LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – State and federal unemployment rates remained stable and Lake County’s rate rose in December according to the latest information from the California Employment Development Department.
The state said Lake County’s December unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, up from 4.5 percent in November and 5.6 percent in December 2018.
The report said California’s unemployment rate held steadfast at its record low of 3.9 percent, maintaining a record low in a data series going back to the 1970s. The number of unemployed Californians is the lowest since 1989, despite large gains in statewide population since.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the nation’s December jobless rate remained at 3.5 percent for the second month in a row. The December 2018 rate was 3.9 percent.
The state’s employers added 12,600 nonfarm payroll jobs in December, based on information from two surveys.
California’s job gains in December contributed to a record job expansion in California of 118 months, surpassing the long expansion of the 1960s, state officials said.
California has gained 3,422,900 jobs since the current expansion began in February 2010, accounting for more than 15 percent of the nation’s 22,688,000 job gain over the same timeframe, the Employment Development Department reported.
The report said the number of Californians holding jobs in December was 18,786,800, an increase of 56,400 from November and up 81,800 from the employment total in December of last year.
At the same time, the state said the number of unemployed Californians was 757,700 in December, a decrease of 4,100 over the month and down by 44,900 compared with December of last year.
December’s 12,600 nonfarm payroll jobs gain was driven by growth in six of California’s 11 industry sectors:
– Professional and business services, up by 6,500 jobs, posted the biggest jobs gain, fueled mostly by scientific research and development and advertising and related services. – Educational and health services, up by 5,200 jobs, also did well with job gains in dental offices and in-home supportive services leading the way. – Other services, 4,200 jobs. – Government, 3,400 jobs. – Construction, 900 jobs. – Mining and logging, 200 jobs.
Information, one of November’s top job-gaining sectors, posted December’s biggest jobs loss (-3,900) mainly due to weakness last month in the motion picture and sound recording subsector. It was followed by leisure and hospitality (-2,400).
In Lake County, the civilian workforce totaled 29,120 in December, down from 29,390 in November and up from the 28,770 recorded in December 2018.
Total farm categories were down by 16.2 percent and nonfarm dropped by 1.1 percent, but in a year-over comparison, total farm was up by 87.9 percent and total nonfarm was up by 2.6 percent.
Lake County’s December jobless rate ranks it No. 39 of California’s 58 counties for December
Neighboring county jobless rates and ranks for December are: Colusa, 14.2 percent, No. 57; Glenn, 5.5 percent, No. 41; Mendocino, 3.7 percent, No. 24; Napa, 2.9 percent, No. 12; Sonoma, 2.4 percent, No. 5; and Yolo, 3.9 percent, No. 28, the report said.
In related data that figures into the state’s unemployment rate, the Employment Development Department said there were 327,751 people receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits during the survey week in December compared to 293,595 in November and 338,747 people in December 2018.
Concurrently, 50,116 people filed new claims in December which was a month-over increase of 680 people, the state said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Francisco Morales-Gomez, 31, of Clearlake, California, was arrested on the evening of Friday, November 8, 2019, after a day-and-a-half-long standoff with law enforcement in which he held his child hostage in his home. He was taken into custody without incident shortly after surrendering his child to authorities. Lake County Jail photo.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The man who was involved in a lengthy standoff with law enforcement in early November is being evaluated after his defense attorney questioned his mental competence.
Francisco Morales-Gomez, 31, of Clearlake has remained in custody at the Lake County Jail since Nov. 8, when he was arrested following a day-and-a-half-long standoff in which he held his 6-year-old son hostage, as Lake County News has reported.
Earlier this month, ahead of his scheduled trial, his defense attorney told a judge that he had concerns about his client’s mental competence, Deputy District Attorney Trang Jensen.
The November standoff began when Morales-Gomez’s wife called police to report that he had brandished a firearm at her at their home at 29th and Boyles avenues.
When officers responded, Morales-Gomez came to the door with his child – carrying what was believed to be a rifle – before taking the child and going back inside the house.
What ensued were lengthy negotiations between Morales-Gomez and the Clearlake Police Department, with the SWAT teams from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office later taking part in the negotiations.
About half a dozen nearby homes were evacuated, portions of 28th, 29th and Boyles avenues were closed and a helicopter, robot and drone from the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office also were used, authorities said.
During the standoff, authorities said Morales-Gomez made multiple threats to shoot the law enforcement officers.
The standoff would finally end after Morales-Gomez called to ask for food, with an officer hurriedly responding to the scene with a hot pepperoni pizza.
SWAT team members placed the pizza inside the front room, while Morales-Gomez remained at the back of the house, where he agreed to pass his child out of a window to law enforcement.
When Morales-Gomez attempted to go out of another window, he was taken into custody.
As it would turn out, Morales-Gomez had a BB gun, not an actual firearm, according to Jensen.
