Researchers incensed by repeated Gill Tract break-ins

This past Saturday, Occupy the Farm protestors broke into the Gill Tract to tend to crops. Ongoing university research on the land has been disrupted by the protests.
Kevin Foote/Senior Staff
This past Saturday, Occupy the Farm protestors broke into the Gill Tract to tend to crops. Ongoing university research on the land has been disrupted by the protests.

Related Posts

Despite initial efforts by the UC Berkeley campus to prevent conflict between researchers and Occupy the Farm protesters on the campus-owned Gill Tract in Albany, researchers and protesters continue to disagree over its appropriate use.

Researchers from the campus College of Natural Resources who use the land to harvest plants for their experiments said that having protesters continue to break into the land has disrupted agricultural research.

According to George Chuck, a researcher in the department of plant and microbial biology at UC Berkeley who grows corn at the tract, when workers have to fix the locks and fences damaged by protesters, researchers are kept out of the field, hindering the progress of ongoing experiments.

“There is now a sense of unease about the integrity of the researchers’ experiments,” Chuck said in an email. “None of us really know if they have tampered with any of our experiments, so it calls into question any of the data we can get out of the field.”

Protesters, who first broke into the tract in April and began farming to protest the commercial development of the area, said that before they were forced out by UCPD officers, they attempted to communicate with researchers about developing a plan that allowed for both research and protesters’ farming to continue.

“We worked very hard with them,” said Gopal Dayaneni, a spokesperson for Occupy the Farm. “Our actions are based on a decade-long struggle to get the university to do right by the community of this land.”

In response to complaints, the university filed a lawsuit in May against the protesters that stated that by occupying the land, protesters were delaying research on the tract. Soon after, UCPD officers raided the farm to remove protesters and allow research to resume. The suit was dropped in June, in part due to the high cost of continuing litigation.

After protesters broke into the farm again Sunday, campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof said the campus’s key priority is protecting academic freedom and research on the land.

“At this point, we are discussing and evaluating possible options,” Mogulof said Sunday.

Still, Chuck said the campus’s response has done little to address his concerns, since protesters continue to break into the tract.

Contact Andrea Guzman and Pooja Mhatre at [email protected].

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that researcher George Chuck grows switchgrass at the Gill Tract. In fact, he grows corn there.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • TheSquashWasDelicious

    this doesnt add up at all. the most recent harvest, we did not need to break the locks because the police opened it for us. There was no disruption of research crops, and no locks changed. If the researchers are having problems recently with access it is all the UC’s fault, because protestors have not had to tamper with any locks for over 4 weeks

  • Fact Check

    I appreciate that, within this vitriolic thread, my voice was level and contributed to the matters at hand.

    I am glad that my posts were not a personal attack at another, and am satisfied that my contribution to this debate was taken with critical thought.

    That said; I wish to address one claim:

    1. That direct action at Gill Tract is illegitimate b/c a sum of the participants residency occurs outside of the small town’s borders.

    UC Berkeley is an institution administered through the State of California. Whereas many participants in the sustained direct action at Gill Tract are not Albany residents, they are indeed students, or other stakeholders w/in the public University.

    Since the University uses its status as a State level institution to navigate around local ordinance, the same could be said for participants in direct action at Gill Tract: they are members of this institution, many directly involved w/ Gill Tract research and education, who are upset with a lack of community consent for this private development project.

    • I luv democracy

      Using your retarded logic, anybody with any association with a public University (‘stakeholders’) can break into any U.C. property if they disagree with its usage. This is beyond stupid and has no place in our democracy. Even communists lock things up.

    • guest

      I can think of plenty of office space at the University that is used in ways that many other people object to (most people the U.S., for instance, are emphatically opposed to Marxism). Would it be OK for a group of activists to occupy those offices and use them more productively in the name of the community?

      I don’t think you represent the community any more than folks that want a park, or a baseball field, or a Whole Foods. Instead, you represent an interest group that didn’t get its way that was prodded into action by academics who didn’t get their way who stand to profit professionally from the occupation.
      Many of you seem good hearted, but you are tragically wrong if you think that this kind of action is going to do anything but alienate the vast majority of citizens. It’s too bad you didn’t buy or have donated some land and showed the rest of us how to grow food right (perhaps you could show us, for instance, that you are competent to feed yourselves, much less anyone else). Instead, you’ve managed to turn a nice idea into an example of how not to change the world. That’s a shame.

