags instead of Zip Loc (actually Publix knock off Zip Loc).


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

He said full hippie and publix in same sentence, love it !hahahaha


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Here here you go Dave,


But there is one environmental group that definitely knows all about drilling in the Everglades: the Everglades Foundation. In 2010, the group accepted money from Collier Resources Company in exchange for the Everglades Foundation’s blessing on a drilling project planned for the Big Cypress area in Southwest Florida.

Collier Resources Company owns the mineral rights to oil and gas extracted from private property held in the Big Cypress area, and in 2010 the company paid the Everglades Foundation a sum of cash to produce an “analysis of impacts associated with proposed activities in the Nobles Grade area.”

The Everglades Foundation used the money to produce an exhaustive 247-page document that provided Collier Resources Company with the political cover they neededto move forward with drilling. The disclosure, which can be found on page “iv” of the index of the document, reads:

_Collier Resources Company funded this independent study through a contract to the Everglades Foundation

***

State Rep Heather Fitzehagen _reported a $2,300 donation as coming from a non profit by the name of Bullsugar. But that also raises a couple more questions but I will digress on these questions for a while.

Look it up. You have access to this information. Reported on or about Oct. 16. I didn't make it up, her team alerted her and she reported it.

***

Why are you telling me I am lying but don't have the same voracity for the media when they print the information. You never came out with a comment when EF was condemned by the news.

Like I said before, I don't think the grassroots effort is bad. The secrecy around BS is what is concerning. This darkness is also casting a shadow on CFCW because of the association and continued association with EF.

Please remember Dave, I am only use the word "you" in the vernacular to refer to BS and not you personally.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Please provide links - I’ll link someone from EF so they can reply. And that is the first I have seen or heard of that Fitzenhagen item and would like to look into it further.

And for the record, if we responded with voracity to every misleading story or astroturf group sponsored by US Sugar and FL Crystals smearing us, it would occupy virtually all our extremely limited organizational resources...which is a major part of their strategy to make sure nothing ever changes.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Here is a link but you can track backwards and find the names of the scientists on payroll.

http://thecapitolist.com/silence-af...-everglades-foundation-is-not-the-everglades/

Guilty by association also implicates CFCW as they have them listed as one of their premier sponsors.

Sending you a pm


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

The Capitolist is a joke - Brian Burgess is on sugar’s payroll. And again I don’t know anything about that EF issue in Collier County - but if this is your source of info on the subject we have absolutely zero hope of agreement it even having a rational conversation here.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

https://evergladesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-Oil-Gas-Impacts-Reduced.pdf


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

So by now you should have read the preface and seen the study was paid for by Collier Resources to help them receive their permit to drill in the Everglades.

Where is your disassociation to EF based on total hypocritical ideals?


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Yes I’m aware of your opinion on the subject based on your research. I have also been around Everglades restoration long enough to know that things are rarely as they seem at face value. Let’s see what Everglades Foundation has to say about this – I sent them a link.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

What reaction/narrative do you expect to get from them? To me, there is nothing they can say which will refutiate this heinous report.

In the meantime are you BS and FOE going to completely seperate yourself from this organization? Are you going to bring this issue to the other organizations trying to good thing things or let them get tarnished? CFCW have a big logo on their site from EF, are you going to let them know?

Anyone who receives donations from this group is guilty of Greenwashing.

The determining character comes from this point forward. Are you going to stop it or just cash the checks?

Have you followed up with the check sent to the campaign? How about posting the bylaws to see who are the signatory powers for the organization so we can see who is in charge of the money? This might clear the water a bit.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

I have no idea what they will say, as I don’t know anything about this issue from 2 years ago other than what you posted (an op-ed from a source that I know to be compromised and biased). And I don’t imagine any organizations will be going out of their way to renounce EF based on what I see here. We have more important issues we are focused on than throwing stones at other NGO’s, like pushing ACOE to hold Lake O lower again this dry season to hopefully avoid discharges 2yr in a row.