Jensen said Morales-Gomez is facing four felony counts – false imprisonment of a hostage, false imprisonment by violence, child abuse, and resisting an officer with violence or the threat of violence – in addition to multiple misdemeanors.
Morales-Gomez had been set for trial beginning on Wednesday, but at his Jan. 14 court appearance for a settlement and trial readiness conference, his defense attorney, Dana Liberatore, declared a doubt as to his mental competence, Jensen said.
As a result, “Criminal proceedings have been suspended,” Jensen said.
She said Morales-Gomez is due to return to court on Feb. 11, at which time Judge David Markham will receive reports from two doctors who are evaluating Jensen’s mental competence.
At that point Markham is expected to make a ruling as to whether Morales-Gomez is mentally competent to stand trial, Jensen said.
If Markham finds Morales-Gomez competent, Jensen said criminal proceedings would be restarted and the trial reset.
Should Morales-Gomez be found incompetent, the law requires he be placed in treatment until his competence is restored so the criminal case can proceed.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Beehives in Lake County, California. Photo by Kathleen Scavone.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – During the cold winter months when many birds fly south and bears “den” – they do not strictly hibernate here in Lake County, but attain a “seasonal lethargy” – honeybees, like many of us, cope with cold temperatures by gathering reserves and slowing down.
Beekeepers tell us that when the temperatures drop down to the 50s and below, honeybees assemble in a special area of the hive into a cluster.
Using their amazing bee-wisdom, honeybees know that it is imperative that they keep their queen bee warm and safe, so the queen is kept inside the cluster. Then, the worker bees quiver their little wings while shivering.
These wise little critters also know to keep the cluster rotating to allow for those on the outside of the huddle to warm up on the inside. All of this unremitting motion generates enough heat in the hive to keep the temperature warm enough for survival.
But this incessant motion requires much in the way of sustenance, which means honey for energy.
Some sources state that depending on the size of the honeybees hive, they can devour up to 30 pounds of honey over the winter season.
I contacted a local hobbyist beekeeper, Arnaud Hubert and asked him some questions about beekeeping.
Here they are:
Q: What do bees in Lake County feed on in the winter months?
A: They slow down, but if a day is nice and sunny and warm enough, some bees will venture out for water, pollen or even nectar. There are some blooms right now – rosemary, silver dollar eucalyptus, manzanita and others.
Q: When bees swarm locally, who collects the swarm, and what is the procedure?
A: I do, as well as the other beekeepers mentioned on the following Facebook page (post is currently unpinned since we’re not in swarm season yet): https://www.facebook.com/BeekeepersGuildofLCC/.
A lot of people sometimes refer to a swarm as a hive, and vice-versa, which makes our job (or hobby, in my case) a bit tricky. When they call, we have to ask them to describe what they’re seeing. If it’s a cluster of bees on a branch or in another location, we can collect it as long as it can be reached. If it’s already settled inside a structure (between walls, empty wine barrel, or some other cavity approximately the size of the inside of an oven), then it’s no longer a swarm, it’s a hive.
If a swarm lands on someone’s property, they can choose to ignore it – the swarm will eventually move away after a few minutes or a couple of days. But they could also decide to settle in a cavity they find on that property - and then it becomes a potential problem.
Beekeepers will usually collect swarms for free, or a very modest fee. If, however, they need to extract it from a structure, it’s called a cut-out, or an extraction. That won’t be free, as it’s a lot of work. Often the extracted colony won’t survive.
Q: What kind of landscape do you recommend to encourage bees and other pollinators?
A: I don’t produce enough to sell it these days. It’s mostly gifted to friends. But some local beekeepers sell their honey at local tasting rooms, feed stores, or specialty stores like Lakeport’s health food store, or A+H in Kelseyville.
Q: How have bees endured after all of the recent fires? I am imagining they have not fared well at all.
A: I’m not sure, and it might not necessarily be the case. The hives in the path of the fire, that’s for sure. Back in ’15, Dan Tyrell of Middletown lost his hives in the Valley fire and nothing was left of them. But honeybees can also be quite resilient, and it’s possible some feral hives that were in burned areas survived, even those inside a tree that partially burned.
As for the resulting ecology, a few years ago I saw some research done by a UC Davis student on the aftermath of the Rocky fire. He found that the bumblebee population – and the wildflower flora – was actually recovering remarkably well in that area.
Now bumblebees aren’t honeybees, but in some ways they are more important since those are native species. Honeybees are after all technically invasive since they were introduced in our area in the 19th century.
Personally I think it’s very important that people shift their concerns towards wild bee species, some of which are endangered or threatened.
Honeybees will not go away (even if they are being threatened by the varroa mite, their No. 1 enemy), as they are crucial to California’s agriculture economy. Hope this helps!
Thanks very much to Arnaud Hubert for sharing his insights and knowledge.