  • Fact Check

    So both sides to this argument are correct: Whole Foods will not be built on the current agricultural land AND the current agricultural land will be re-purposed (developed) into recreation and open-space; to accommodate Albany Strollers and Rollers bicycle path and the Albany Little League Baseball Fields.

    Point of Info: Two cases of pending litigation stand in front of UC based on alleged violations in the process of generating and approving a final Environmental Impact Report. The two respective suits are from Albany Strollers and Rollers and an Albany Resident who lives right across the street from Gill Tract.

    Also; over 1,300 verified signatures of Albany residents were submitted to the City Council just in time for a referendum on the issue. The city now awaits county direct as to how many of these signatures constitute registered voters in the city of Albany.

    • guest

      I don’t think just in time is accurate. They missed the deadline to get onto the normal ballot and are trying to force a special election costing the town of albany ~$70000

      • Fact Check

        It is up to the city council to decide how to proceed, once the county confirms that enough registered voters signed the petition.

        Council has three options:

        1. Drop the approval entirely and move on to other business,
        2. Put it on the 2014 ballot, or
        3. Create a special ballot solely for the measure, which, yes: cost the city tens-of-thousands.

  • Fact Check

    The development question: as per the 2004 UC Master Plan for the Gill Tract, UC labels current agriculture land north of Village Creek “recreation and open space.” This development plan was approved by Albany Cit Council.

    In several e-mail correspondences and Albany City Council minutes, the University reaches an agreement w/ the Albany Little League that, because Whole Foods development on the South Side would occupy the current ALL baseball fields, the University will relocate those fields onto the current agricultural land.

    So, in essence, Whole Foods development does mean the destruction of the farmland and research plots due to UC’s promise to accommodate the Albany Little League on the north side of Gill Tract.

  • Ben KS

    Wow, “Science is Good,” you have an incredible gift for over-simplification. Your divisively dogmatic views of the world as being split into “Good” and “Bad” is impressively naive, and will serve you as poorly in science as it will in politics, the humanities, and in human relationships. On top of your crudely spewed “analysis,” your analogy is baseless and offers no useful insight into the actual situation at hand, which does not involve anyone breaking into anyone’s house — that is threatening and violent; planting food, however controversial, is not. As tempting as it can be to vent anger on those you do not like, real solutions for our world require communication, compromise, and working together.

    Labeling people as “criminals” without a thoughtful approach to the historical significance of this movement or the intricacies of the politics at play, amounts to a rhetorical strategy that dehumanizes and stigmatizes the “other,” and is not unlike the tactics that have been used by racists, sexists, homophobes, and xenophobes throughout the ages. We are not some mythical “other” — we are doctors, educators, scientists, social workers, former military service people, teachers, gardeners, lawyers, students, parents, and common folk who live in community with you. We are your neighbors, your friends, and your allies. We are not against research, but we are against needless urban development that will not serve the interests of our community. We serve our community day in, day out, often tirelessly, and many of us do it with little to no pay. We are not your enemy, and most of all, we are not criminals.

    • I_h8_disqus

      Your actions speak louder than your words. Destroying the researchers’ work is as violent as taking their televisions. Breaking locks and cutting through fences is no different than doing the same to a house. If you are against development and not against research, then why are you not planting where the development is going to happen instead of where the research is?

      • Ben KS

        Yeah, so I did not destroy anything. I was not involved in the days of action, only in supporting the group of activists physically and emotionally during the planning of said actions. Again, breaking locks and fences on public land is vastly different than breaking into someone’s house. Breaking into someone’s house is directly threatening to the safety of their personhood and is explicitly violent — the same cannot be said for public land. It’s amazing how strong the urge is to denigrate this conversation into useless analogies. As for your question, all I can say is that this was carefully planned out by intelligent people who were planting on the land that was intended for development, this article seems to suggest otherwise and is incorrect in its ascertations.

        • fact checker

          Again, your facts are wrong. The Gill tract research farm is not being developed. The land the next block over is being developed with the approval of the City of Albany.

        • [Yeah, so I did not destroy anything. I was not involved in the days of
          action, only in supporting the group of activists physically and
          emotionally during the planning of said actions.]