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

No surprise coming from Nikki Fried, herself a lobbyist...


----------



## Micro Thinfisher (Jan 27, 2018)

“We shall never achieve harmony with land, ....any more than we shall achieve absolute Justice or Liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive”
- Aldo Leopold

I would add that both are important.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Agreed Chris, and please take note that Bullsugar discovered this issue and brought it to Congressman Mast’s attention.


----------



## el9surf (Dec 23, 2008)

Post up a copy of that BS voter guide, it was a bunch of bs. I followed them for quite a while and liked the info they provided on the water issues. Once that voter guide was posted they lost me.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

I’ll see what I can come up with and post. The voter guides are at the core of what we are trying to accomplish, which is reducing US Sugar and FL Crystals money’s impact on elections - and by extension, policy. As you can imagine, the guides are an extremely heavy lift for us and in today’s politically divided world it’s not easy for anyone to put water quality as their top priority in the voter booth. Feedback is welcome.


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

el9surf said:


> Post up a copy of that BS voter guide, it was a bunch of bs. I followed them for quite a while and liked the info they provided on the water issues. Once that voter guide was posted they lost me.


I can't find them anymore. I had a similar response when those guides came out as they were blatantly partisan and strayed into areas unrelated to water quality issues.

BS has an opportunity to prove us wrong in the next iteration of their voting guides. Hopefully Dave can take our feedback and make good use of it...


----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

Dpreston said:


> I’ll see what I can come up with and post. The voter guides are at the core of what we are trying to accomplish, which is reducing US Sugar and FL Crystals money’s impact on elections - and by extension, policy. As you can imagine, the guides are an extremely heavy lift for us and in today’s politically divided world it’s not easy for anyone to put water quality as their top priority in the voter booth. Feedback is welcome.


I’d think water quality would be easy. 

Both parties want clean drinking water. Both parties want clean intracoastal/ocean water. Both parties want Glyphosate out of almost all water. More in common than not.


----------



## trekker (Sep 19, 2015)

Charles Hadley said:


> Sorry if I offended anyone but ...


You didn't. Nobody really knew what the hell you were trying to say.


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

crboggs said:


> I can't find them anymore. I had a similar response when those guides came out as they were blatantly partisan and strayed into areas unrelated to water quality issues..


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

crboggs said:


> I can't find them anymore. I had a similar response when those guides came out as they were blatantly partisan and strayed into areas unrelated to water quality issues


If you can't remember or find the guides, its straight Democrat down the line. Easy to remember.


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

trekker said:


> You didn't. Nobody really knew what the hell you were trying to say.


That's ok I did ,that's what matters.most of these threads are just so people can hear themselves anyway, I guess there should be a moderator so dumb fuckers like me can run my opinions by them before I post?any nominations?


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Charles Hadley said:


> That's ok I did ,that's what matters.most of these threads are just so people can hear themselves anyway, I guess there should be a moderator so dumb fuckers like me can run my opinions by them before I post?any nominations?


I nominate you.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Didn't BS supposedly call out the lobbyists that were appointed by Nikki Fried to Brian Mast. And they were a two star supporter of her?

Something smells in sugarland.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

jasonrl23 said:


> I’d think water quality would be easy.
> 
> Both parties want clean drinking water. Both parties want clean intracoastal/ocean water. Both parties want Glyphosate out of almost all water. More in common than not.


Makes perfect sense in theory but in a divisive hyper-partisan environment voters are more prone to vote down party lines than vote on a specific issue.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

K3anderson said:


> If you can't remember or find the guides, its straight Democrat down the line. Easy to remember.


That is completely inaccurate. Maybe you were looking at the guide for the Democratic primary. It’s funny how much angst from both sides our voter guides generated - the Dems were furious we had the nerve to endorse R’s on an ‘environmental issue’. The guides were based on the candidate questionnaires, period. If they were slanted to either party (I haven’t counted) it’s not because the results were manipulated - it’s a reflection of reality. Funny how you guys haven’t given one specific example of a race you think we picked the wrong horse, but by all means keep up the partisan mud slinging - it’s super productive for the Everglades!


