A recent letter to the editor reproached Malibu City Council candidate Robert “Roy” van de Hoek for his convictions of vandalizing federal property in a nature preserve where he had once been employed.
After receiving a letter from Malibu resident Lloyd Ahern, The Malibu Times conducted interviews with BLM investigators and employees, the prosecuting attorney in the 1996 case against Van de Hoek, and examined court documents and investigative reports regarding the convictions. Van de Hoek responded to Ahern’s letter in last week’s issue.
Van de Hoek was convicted on four counts of vandalism for cutting fences, padlocks and trees in the Carrizo Plain, an area east of San Luis Obispo.
The council candidate said in an interview this week that all the charges were false, trumped up and committed in retaliation against him for whistle-blowing on bad practices by BLM management. He was fired twice by the BLM, first in 1993 and then 1994.
“I was a whistle-blower and they wanted to punish me,” said Van de Hoek, who worked as a biologist for the agency.
Van de Hoek said he had written reports regarding the BLM and its practices that were hurting the environment in the Carrizo Plain, which is now a national monument, a status Van de Hoek claims was a result of his and the Sierra Club’s work.
“The BLM, Steve Larson (BLM resource staff chief and Van de Hoek’s then boss) and others, turned them [the reports] back to me and said, ‘Change them, take out the parts that said taxpayers’ money was being wasted,’ ” said Van de Hoek. “I said I wouldn’t change it. I’m a professional scientist, I know these things.”
But Curtis Rankin, deputy district attorney for San Luis Obispo County and the prosecutor in the 1996 case, had a very different view of Van de Hoek’s actions.
“He was not a whistle-blower, he was a one-man vigilante,” said Rankin.
“He personally decided what the best plan was to manage the Carrizo Plain, even though it was subjected to being managed by the BLM, the Nature Conservancy (a private state-wide conservation agency) and the California Department of Fish and Game,” said Rankin.
The Carrizo Plain is a 45-mile long, 10-mile wide basin lying between the Temblor and Caliente ranges east of San Luis Obispo.
It is Van de Hoek’s assertion the plain was once a prairie and should not have trees, much less fences. He said they impede the antelope’s natural movement, and the trees and bushes hide natural prey from hawks, owls and other birds.
Of the convictions, which were later cleared from his record, Van de Hoek said there were only three, for cutting a padlock, a fence and a eucalyptus branch.
“That tree didn’t die, by the way,” he said. “They wanted me to pay a fine for the tree [because they said it died].”
In a BLM news release at the time, it states that Van de Hoek was “found guilty of four counts of vandalizing government property and natural resources at Carrizo.”
“Shade trees were cut down, fences and locks were cut, and signs were damaged,” states the release.
BLM ranger Ed Ruth, who was conducting an investigation of the vandalism, arrested Van de Hoek on Dec. 8 1996, after he caught him cutting the branch of a eucalyptus tree in a campground in the preserve. Ruth had also conducted an earlier investigation in 1994 relating to Van de Hoek, which involved Johna Cochran, who was then an area project manager. She is now the assistant manager at Carrizo.
According to a report by Ruth, Cochran reported a trespassing incident. The account said co-workers had seen Van de Hoek driving by her house, and later Cochran said she found him walking around her backyard. Several other incidents were reported by Cochran, including one where Van de Hoek allegedly shined a light into her home from the road on Christmas Day in 1994. Furthermore, there was another incident in November of 1996 where Cochran reported Van de Hoek was seen parked near her residence.
Again, the biologist said all allegations were false, and part of the attempt to quiet him.
One of Van de Hoek’s beefs is the “whole hierarchy in the BLM is a ranching and mining agency.”
“Cochran now runs the plains,” said Van de Hoek. “Her husband runs cattle out there … she hunts deer, pigs, quail. It’s legal, but she gets the best, because she can get to places others can’t get to … she can drive her vehicle in there.”
Cochran, whose married name is Hurl, declined to comment for this article.
Regarding the legality of what Van de Hoek did with the fence, padlock and tree branch, he said, “The plan from the BLM says the trees and fences had to be removed. But they didn’t [remove them], so I did civil disobedience.”