          In other words, you support criminals.Go figure…

        • I_h8_disqus

          If this action was carefully planned out by intelligent people, then they wouldn’t have called it Occupy the Farm and used the same unorganized Occupy tactics. Intelligent people recognized that the Occupy movement would disappear quickly, because of its lack of planning and organization. Your farm protest has already seen Albany approve development of the land that you thought you were protecting, while you were actually on the wrong land.

    • [Labeling people as “criminals” without a thoughtful approach to the historical significance of this movement]

      What’s the “historical significance” of an ignorant, uneducated, violent mob that runs around breaking shit because its leaders are attention-starved narcissists?

      • Concerned

        Look up the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, and post soviet collapse urban farming in Cuba, then say there is no historical significance. Admittedly we do not have constitutional backing but the parallels and ideals are there and legitimate.

        • go back to the USSR

          “Look up the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, and post soviet
          collapse urban farming in Cuba, then say there is no historical
          significance”
          Respecting property rights is a very good thing. This is why I prefer to live in the U.S. instead of Brazil or the Soviet Union. You Occutards are not Landless Workers, thus your stupid analogy does not work. Heck, the majority of you idiots don’t even live in Albany where the fields are located, so you have no right to come into our community and dictate what we, or U.C. Berkeley wants to do with the land.

          • Concerned

            When the community decides by voting I will respect their decision either way, however the U.C. is a public school, public school~public land, land that every tax payer has some rite to. If they are not going to use it (and other than a small portion they have not) and you are not going to, then we will. I will stop going to the tract the day that ground breaking starts on whatever project the community decides upon, until then I will try to help feed and educate as many people on sustainable, pesticide free farming practices and healthy eating habits as I can. If it goes against us then I’m off to the next bit of public property taken up by trash and weeds. I cannot afford land yet (thus landless), once I can your precious urban society will be free of one dirty hippie, one rouge gardener, one person who stops to pick up someone else’s trash, and one person who cares enough to WORK for the public good. Until then I’m sorry, but you are stuck with me.

          • Stan De San Diego

            “I cannot afford land yet”

            Then get a job like the rest of us.

          • Concerned

            I have two actually, and i still find time to help other people.

          • Guest

            Have more respect for yourself.

          • Concerned

            And how exactly is holding down two jobs, volunteering to harvest, weed and distribute crops, spending time with my loving wife, and working on my own projects not having respect for myself? Do you mean I should work 60 hours a week in a shitty corporate indoor job, spend myself into debt buying the newest iphone and the blingiest rims? Because I have to say, I feel pretty good with what I have and what I’m working for and towards.

          • Stan De San Diego

            So tell me about those two jobs. I’m curious to see if those are real, productive jobs or merely the usual attempts of the marginally unemployable to pick up spare cash.

          • Concerned

            Firstly, if anyone had done anything to the research I would have taken issue with them. WE DO NOT TOUCH THE RESEARCH.
            As to your other comment, I drive deliveries full time and work part time in a machine shop doing custom metal work. I also know how to weld, fix my own car, I have a perfect driving record, do electrical work, plumbing, roofing, landscaping, vintage lighting repair, refitting and fabrication, certified security guard, lifeguard, gardening and farming should go without saying, and I make knives for fun. So yes I would consider myself productive. What do you do that is helpful to your fellow man?

          • George Schmuck

            Occutard wrote “So yes I would consider myself productive.” Yes, very productive of you to break into private property to take land away from researchers trying to save the planet so that you can grow your own free vegetables, all the while alienating the community and losing support for your cause. Your high self esteem reflects your lack of self awareness. Keep working all those jobs, maybe one of them will stick….

          • Concerned

            So use the land, that is what we want, the portion we planted was unused, and it is just as much work to tear up weeds as it is to tear up vegetables. What we object to is paving class 1 farmland over and building a supermarket chain on land that could provide just as much food to the community, and probably cheaper. Second 80-90% of the food is given away to charity or on the street in neighbourhoods with only liquor and 99cent stores for food for miles around. Third I only get paid for two jobs, the rest I do for fun or to help friends and neighbours.