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

Other than Mast, its straight D. Even Desantis gets same checks, but, fewer yes.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

K3anderson said:


> View attachment 112378


If you think Matt Caldwell would have been a better choice than Nikki Fried, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. She’s no hero, but he is as bad as it gets. He reports directly to Robert Coker / US Sugar.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Also there are dozens of voter guide pages based on the geographic region and also primary vs general.


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)




----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

It is what it is as far as these particular races -I could go through each one of the races you posted and make a strong case for the decisions that were made. Both parties are pretty well captured by sugar in the state, but in these races you are correct the Democrats were more favored by our guides.


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

You have a tough gig because a lot of us in this community also believe in gun rights, hunting, capitalism, keeping more of your own wealth, liberty, individualism, etc., in addition to wanting to help the glades and the environment generally. Exactly the opposite of the current Democrat platform (with few exceptions). Another approach might be to take over the Republican party vs. endorsing candidates that are so different than than us on so many issues.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

K3anderson said:


> You have a tough gig because a lot of us in this community also believe in gun rights, hunting, capitalism, keeping more of your own wealth, liberty, individualism, etc., in addition to wanting to help the glades and the environment generally. Exactly the opposite of the current Democrat platform (with few exceptions). Another approach might be to take over the Republican party vs. endorsing candidates that are so different than than us on so many issues.


It works the same in both directions but yes you’re absolutely right. You can’t imagine the issues we have had in Stuart trying to get Dem’s/enviros to support Congressman Mast and his initiatives - and he has been an absolute hero on this issue. It’s not an easy path we have chosen but with 5 out of 6 governor candidates swearing off sugar money in the last election, we feel like we’re moving the needle on this issue possibly more so than any approach in the past has.

With that in mind, our goal is to be completely independent/nonpartisan in our voter recommendations - that’s the only way we will ever gain enough public trust for them to make the needed impact. The recommendations are based solely on the candidates responses to candidate questionnaires, nothing more nothing less. We are NOT Sierra Club - a group that does some good things but is unabashedly hyper partisan.


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

Dpreston said:


> It works the same in both directions but yes you’re absolutely right.


 Not for me. Maybe 6-7 years ago, but, not now. The D's have become to radical now.


----------



## Drifter (Dec 13, 2018)

Dpreston said:


> That is completely inaccurate. Maybe you were looking at the guide for the Democratic primary. It’s funny how much angst from both sides our voter guides generated - the Dems were furious we had the nerve to endorse R’s on an ‘environmental issue’. The guides were based on the candidate questionnaires, period. If they were slanted to either party (I haven’t counted) it’s not because the results were manipulated - it’s a reflection of reality. Funny how you guys haven’t given one specific example of a race you think we picked the wrong horse, but by all means keep up the partisan mud slinging - it’s super productive for the Everglades!


I don't want to be part of that conversation, but alot of times I wonder if its possible to start purchasing water rights for a premium from Sugar companies, or other agricultural concerns? Our political atmosphere is to divided right now for that to be a productive avenue, and sometimes I wonder if just paying the money so the sugar guys can make a huge profit off of the water they take would be more conducive to the process. When I drive to flamingo I always wonder, how hard would it be to just put box culverts under this? Problem with politics in these things are theres is definitely a pattern with conservative people enjoying outdoors, and the they don't want to give up their values for their hobbies.

I would love to be a part of something like this as a owner of a construction business and interest in being involved but all too often in things like TU (Im from Montana) it seems kind of a exclusive club thats I can't be a part of.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Dpreston said:


> If you think Matt Caldwell would have been a better choice than Nikki Fried, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. She’s no hero, but he is as bad as it gets. He reports directly to Robert Coker / US Sugar.


Let me ask a question.

You say Nikki Fried was the better of the two. A few days ago you satiated BS informed Mast there were two lobbyists she appointed. BS gave her two green check marks.