Kathleen Scavone, M.A., is a retired educator, potter, freelance writer and author of “Anderson Marsh State Historic Park: A Walking History, Prehistory, Flora, and Fauna Tour of a California State Park” and “Native Americans of Lake County.”
CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Lake Local Agency Formation Commission has approved a proposal to annex Middletown Rancheria land into the Callayomi County Water District in order to ensure a safe, reliable source of water for the tribe’s homes and casino.
LAFCo approved the annexation of approximately 109.38 acres into the water district at its meeting on Jan. 15 in Clearlake.
The discussion of the annexation begins at the 2:20 minute mark in the video above. The staff report for the discussion is posted at the end of this article.
The commission, which oversees development and protects natural resources, includes members of local government such as the Board of Supervisors, the city councils for Clearlake and Lakeport, special districts representatives and public members.
LAFCo this year is chaired by Bruno Sabatier, the District 2 representative on the Board of Supervisors, with District 1 Supervisor Moke Simon acting as vice chair.
Simon, who also chairs Middletown Rancheria’s tribal council, recused himself from the Jan. 15 discussion and vote.
LAFCo Executive Officer John Benoit’s report to the commission explained that the tribe was seeking the annexation “to receive domestic water services.”
The water district’s board adopted a resolution of application on June 13 requesting LAFCo to take the annexation proceedings, Benoit’s report explained.
The rancheria property includes Twin Pine Casino and Hotel, a government administration complex, tribal members’ homes and a commercial property for future development, according to Benoit’s report.
Benoit’s report explained that 30 homes on the rancheria are being served by an out-of-agency service agreement with the district, with another 15 homes receiving water service under a separate out-of-agency service agreement recently approved by LAFCo, Benoit’s report said.
In addition to providing safe, adequate and reliable domestic water service for the structures, the annexation to the water district also will provide water for fire protection for the site, the report noted.
The report also explained that the district has an excess of 243,057 gallons per day, with 366 active accounts and 84 inactive accounts. Much of the district’s infrastructure was destroyed during the Valley fire but has since been rebuilt.
Benoit told the commission that there is a housing shortage at the rancheria.
He said the effort to get the land annexed has been under way for several years, with a previous application filed in 2015 that didn’t work out.
“This has been long in coming for the tribe,” said Benoit, who recommended the approval.
Commissioner Ed Robey agreed that it was a long time in coming and was noncontroversial.
Sabatier asked about the district’s excess water and whether it’s enough to deal with a large scale fire. He added that it appeared to be enough for homes, with the typical household using 40,000 gallons a year.
Explaining that the Valley fire had damaged a lot of infrastructure that has required rebuilding, Benoit said he’s concerned about other projects – like the Maha Guenoc Valley development at Langtry Estates – as well as another potential rancheria parcel which will need service. At that point, they will need to address capacity issues; Benoit said the district has an additional well.
With wildfires, Benoit added, you can have almost any amount of water and it won’t be enough.
Commissioner Dirk Slooten moved to approve the annexation, which Robey seconded and the commission approved 6-0.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors this week will present a proclamation recognizing efforts last year to mitigate wildland fire risk and hear the annual report from the Lake County Tourism Improvement District.
The board will meet beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Jan. 28, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.
The meeting can be watched live on Channel 8 and online at https://countyoflake.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. Accompanying board documents, the agenda and archived board meeting videos also are available at that link.
At 9:06 a.m., the board will present a proclamation recognizing Caltrans District 1 and Konocti Conservation Camp Crews for outstanding efforts to mitigate wildfire risk in 2019.
At 9:10 a.m., the board will get the annual update from the Lake County Tourism Improvement District, which was formed in October 2018.
“The LCTID now acts as the tourism destination marketing entity dedicated to the goal of attracting visitors to Lake County for overnight stays. Increased overnight stays result in increased Transient Occupancy Tax revenues for the County of Lake as well as both cities, the City of Clearlake and the City of Lakeport,” County Administrative Officer Carol Huchingson’s report to the board explains.
Huchingson said the presentation will update the board as to what work has been done and work in progress.
The full agenda follows.
CONSENT AGENDA
5.1: Adopt proclamation recognizing Caltrans District 1 and Konocti Conservation Camp Crews for outstanding efforts to mitigate wildfire risk in 2019.
5.2: Approve additional leave of absence request for Department of Social Services Eligibility Specialist III Gary Pepper from Jan. 7 to June 1, 2020, and authorize the Chair to sign.
5.3: Approve Amendment No. 4 to the agreement for indigent services between the county of Lake and Lake Indigent Defense, LLP and authorize the chair to sign.
5.4: Resolution authorizing Lake County Behavioral Health Services to approve funding allocations for the Whole Person Care Pilot Program.
5.5: Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held Nov. 19, 2019.
5.6: Adopt resolution authorizing the 2020-2021 Grant Project- Lake County Child Advocacy Center Program and authorize the chair to sign the certification and assurance of compliance.