          • George Schmuck

            Oh, this is great. So you think you are doing a good deed by giving the illegally grown food away because local food availability is a problem? You claim that there are no local markets, only liquor stores and 99 cent stores? Howabout LETTING THEM BUILD A WHOLE FOODS SUPERMARKET IN THE AREA! UCB wants it, City of Albant wants it, the local community wants it, only you Occutards who don’t even live in Albany object. There, food problem solved you idiot. Plus, the area where the Whole Foods is slated to be built has never ever been used for farming, so no farmland is being lost.

          • Concerned

            Wrong area, we did give some away in Albany to local charity’s and to raise awareness, but there are plenty of locally owned stores in Albany with organic and locally grown food. We distribute it in areas in Oakland and Richmond, where there are as many as 12 miles around without any produce except the 99 cent and liquor stores. If you are actually George Chuck you would also know that instead of a whole foods being put on the plot (104 acres of farmland bought by a land grant university in 1928 for agricultural research, of which there is now 10) they are talking about making room for the whole foods by relocating the baseball fields onto the land, this would mean your research is out also. I do not have a problem with this, but who voted on it? Like I said earlier, I will respect a decision by the community but they as a group have not spoken yet.

          • George Schmuck

            Nice, stealing veggies from Albany to give away to people Oakland and Richmond. Your carbon footprint is now negative infinity…. Me and George Chuck support science and support local community decisions. The Albany City Council made their decision to build a Whole Foods. They represent the community and thus the people have spoken. Occutards who don’t live in Albany get no say. Not only do you people ignore the community, you ignore property rights and you are anti science. The University has already stated that they have no plans to get rid of the research farm, so all of your objections are now baseless. Please stay in Oakland and work hard to make your crappy city a better place to live.

          • Stan De San Diego

            > “What do you do that is helpful to your fellow man?”

            I used my Cal education to develop technology that increases the production of high-lipid plants for use in biofuel applications, among other alternative energy projects. My “green” credentials far exceed any nose-ringed Occupy idiot trespassing on research property anywhere.

          • Concerned

            That is great, we need things like this, as long as it doesn’t become more monoculture farming sapping nutrients from the soil, causing substantially lower yields in later years, making us even more dependant on chemical fertilizers that have been shown to cause cancer and birth defects

          • Stan De San Diego

            You’re not helping anyone by breaking into research and making an ass of yourself.

    • JJMMC

      Protip: you’re not as smart as you think you are.

  • ryan wyeth

    UC capital projects development plan for the Gill Tract would make ag land into baseball fields. No research, no farm, nothin’

    • guest

      except for baseball fields which the town might want more than an ag center. Perhaps a democratic process voicing the opinions of the albany residents could be conducted (and then ignored by protesters if it is not the outcome they want)

    • I_h8_disqus

      Baseball fields sound very nice. The youth of Albany could use more space and facilities to exercise.

  • hi

    TWO reporters worked on this article? Sad.

  • hi

    You misspelled his name. It’s George Schmuck.

  • science is good

    I don’t understand why the Daily Cal even bothers to contact the protesters. Their bogus attempts to ‘work very hard’ with the researchers does not legitimize anything they are doing. Would you negotiate with someone who continues to break into your house and damage your property? These people are criminals, please treat them as such.

    • Yes, why bother talking to people about a news article written about them. That would involve journalistic ethics and might seem out of place at the Daily UC funded propaganda machine.

      • guest

        Coming from someone who supports the occupation, which is pure agiprop bullshit right out of the Ruckus Society’s hand book, that’s a laugh, Slut.

  • guest

    Hi Daily Cal writers, thanks for writing this article, but can you fact check next time, please?

    • The “researchers from the campus College of Natural Resources” you’re referring to are actually USDA adjunct faculty
    • there is NO switchgrass grown at the Gill Tract for research – only corn, whose genes are subsequently inserted into switchgrass
    • NONE of the research being conducted is for “agricultural purposes” – the corn is inedible, even unusable for animal feed, and the plants that some of the corn genes is inserted to, ie, the switchgrass, is for biofuel, not food. Please read up on the head international debate re: biofuels taking over land used for agriculture.

    • JJMMC

      None of this matters because the protestors don’t get a say about the legitimacy of anyone’s research on anyone’s land.

      • Really? Then why did UCB drop all attempts to pursue legal recourse against these protesters? Because it was “expensive?” Seems a little convenient.

        • JJMMC

          What are you trying to suggest? UC certainly didn’t drop the suit because they decided they actually agreed with the protestors and that the research being done at the Gill tract like actually really sucked.