How is Fried better than the alternative when she is appointing known lobbyists?


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

https://bullsugar.org/matt_caldwell_defending_the_right_to_pollute_florida/


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Drifter said:


> I don't want to be part of that conversation, but alot of times I wonder if its possible to start purchasing water rights for a premium from Sugar companies, or other agricultural concerns? Our political atmosphere is to divided right now for that to be a productive avenue, and sometimes I wonder if just paying the money so the sugar guys can make a huge profit off of the water they take would be more conducive to the process. When I drive to flamingo I always wonder, how hard would it be to just put box culverts under this? Problem with politics in these things are theres is definitely a pattern with conservative people enjoying outdoors, and the they don't want to give up their values for their hobbies.
> 
> I would love to be a part of something like this as a owner of a construction business and interest in being involved but all too often in things like TU (Im from Montana) it seems kind of a exclusive club thats I can't be a part of.


Why would we purchase our own water from them? It’s not theirs to sell us. They use about a trillion gallons a year out of the lake that doesn’t cost them a penny. Paying them for our own water would only give them even more control, more power, more profit that they can turn around and put into the political system to make sure nothing ever changes. The Fanjul’s have been trying to figure out how to sell it to us our own water for years. They basically want to make us California.


----------



## Drifter (Dec 13, 2018)

Dpreston said:


> Why would we purchase our own water from them? It’s not theirs to sell us. They use about a trillion gallons a year out of the lake that doesn’t cost them a penny. Paying them for our own water would only give them even more control, more power, more profit that they can turn around and put into the political system to make sure nothing ever changes. The Fanjul’s have been trying to figure out how to sell it to us our own water for years. They basically want to make us California.


They don't have a water right? If they have a water right its not your water.

Why? Because then instead of a political fight you would have more water flowing to the everglades. Let them have more power and profit, unless thats what you want instead of water.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Drifter said:


> They don't have a water right? If they have a water right its not your water.
> 
> Why? Because then instead of a political fight you would have more water flowing to the everglades. Let them have more power and profit, unless thats what you want instead of water.


It is our water. We give it to them in the form of the state/SFWMD granting them irrigation permits on an ‘as-needed’ basis...which for the last 50yr has basically been every drop they ever need. No matter what the cost, no matter how much we may need that water for other reasons (like the Everglades, which receives 1/3 of its historic water supply). During dry/drought years is when the damage is done to ENP....like 2014....guess who else needs every drop they can get during droughts to ensure maximum crop yield over 700sq miles? There’s a world where compromise and shared adversity could exist, but over recent history, they have gotten everything they want and more, to the detriment of all other stakeholders. And that is not even getting into the pollution and land aspects of the conversation.


----------



## Drifter (Dec 13, 2018)

Dpreston said:


> It is our water. We give it to them in the form of the state/SFWMD granting them irrigation permits on an ‘as-needed’ basis...which for the last 50yr has basically been every drop they ever need. No matter what the cost, no matter how much we may need that water for other reasons (like the Everglades, which receives 1/3 of its historic water supply). During dry/drought years is when the damage is done to ENP....like 2014....guess who else needs every drop they can get during droughts to ensure maximum crop yield over 700sq miles? There’s a world where compromise and shared adversity could exist, but over recent history, they have gotten everything they want and more, to the detriment of all other stakeholders. And that is not even getting into the pollution and land aspects of the conversation.


Im just saying, as a person that supports the end goal I along with alot of other people are unwilling to throw our money at JUST a political fight. Theres other ways, some may be incremental but its still an improvement. Id rather know I can donate and get 100 gallons of water pushed in the glades for every 5 bucks or something then think it could just evaporate in to a debate.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Drifter said:


> Im just saying, as a person that supports the end goal I along with alot of other people are unwilling to throw our money at JUST a political fight. Theres other ways, some may be incremental but its still an improvement. Id rather know I can donate and get 100 gallons of water pushed in the glades for every 5 bucks or something then think it could just evaporate in to a debate.


