Article written by

A wine drawing philosopher with a heart of gold. aka. #firekitten

11 Responses

  1. Robert Seeds
    Robert Seeds at | | Reply

    It seems to me that the argument against that expansion could work as well as an argument that that south eastern part of the current AVA, the part that includes Rio Vista, does not belong in the AVA, because it is warmer than the more westerly parts, and, it is east of the mass of hills that makes up most of the AVA’s eastern boundary. Given that the area of Rio Vista was included, it seems to make sense to include the entirety of the west side of that little ridge that vineyard stretches up to.

  2. Tyler R Thomas (@Wine2Tyler)
    Tyler R Thomas (@Wine2Tyler) at | | Reply

    You’ve described it well and keenly left out your own opinion! We must be wary of the motivations for all. Being new here I don’t have an informed opinion to offer just yet. Thanks for the summary.

  3. weshagenWes Hagen
    weshagenWes Hagen at | | Reply

    As the original petitioner I can say tht we included the area where Rio Vista is plante purposefully because of the east-west orientation of the land mass. Opening the AVA into the area known locally as the Buellton Flats (Pence) is awfully problematic, as there is no data to say where it should stop. The nearest weather station east of Pence is Ballard Canyon–so why stop just east of Pence? With 81 lot lines influenced by the current AVA boundary we can expect a new expansion petition every time one of those 81 properties sell. This is the beginning of a dilution of our AVA’s integrity, and in 25 years I think we’ll all look back at this and shake our heads at allowing one of the most defined and precious micro-AVA’s on the West Cost to be gerrymandered for profit. Every original petitioner and the Board of SRH Winegrowers oppose the expansion, including those that use Pence fruit in their wine. And then there’s Pence submitting his wine to the Wine Enthusiast withSRHAVA definitions on the paperwork. Steve Heimoff called Pence ‘Deliberately deceptive’ and a TTB inquiry was opened that apparently didn’t do anything about his dishonsety in using the same system he is now trying to engage. I encourage anyone who agrees with protecting the original, historic boundaries to write a letter of opposition right now.

  4. David J.
    David J. at | | Reply

    So, I would like to know who hired Mr. Shabram? If it is one of the vineyard owners who would benefit from his opinion, then I find that his opinion is already bias, and I believe if you hire someone to compile information, you are able to manipulate that information anyway you like (this is a guess).

    So, If one side doesn’t want the expansion, one side does. Maybe a NEW AVA is in order. Ballard did it. Oh wait… Ste. Rita Hills AVA is what they want as that name already” correlates with high quality.

    1. weshagen
      weshagen at | | Reply

      Blair Pence of Pence Ranch hired Mr. Shabram. Mr Pence bought land outside the AVA boundaries and is attempting to have it included. The entire group of original SRH petitioners and the unanimous vote of the Board of SRH Winegrowers oppose this expansion on the basis of land mass/orientation, climate and history.

      I agree a ‘Buellton Flats’ or ‘Buellton Highlands’ AVA would be perfect for Pence. Hell, I’ll even help him write it. He keeps saying that his grapes will speak for themselves, then why is he trying to co-opt our reputation and marketing?

      I urge each of you reading this article and commentary to go over to the TTB docket and make your feelings officially part of the Federal Register. Get all he info you can, come to your own conclusion, and then engage!

  5. John Tevis
    John Tevis at | | Reply

    The difference between the northern Highway 246 section and the southern Santa Rosa Road section is that Rio Vista is still tucked in the hills, while the flats where Pence Ranch lies is not. The morning fog lingers more in the southern section throughout Santa Rosa Road.

  6. weshagen
    weshagen at | | Reply

    Anyone interested in making commentary in the Federal Register during Public Comment may contact me for information concerning the opposition. Save the Historic Sta Rita Hills! wes@clospepe.com

  7. Liquor Industry News/Links 8-16-14 | Franklin Liquors

    […] An In-Depth Look at the Proposed Sta Rita Hills AVA Expansion […]

  8. TTB UPDATE: What Makes an Effective Comment? TTB Extends Sta Rita Hills Expansion Comment Period | Hawk Wakawaka Wine Reviews

    […] For more on the argument both for and against expansion of the AVA as understood by representatives of each side: http://wakawakawinereviews.com/2014/08/06/an-in-depth-look-at-the-proposed-sta-rita-hills-ava-expans… […]

  9. The Hills are on Fire: 2014 Wine and Fire Weekend in the Sta. Rita Hills | LAwonders

    […] AVA are currently being challenged, (for an excellent impartial look at the ongoing conflict, click here) the Wine and Fire Festival would bring together producers and consumers intent on celebrating the […]

Leave a Reply