          • I’m not suggesting anything. I’m saying they straight up did not have a case. End of story.

    • I_h8_disqus

      A great example of the limited brain power of the protesters. They can’t wrap their minds around the simple facts like how George Chuck and other researchers have connections to the university and the groups who fund them. These protest farmers can’t even recognize any plants other corn, and they are so simple that they can’t imagine plants as anything other than food. They can’t see how biofuels will help the planet. They can’ see how the research on corn will help us understand so many other things. They just think corn is food.

      • Concerned

        I think everyone understands how biofuels will help the planet, the problem is that when you grow huge tracts of mono-cultures you are throwing all your eggs in one basket. The Gill tract is prime agricultural land and well under a quarter of it is being used for your “research”, Get some biodiversity in there and help the community while you are at it. If the university is hurting for money then sell the food that is produced, we just give it away. You have volunteers who will work it for free and the universities were initially set up to further agriculture in the first place, how better to learn or teach it than by getting hands on experience in a farm that does not depend on using pesticides and fertilizers that were initially designed for biological warfare.

        Also if anyone remembers the protest started to keep the land from being turned into a Wholefoods and a $5000/month retirement facility. If this happens the research stops too.

        • fact checker

          Your facts are wrong – the Gill tract farmland was never slated for a Wholefoods development or retirement facility. The land the next block over is being used for those things, and was approved by the City of Albany.

          • guest

            The land “the next block over” is still part of the 14 acres of what remains of the Gill Tract (which used to be 104 acres, back in 1928 when UC purchased it from Edward Gill). And even though Albany approved the development, over 1400 Albany residents recently signed a petition for referendum to reconsider aspects of the development.

      • Ben KS

        Right, rather than substantiate your ideas, why not attack the protestors as “brainless”? First of all, we are activists, not protestors — we are actively shaping the world we want to live in, not merely reacting to the actions of others. You would be amazed at the collective number of post-graduate years of education that is amassed in this group of activists. We are far from “brainless,” many of us have graduate degrees and were top students at our Universities. I personally was offered 2 full scholarships to top 10 medical schools, and I am not even close to the brightest bulb in the group. Many of us were top students at UC Berkeley, the very school that taught us to think independently and stand up for that which is just and fair. Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of the weak. Clearly something within you has been triggered, and it has nothing to do with our Brain Power!

        • I_h8_disqus

          What do you need substantiated more? It wouldn’t take you long to look up George Chuck’s relation with the university, and to see what his research is about. You could do the same with every researcher using the land. It also shouldn’t be too much trouble for you to see that more than corn is being researched on the land.

          So you are a medical doctor now. Have you taken time to talk with the researchers, and wrap your large brain around what they are doing? Or to talk with the university and work with them? Let me just say that I question how bright your group is, when the most they can do is break through fences to farm a small plot. I would expect a group of super intelligent people to find ways to work with the university and with much more productive resources than a plot in Albany to solve the hunger issues in the area. The entire Gill Tract protest seems more like the actions of a group that doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to do anything other than the smallest thing possible to help the hungry in the area.

          Your post triggered something new in me. It is a sadness that such intelligent people are doing so little and also doing it illegally.

          • Ben KS

            I am more than happy to understand more about what ideas you have for how food insecurity and land rights can be addressed in large-scale and meaningful ways. I do not think that anyone involved in this action believes that Gill Tract is the end-all, be-all of a movement to empower communities to feed and sustain themselves — rather it was thought to be an achievable and strategic action that would allow us to learn how to work together and mobilize the community such that larger-scale actions could be feasibily acheived in the future. I do not know the specifics of what went into working with the University or not, what I can say is that this is an exquisitely sophisticated and reasonable group of people who will continue working towards community betterment for decades to come. There seems to be a lot of assumptions on your end regarding how much thought, patience, and negotiation went into this action. I’m not sure what has entitled you to make such assumptions, and why you seem to believe that “the University” is readily willing to work with the community to achieve the goals of self-sustainability. All of your thoughtful feedback is welcome, what I am hearing, however, are assumptions and judgments that are doing little to move this conversation forward. I invite you to share what you have done that is not “small scale” (and I contend that 14,000 plants is not small scale…) and why you are so offended by the scale of this project, considering it occured on the largest tract of arable soil in the Berkeley-Albany urbanized area…