“Sometimes there’s no other option,” he said, comparing his actions to that of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ruth, who is now a BLM supervisory ranger in Bakersfield, said in a phone interview, “What he told me at the time, when I was taking him to jail, the reason he was cutting the trees was because they were introduced trees and harmful to the wildlife.”
Ruth, who worked with Van de Hoek, said he did not have any personal problems with the biologist.
“I did not have any malice toward Roy,” he said. “My job was strictly to find out who was cutting the fence, the trees and deal with the issue.”
During his investigation that went on for more than a year, Ruth said he encountered ornamental trees that were “hacked away at, cut, chopped.”
“I’m not saying he did it,” explained Ruth, “but it was the same time period. It became obvious after awhile that someone was cutting away at vegetation-planted vegetation.”
“Some might say, ‘Why have introduced trees?’ ” said Ruth. “But some [trees] have been there for awhile. They have a historical significance.”
Out of the 208,000 acres of the Carrizo Plain, two acres have introduced, planted trees, said Ruth.
Van de Hoek’s take on what should or should not exist in certain areas also extended to Catalina Island where he worked at the Interpretive Center.
He criticized the Island Conservancy’s policy on buffalo.
“They don’t belong there at all,” he said.
Van de Hoek said he worked there for a period of five years and declined to state why he left.
“I did run into criticisms-that’s right-[I] wanted to have sea otters at the island,” said Van de Hoek, explaining there’s a fishermen’s myth that sea otters are “bad for nature and fish,” and that’s why his idea of bringing otters to the island was rejected.
“I was outspoken, basically,” said Van de Hoek of his time on the island.
Although Van de Hoek unequivocally believes there should not be any eucalyptus trees at Carrizo Plain, in fact, no trees at all, his first comment about eucalyptus in Malibu was, “I one hundred percent want eucalyptus trees protected for the monarch butterflies.”
He also said great blue herons, egrets, as well as hawks, ospreys and eagles use the trees.
However, in an Internet publication that Van de Hoek authored about the Charmlee Park area, he states that “negative alien (non-native) trees such as Italian Pine, Australian Eucalyptus, Mediterranean Palm” and others, “are the culprits that negatively impact the goal of a viable and functioning natural ecosystem with wild nature at heart.”
“It’s a lot more complicated,” said Van de Hoek on the phone. “The other trees are gone.”
Asked if he could, would he have all the eucalyptus trees removed from Charmlee, Van de Hoek replied, “Not yet. But if we can get other coast live oaks and other tall trees there, then at some point it might be okay to remove them, but only after being sure that the butterflies and hawks aren’t using them.”
He estimates it could take 10 to 20 years to replace the eucalyptus trees at Charmlee.
Van de Hoek believes so much that non-native animals and plants should not be in California that he wrote in an Internet publication last year (when explaining that the “Virginia Opossum is to blame for lower biodiversity in California”): “In future time, humans will perish from all part [sic] of the Earth, including California, due to humans aiding in the spread of various invasive aliens. After humans are gone, aliens will lose their grip on the natural ecosystems … The cities will deconstruct as deterioration and disintegration of human material occurs and native plants and native animals will move back in.”
Of what his critics say about him, Van de Hoek calls it “hyperbole.”
“If radical is wanting clean water, then I’m a radical.”
Van de Hoek characterizes his critics as pro-development.
“[They] want to turn Malibu into a giant city, with lots of profits and money … they’re into their power trip.”
Speaking about Jerry Perenchio, owner of the Malibu Bay Co., which owns a majority of land in the Civic Center area of Malibu, Van de Hoek said, “Mr. Perenchio needs to sell his land in the Civic Center. He should sell so it can become park … both for wetlands and a park … no pavement … [with] playing fields.”
Van de Hoek said he is running for council because he wants to “preserve the beauty of Malibu” and for “democracy.”
“The environment must be represented,” said Van de Hoek. “We have a pro-development City Council. We need a watchdog on the council, like I was at BLM.”