5.7: Approve plans and specifications for the Clayton Creek Road at Clayton Creek Bridge Replacement Project; Bid No. 20-02, Federal Project No: BRLO-5914(077).
5.8: Approve plans and specifications for the Bartlett Springs Road at Cache Creek Bridge Replacement Project; Bid No. 20-01, Federal Project No: BRLO-5914(092).
5.9: Approve amendment one between the county of Lake and Bennet Omalu Pathology for a five-year cost plan and fee schedule for pathology services at an estimated cost increase of $68,400 and authorize the chairman to sign.
5.10: Approve first amendment to the contract between the county of Lake and Chabot-Las Positas Community College District and authorize the chair to sign.
5.11: Adopt resolution revising the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Adopted Budget of the county of Lake by canceling reserves in Fund 262 County Service Area No. 2, Spring Valley Water Roads/Bridges and Dams, in the amount of $33,581.
5.12: Approve agreement between the county of Lake on behalf of CSA 2 Spring Valley and WEST Consultants, Inc. for dam inundation mapping and emergency action plan services for the period from Jan. 7 to Dec. 31, 2020, for an amount not to exceed $33,581 and authorize the chair to execute the agreement.
5.13: Sitting as the Lake County Sanitation District Board of Directors, approve agreement between Lake County Sanitation District and WEST Consultants Inc., for dam inundation mapping and emergency action plan services for the period from Jan. 7 to Dec. 31, 2020, for an amount not to exceed $43,186 and authorize the chair to execute the agreement.
TIMED ITEMS
6.2, 9:06 a.m.: Presentation of proclamation recognizing Caltrans District 1 and Konocti Conservation Camp Crews for outstanding efforts to mitigate wildfire risk in 2019.
6.3, 9:10 a.m.: Annual update from the Lake County Tourism Improvement District.
UNTIMED ITEMS
7.2: Consideration of the following appointments: Lower Lake Cemetery Board, East Region Town Hall, Glenbrook Cemetery District, Lake County Public Authority Advisory Committee and the Emergency Medical Care Committee.
CLOSED SESSION
8.1: Conference with labor negotiator: (a) chief negotiator: M. Long; county negotiators: C. Huchingson and P. Samac; and (b) employee organizations: LCDDAA, LCDSA, LCCOA, LCEA, LCSEA and LCSMA.
8.2: Conference with legal counsel: Existing litigation pursuant to Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(1) – Flesch v. Lake County District Attorney’s Office, et al.
8.3: Conference with legal counsel: Existing litigation pursuant to Gov. Code section 54956.9 (d)(1) – County of Lake, et al v. PG&E, et al.
8.4: Conference with legal county: Decision whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Gov. Code section 5456.9(d)(4) – two potential cases.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
KELSEYVILLE, Calif. – Join the Lake Family Resource Center at the Mt. Konocti Winery Event Center on Saturday, Feb. 1, for its annual “Wine, Chocolate & More” fundraiser.
The event will take place from noon to 4 p.m.
Nineteen notable local wineries and breweries are teaming up with 10-plus local restaurants, bakeries and eateries to offer a delectable experience you won’t soon forget.
Enjoy Mt. Konocti Winery and Event Center and fabulous views of Clear Lake and Mt. Konocti as you treat yourself to an array of chocolates, pastries and delectable savory bites while sampling a variety of wines, sparkling wines, dessert wines and even beer.
Take home a souvenir wine glass; have a chance to win the door prize – a giant wine glass terrarium; participate in an expansive silent auction; purchase your favorite wines to take home; and try your luck in a raffle with the lucky winners receiving a ginormous selection of wine that includes one or more bottles of wine from every single winery present.
All proceeds will benefit the programs and services of Lake Family Resource Center, which since 1995 has been strengthening the Lake County community one family at a time.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Lake was among 15 counties that have experienced a population decrease, according to a state report.
California’s population increased by 141,300 people between July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, to total 39.96 million, according to official population estimates released recently by the state Department of Finance.
This represents a growth rate of 0.35 percent, down from 0.57 percent for the prior 12 months – the two lowest recorded growth rates in state population since 1900.
The report showed that, although natural increase was a significant source of growth in the state, 15 counties – including Lake, experienced natural decreases.
In addition to Lake, the counties that had natural decreases included Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, and Tuolumne. Natural decreases in Amador, Plumas, and Tehama counties were offset by positive net migration.
Since the April 2010 census, California's population has grown at an annualized rate of 0.76 percent. Reasons for the recent decline in population growth include fewer births, increased deaths associated with an aging population, lower international migration, and higher domestic outmigration.
Natural increase – births minus deaths – added 180,800 people to the state over the period with 452,200 births and 271,400 deaths.
Births were down from 461,400 in the year ending July 1, 2018, while deaths were up from 270,600 in the preceding year.
The gains from natural increase were offset mostly by losses in net migration – total migration into the state minus total migration out.