          • guest

            Sorry, Ben, but just because you and some other educated people believe that an urban farm, or urban farms in general, will decrease “food insecurity” doesn’t make it so. What if your premise is just wrong? The problem I see with your activism is that you justify your unilateral acts by making claims that may not be supportable. You don’t represent the people, or the community, you represent just one of many interest groups. I’m not questioning your motives, but I’m not buying the idea that the solution to hunger in Oakland is to have farms in Oakland. Frankly, it seems like a silly waste of time to push urban farming when millions of poor people lack basic medical care or decent jobs. What if it turns out that the people of Albany actually end up wanting a Whole foods, an over-priced old folks home and (gasp) a baseball field or a park? Let’s say you folks loose the upcoming referendum. Will you accept the will of the community, or you just tell the citizens of that town that you know what’s better for them? Basically, what I’m saying is that there is a reasonable, and hopefully respectful, critique of your tactics and assumptions that you should take seriously. While direct action, or civil disobedience, may be necessary sometimes, it is always in danger of becoming profoundly anti-democratic, particularly if it is combined with ideological certitude. If only you had occupied (or even bought!) a plot of land that wasn’t currently being used, say in Richmond or Oakland or Brentwood, or if you had actually occupied the nearby land slated to be developed into the Whole Foods. Yes, I know, last Class I farmland in the upper inner Bay Area and so on. But who cares? There is nothing sacred about the fact that this particular plot of land is in a city, except that you say it is. It only matters if you buy the flawed argument that we should feed ourselves using land in cities. It’s not outlandish or reactionary or foolish to doubt that idea. What if you’re wrong?

          • [I am more than happy to understand more about what ideas you have for
            how food insecurity and land rights can be addressed in large-scale and
            meaningful ways.]

            “Food Insecurity” = totally manufactured non-issue. Far more poor people in this country suffer from obesity than starvation. As for “land rights”, you mean “property rights”, which the protesters have no respect for in the first place. You really need to do something better with your time than waste effort defending a bunch of idiot losers.

          • Concerned

            Obesity from eating genetically modified foods with hundreds of chemical additives more addictive than heroin, foods that waste fossil or bio fuels by being trucked thousands of miles in some cases. Anyone done a study on what percentage of these obese people eat at fast food places every day?

          • Stan De San Diego

            “Obesity from eating genetically modified foods with hundreds of chemical additives more addictive than heroin”

            Sources and cites to back up your claim, or is this merely another “fact” that you pulled out of your ass? Ludicrous statements like the one above is why nobody with a brain takes your idiotic “occupy” movement seriously.

          • Concerned

            Sorry not more addictive than heroin, it had been a while since i looked into it, and should have before i posted but “long-lasting changes in rats’ brain chemistry – similar to those caused by extended use of morphine or heroin.” still causing people to over eat foods overly saturated with processed sugars and fats, and causing lasting effects on the brain.
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm
            http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/03/30/fast-food-is-like-heroin-studies-find/

          • I_h8_disqus

            When you think the Occupy the Farm movement was the effort of “exquisitely sophisticated and reasonable” people, I realize that I have been talking with a person who may have once been a bright mind, but has since fallen on hard times. I only have the articles in the Daily Cal and other papers that have said the university has tried to communicate with the protesters, but that they seem unable to communicate. Maybe the media is out to get you, and is working with the university to spread lies. :)

        • [Right, rather than substantiate your ideas, why not attack the protestors as “brainless”?]

          Because they ARE “brainless” if they think that that their imaginary “food insecurity” issue is going to be solved by breaking into UC property and f***ing up research by competent individuals. These Occupy ass-clowns have received too much attention for too long over their ongoing tantrum over their stupid pet issues. Arrest the lot and sue their asses off for the damage they have caused. They need to go away for good.

          • Concerned

            No one has damaged any research plants, everyone involved has been very careful to avoid stepping on the land used for the corn, even not planting corn to avoid cross pollination. As to the switch grass, there was nothing but wild mustard and other weeds growing on the land the protesters cultivated.

            “Arrest the lot and sue their asses off for the damage they have caused. They need to go away for good.”
            Really? We already have more than 25% of the incarcerated persons in the world as of 2010, and our courts should be even more backed up with unnecessary lawsuits?