I understand the thought process but unfortunately giving them even more control than they already have is not the answer. Feel free to drop me a message if you’d ever like to discuss on a call - there is so much history and nuance to it all. I’ve only been involved in the last four years or so and am far from an expert but happy to talk through what I know and have seen with you.


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

@Dpreston ... thoughts on the impact of Disney and explosive Orlando growth on the water that flows south into Okeechobee before the sugar / Ag land becomes a factor? I never hear anyone in the media include Disney / Orlando as a factor here...


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

crboggs said:


> @Dpreston ... thoughts on the impact of Disney and explosive Orlando growth on the water that flows south into Okeechobee before the sugar / Ag land becomes a factor? I never hear anyone in the media include Disney / Orlando as a factor here...


Well as far as Bullsugar's mission, our goal is to stop the harmful Lake O discharges east and west, and send clean water south to the Everglades / FL Bay. While the quality of water entering Lake O from the north is a huge issue that needs to be addressed, it is not our current focus as even in the (unlikely) event that our legislature addressed and fixed immediately (today), there is a 3-5 foot deep 50 yr "legacy muck" nutrient load (phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals, etc) covering the entire Lake O bottom that would continue to contaminate the lake and our estuaries via the discharges for our lifetimes. So while reducing those nutrient inputs from the north is a VERY important LONG TERM goal for Florida, we are still left with toxic discharges and a dammed off Everglades regardless of what is done there in the short term. BTW you can thank Adam Putnam, Rick Scott, and Matt Caldwell for rolling back nutrient regulations and replacing them with "best management practices" in the 2016 water bill which has resulted in a huge reduction in water quality from the north and kicked back nutrient reduction goals by 20 years+. Just add it to the pile of crap our legislature has dumped on us that we need to go back and fix.


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Dpreston said:


> Well as far as Bullsugar's mission, our goal is to stop the harmful Lake O discharges east and west, and send clean water south to the Everglades / FL Bay.


So your scope is explicitly the outbound discharges and big sugar's obstruction of water flow south along the natural path towards the Glades? 

I guess the sugar barons do make a better villain than Mickey Mouse does eh?

I just don't think we can ignore the garbage flowing into the watershed while complaining about the garbage within (and flowing out of) the watershed...


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

crboggs said:


> So your scope is explicitly the outbound discharges and big sugar's obstruction of water flow south along the natural path towards the Glades?
> 
> I guess the sugar barons do make a better villain than Mickey Mouse does eh?
> 
> I just don't think we can ignore the garbage flowing into the watershed while complaining about the garbage within (and flowing out of) the watershed...


Correct, those are Bullsugar's goals. We were founded out of public outrage in Stuart, where after decades of the status quo toxic algae/cyanobacteria has become a serious human health issue, as it has on the west coast of FL around the mouth of the Caloosahatchee. And it's not a matter of villanizing anyone, although US Sugar and FL Crystals do a pretty good job of that without anyone's help. It's about public health and shared adversity, which does not exist here. 

As far as Mickey Mouse, my understanding is that Disney does a pretty fair job of holding and cleaning their runoff, although I am open to learning if you have info that proves otherwise?


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Dpreston said:


> As far as Mickey Mouse, my understanding is that Disney does a pretty fair job of holding and cleaning their runoff, although I am open to learning if you have info that proves otherwise?


Yeah...Disney has the resources and the public image to maintain. They're probably cleaner than all the explosive growth around them. 

That said...with your rather narrow scope, I anxiously await your next voting guides.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

crboggs said:


> Yeah...Disney has the resources and the public image to maintain. They're probably cleaner than all the explosive growth around them.
> 
> That said...with your rather narrow scope, I anxiously await your next voting guides.


That makes two of us - we have some serious work to do - this week the one water/environmental bill in the legislature, which was mediocre at best to start, was ripped to shreds (100 pages completely rewritten with a strike through at the final vote) and then voted through with bipartisan support.


----------