Though net international migration added population during this period, negative domestic net migration outweighed those gains, resulting in an overall net migration loss of 39,500 residents. This marked the first time since the 2010 Census that California had more people leaving the state than moving in from abroad or other states (net migration was also negative during 1993-96 and 2005-10).
California’s 58 counties range in size from Alpine County, with just over 1,100 residents, to Los Angeles County with over 10 million residents. Inland counties had high population growth rates during this period, continuing a trend that started in 2016.
San Joaquin, Merced, and Placer counties each grew by 1.4 percent or more. Most urban coastal counties gained population at a very slow pace during this period, while several coastal counties lost population.
Two counties, Los Angeles and Ventura, had a population increase in 2017 to 2018 followed by population decrease from 2018 to 2019, both due to domestic net migration losses.
Smaller counties in more remote areas of California either lost population or grew very little during this period, with the exception of areas surrounding Butte County due to the impact of the 2018 Camp fire – the most destructive wildfire in state history that destroyed more than 14,600 housing units and displaced an estimated 35,700 people.
Most people impacted by the Camp fire relocated to nearby cities in Butte or surrounding counties. Estimates show a significant population increase in six nearby counties: Colusa, Glenn, Plumas, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba.
Four counties in this area – Sutter, Glenn, Tehama and Yuba – were listed in the top ten counties with the highest population growth rates. Butte County lost an estimated net 10,400 residents as a result of the Camp fire.
Highlights of the July 1, 2019 county population report include:
– The state’s 10largest counties were Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento, Contra Costa, and Fresno. Each had over one million residents. These ten counties represented 72 percent of California’s population. Of these counties, Fresno, Riverside and Sacramento counties had positive population growth from both net international migration and net domestic migration. Two of the counties, Alameda and Contra Costa, had net domestic losses but overall positive net migration. Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and San Diego counties had negative net migration even with gains from net international flows.
– Riverside and San Bernardino counties posted the highest numeric population gains, and accounted for 29 percent of the state's growth during this period. Population growth in San Bernardino County (18,710) was due primarily to natural increase, while Riverside’s source of growth (22,740) was largely from domestic and international migration.
– Population growth rates ranged from a high of 2.21 percent in Sutter County to a low of -4.57 percent in Butte County. Twenty-two counties posted population losses.
– Glenn, Merced, Placer, San Benito, San Joaquin and Sutter counties had the largest percentage increases in population, each growing by 1.4 percent or more. Sutter and Glenn counties received additional population due to shifts related to the Camp Fire in Butte County in 2018.
Population estimates produced by the Department of Finance are mandated by the California Constitution and various codes.
The population estimates are developed using aggregate data from a variety of sources, including birth and death counts provided by the Department of Public Health, number of driver's licenses and driver’s license address change data from the Department of Motor Vehicles, housing unit data from local governments, school enrollment data from the Department of Education, and federal income tax return data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The National Weather Service is predicting rain early this week before clearer conditions move in over the region.
The forecast across Northern California calls for light precipitation from a storm system that’s moving east on Monday night and into Tuesday.
The agency said a couple of storms through Tuesday will move into the Pacific Northwest, with the first of the storms bringing rain to the extreme northern part of California into early Monday.
The second system will move through Monday night and Tuesday and bring precipitation chances further to the south. The National Weather Service said precipitation amounts are expected to be small for both systems.
The forecast predicts that high pressure will build over the region Tuesday night and Wednesday to dry the entire interior out, with temperatures around 10 degrees above seasonal normals expected for the second half of the week.
On Thursday and Friday, there will be a possibility of cloud cover due to some storm systems passing through, but otherwise sunny conditions are forecast through the weekend, the National Weather Service said.
In Lake County, showers are forecast from Monday night through Tuesday, to be followed by sunny conditions during the days from Wednesday through Saturday, and partly cloudy conditions overnight those nights.
Temperatures are expected to range from the high 30s to mid-40s at night and from the mid-50s to low 60s during the day.
There also are chances of light winds through Tuesday, the forecast said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Lake County Animal Care and Control has a smaller group of dogs ready for adoption.
Dogs available for adoption this week include mixes of Doberman Pinscher, Labrador Retriever, pit bull, Rhodesian Ridgeback, shepherd and terrier.
Dogs that are adopted from Lake County Animal Care and Control are either neutered or spayed, microchipped and, if old enough, given a rabies shot and county license before being released to their new owner. License fees do not apply to residents of the cities of Lakeport or Clearlake.
If you're looking for a new companion, visit the shelter. There are many great pets hoping you'll choose them.
The following dogs at the Lake County Animal Care and Control shelter have been cleared for adoption (additional dogs on the animal control Web site not listed are still “on hold”).
This male Doberman Pinscher is in kennel No. 22, ID No. 13459. Photo courtesy of Lake County Animal Care and Control. Male Doberman Pinscher
This male Doberman Pinscher has a short red and brown coat.
He is in kennel No. 22, ID No. 13459.
This female terrier is in kennel No. 24, ID No. 13456. Photo courtesy of Lake County Animal Care and Control. Female terrier
This female terrier has a short brown and white coat.
She is in kennel No. 24, ID No. 13456.
This male Labrador Retriever is in kennel No. 25, ID No. 13465. Photo courtesy of Lake County Animal Care and Control. Male Labrador Retriever
This male Labrador Retriever has a short chocolate coat.
He is in kennel No. 25, ID No. 13465.
“Oso” is a male shepherd mix in kennel No. 27, ID No. 3173. Photo courtesy of Lake County Animal Care and Control ‘Oso’
“Oso” is a male shepherd mix with a long black and tan coat.
He has been neutered.
He’s in kennel No. 27, ID No. 3173.
This male pit bull terrier is in kennel No. 30, ID No. 13448. Photo courtesy of Lake County Animal Care and Control. Male pit bull terrier
This male pit bull terrier has a short blue and white coat.
He is in kennel No. 30, ID No. 13448.
“Goofy” is a male Rhodesian Ridgeback in kennel No. 33, ID No. 13210. Photo courtesy of Lake County Animal Care and Control. ‘Goofy’
“Goofy” is a young male Rhodesian Ridgeback with a short tan and black coat.
Shelter staff said this boy is great with other dogs, although he is high energy and would benefit from obedience training. He would love to go jogging every day, he is very food motivated and willing to learn new things.
Goofy has been at the shelter since Nov. 5. He was originally taken from someone in Upper Lake and found on the highway in Clearlake. If anyone has any information on his owner please contact the shelter.
He’s in kennel No. 33, ID No. 13210.
Lake County Animal Care and Control is located at 4949 Helbush in Lakeport, next to the Hill Road Correctional Facility.
Office hours are Monday through Friday, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., and 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., Saturday. The shelter is open from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday and on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
For more information call Lake County Animal Care and Control at 707-263-0278.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
The opioid crisis and deaths related to e-cigarette use among teenagers have dominated news headlines recently. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 34 people had died as a result of vaping and, in 2017, opioid addiction was responsible for more than 47,000 deaths in the U.S. Opioid addiction has been declared a public health emergency.
Clearly society needs better strategies to address this public health emergency. As a health economist who has spent decades studying ways to prevent disease, I believe there are some policy options that could help.
People who are obese face heightened risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and certain types of cancers, among other conditions. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the United States is $147 billion, with most of those costs hitting public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Similar trends have been observed internationally among developed countries.
So what can we do about it? The massive public and private efforts to control smoking provide both a template for addressing obesity and a benchmark for social impact. Tactics such as education, cigarette taxes, and smoke-free public spaces resulted in a 66% decline in smoking between 1965 and 2018, when cigarette smoking reached an all-time low of 13.7% among U.S. adults.
This outcome is associated with major health improvements – reduced cardiovascular disease, stroke, various cancers and mortality from lung cancer. Medicaid alone saves an estimated $2.5 billion a year from smoking-related health improvements.
From a public investment perspective, the potential bang for the buck is even bigger for obesity than it is for tobacco. In my view, a successful anti-obesity campaign must encourage people to be less sedentary; invest in new medical treatments and nutrition science; and create regulatory and health insurance policies that reward behavioral change. It also means broader access to effective therapies.
Good ideas that aren’t working
Our current emphasis on behavioral interventions has been disappointing. Society needs to find a way to talk about obesity and come up with ways to deal with it that do not involve body-shaming Losing weight means eating less or exercising more, or both, but there are no guarantees with either approach. Getting people to exercise is difficult. Nearly 80% of adults are not meeting the key guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity.
So what should policymakers do? I think it is time to take several new approaches.
Economic models for health intervention
The intellectual property rights of companies that develop novel approaches to weight loss, such as mimicking the effects of exercise, should be protected and rewarded with patent law and other mechanisms. Currently, if a company discovers a way to get people to go for a walk with a new app or program, protection for intellectual property and reimbursement is uncertain.
Given the stakes, the U.S. government should offer greater rewards for behavioral interventions that can demonstrate long-term gains under the same rigorous regulatory standards similar to those required of new drugs. U.S. companies invest billions of dollars to develop pharmaceuticals. By contrast, there is less social investment in other prevention activities.
While not a solution for everyone, gastric bypass and adjustable gastric banding, among other procedures, have proven effective. New incentives could expand access to these surgeries by lowering the BMI threshold for eligibility. Some insurers have put up barriers to this treatment because obesity is not immediately life-threatening or related to our traditional notion of disease.
We need to find better ways to annuitize the cost of surgery and increase access while tying reimbursement to outcomes. Other insurers with an interest in long-term outcomes, including the life insurance industry, can play an important role. They have a vested financial interest in avoiding mortality and disability but have traditionally remained on the sidelines while Americans grow fatter.
Evidence points to a 20% reduction in BMI persisting up to 10 years after surgery. In 2017, 228,000 Americans received bariatric surgeries. Of those, only 10% of are eligible under current criteria.
Another approach is to consider new medications and utilize the successful approach that has been used to fight high blood pressure. About 50 years ago, hypertension was considered untreatable. Diet and exercise were the predominant means of controlling it. The discovery of multiple agents to combat hypertension, beginning with diuretics and beta blockers, proved transformative. A similar story emerged for elevated cholesterol. About half the decline in U.S. deaths from coronary heart disease can be attributed to medical therapies like these.
Several clinically proven anti-obesity medications are already available for people who do not respond to lifestyle modification. Furthermore, there is a robust clinical pipeline, with approximately 250 compounds under development, including dozens of novel compounds. Drugs such as these can help change the trajectory of the obesity epidemic, if they are made widely available and reimbursed — challenges in today’s health care insurance system.
Another avenue to consider includes levying taxes on sweetened beverages, or the so-called “soda tax.” One study found that implementing a 1 cent per ounce soda tax would reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption by 20% over 10 years. The result would be a $23.6 billion savings in health care and improved population health.
In 2012, new laws required schools to limit salt and fat and cap calories.Mary Esch/APImages
Finally, the food and restaurant industry deserves some of the blame. Restricting access – like the United States tried with the ban on the consumption and sale of alcohol – won’t work. But responsible steps to regulate portions might.
Smart, bold strategies helped us address public health crises before, including smoking and hypertension. We need to be similarly aggressive with obesity if we want to avert hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. As we did with smoking, it is time to make obesity a number one public health priority.
The California Department of Public Health has been informed that one individual in Los Angeles County and one individual in Orange County have tested positive for novel coronavirus 2019, or nCoV-2019.
CDPH said the information was confirmed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Orange County Health Care Agency and the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“The California Department of Public Health has been preparing for this situation by working closely with local health departments and health care providers,” said Dr. Sonia Angell, CDPH director and state health officer. “We are supporting ongoing efforts by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the Orange County Health Care Agency to respond to these cases, and will continue working with our partners to monitor for any additional cases that may occur in California, to ensure that persons can be safely and effectively evaluated for this novel virus, and to protect the health of the people of California.”
At this time, no other persons infected with nCoV-2019 have been identified in California. Currently, the immediate health risk from nCoV 2019 to the general public is low.
It is very important for persons who have recently traveled and who become ill to notify their health care provider of their travel history.
Persons who have recently traveled to Wuhan, China, or who have had contact with a person with possible novel coronavirus infection should contact their local health department or health care provider.
CDPH has been prepared and is continuing with the following actions:
· Providing information about the outbreak and how to report suspect cases to local health departments and health care providers in California.
· Coordinating with CDC personnel who are doing screening of travelers from Wuhan, China at SFO and LAX airports.
· Assuring that health care providers know how to safely manage persons with possible nCoV-2019 infection.
· Supporting hospitals and local public health laboratories for collection and shipment of specimens for testing at CDC for nCoV-2019.
· Activating CDPH’s Emergency Operations Center to coordinate response efforts across the state.
The nCoV-2019 outbreak in China continues to evolve and California is prepared for more cases that may arise.
CDPH considers this a very important public health event; the agency said it is closely monitoring the situation and providing updates to partners across the state to support their preparedness efforts.
As with any virus, especially during the flu season, CDPH reminds you there are a number of steps you can take to protect your health and those around you:
· Washing hands with soap and water.
· Avoiding touching eyes, nose or mouth with unwashed hands.
· Avoiding close contact with people who are sick are all ways to reduce the risk of infection with a number of different viruses.
· If someone does become sick with respiratory symptoms like fever and cough, they should stay away from work, school or other people to avoid spreading illness.
CDPH will not be providing additional information about the patients beyond what is being shared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and Orange County Health Care Agency.
For more information about nCov-2019, please visit the CDPH website.
Gina Solomon, University of California, San Francisco
Starting Feb. 6, 2020, California growers will be barred from using the insecticide chlorpyrifos on grapes and other crops. AP Photo/Eric Risberg
Editor’s note: California, the top U.S. food-producing state, is ending use of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide associated with neurodevelopmental problems and impaired brain function in children. Gina Solomon, a principal investigator at the Public Health Institute, clinical professor at the University of California San Francisco and former deputy secretary at the California Environmental Protection Agency, explains the scientific evidence that led California to act.
1. What is chlorpyrifos and how is it used?
Chlorpyrifos is an inexpensive and effective pesticide that has been on the market since 1965. Farmers across the U.S. use millions of pounds of it each year on a wide range of crops, including many different vegetables, corn, soybeans, cotton and fruit and nut trees.
Until 2000, chlorpyrifos was also used in homes for pest control. It was banned for indoor use after passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, which required additional protection of children’s health. Residues left after indoor use were quite high, and toddlers who crawled on the floor and put their hands in their mouth were found to be at risk of poisoning.
The same attributes that make chlorpyrifos effective against insects can harm children in utero.
2. What’s the evidence that chlorpyrifos is harmful?
Researchers published the first study linking chlorpyrifos to potential developmental harm in children in 2003. They found that higher levels of a chlorpyrifos metabolite – a substance that’s produced when the body breaks down the pesticide – in umbilical cord blood were significantly associated with smaller infant birth weight and length.
Subsequent studies published between 2006 and 2014 showed that those same infants had developmental delays that persisted into childhood, with lower scores on standard tests of development and changes that researchers could see on MRI scans of the children’s brains. Scientists also discovered that a genetic subtype of a common metabolic enzyme in pregnant women increased the likelihood that their children would experience neurodevelopmental delays.
These findings touched off a battle to protect children from chlorpyrifos. Some scientists were skeptical of results from epidemiological studies that followed the children of pregnant women with greater or lesser levels of chlorpyrifos in their urine or cord blood and looked for adverse effects.
Epidemiological studies can provide powerful evidence that something is harmful, but results can also be muddled by gaps in information about the timing and level of exposures. They also can be complicated by exposures to other substances through diet, personal habits, homes, communities and workplaces.
Farm laborers, like these migrant workers harvesting corn in Gilroy, Calif., are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure.USDA/Bob Nichols, CC BY
3. Why did it take so long to reach a conclusion?
As evidence accumulated that low levels of chlorpyrifos were probably toxic in humans, regulatory scientists at the U.S. EPA and in California reviewed it – but they took very different paths.
At first, both groups focused on the established toxicity mechanism: acetylcholinesterase inhibition. They reasoned that preventing significant disruption of this key enzyme would protect people from other neurological effects.
Scientists working under contract for Dow Chemical, which manufactured chlorpyrifos, published a complex model in 2014 that could estimate how much of the pesticide a person would have to consume or inhale to trigger acetylcholinesterase inhibition. But some of their equations were based on data from as few as six healthy adults who had swallowed capsules of chlorpyrifos during experiments in the 1970s and early 1980s – a method that now would be considered unethical.
California scientists questioned whether risk assessments based on the Dow-funded model adequately accounted for uncertainty and human variability. They also wondered whether acetylcholinesterase inhibition was really the most sensitive biological effect.
In 2016 the U.S. EPA released a reassessment of chlorpyrifos’s potential health effects that took a different approach. It focused on epidemiological studies published from 2003 through 2014 at Columbia University that found developmental impacts in children exposed to chlorpyrifos. The Columbia researchers analyzed chlorpyrifos levels in the mothers’ cord blood at birth, and the EPA attempted to back-calculate how much chlorpyrifos they might have been exposed to throughout pregnancy.
On the basis of this analysis, the Obama administration concluded that chlorpyrifos could not be safely used and should be banned. However, the Trump administration reversed this decision in 2017, arguing that the science was not resolved and more study was needed.
Chlorpyrifos is used nationwide on crops including vegetables, fruit, wheat, corn and soybeans.USGS
For their part, California regulators struggled to reconcile these disparate results. As they saw it, the epidemiological studies and the acetylcholinesterase model pointed in different directions, and both had significant challenges.
4. What convinced California to impose a ban?
Three new papers on prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos, published in 2017 and 2018, broke the logjam. These were independent studies, conducted in rats, that evaluated subtle effects on learning and development.
The results were consistent and clear: Chlorpyrifos caused decreased learning, hyperactivity and anxiety in rat pups at doses lower than those that affected acetylcholinesterase. And these studies clearly quantified doses to the rats, so there was no uncertainty about their exposure levels during pregnancy. The results were eerily similar to effects seen in human epidemiological studies, vindicating health concerns about chlorpyrifos.
California reassessed chlorpyrifos using these new studies. Regulators concluded that the pesticide posed significant risks that could not be mitigated – especially among people who lived near agricultural fields where it was used. In October 2019, the state announced that under an enforceable agreement with manufacturers, all sales of chlorpyrifos to California growers would end by Feb. 6, 2020, and growers would not be allowed to possess or use it after Dec. 31, 2020.
In a July 2019 statement, the EPA asserted that “claims regarding neurodevelopmental toxicity must be denied because they are not supported by valid, complete, and reliable evidence.” The agency indicated that it would continue to review the evidence and planned to make a decision by 2021.
EPA did not mention the animal studies published in 2017 and 2018, but it legally must include them in its new assessment. When it does so, I believe EPA leaders will have great difficulty making a case that chlorpyrifos is safe.
In my view, we have consistent scientific evidence that chlorpyrifos threatens children’s neurological development. We know what this pesticide does to people, and it is time to move to safer alternatives.
