Just like the Mules are able to find themselves a place to stop for the night for less than a period of 24 hours. The Mule kitchen also finds itself a place to spring forward and do a little cooking for a period of less than 24 hours most often then not much less than 24 hours.
LENTIL PANCAKES RED LENTILS APPLE CIDER VINEGAR OLIVE OIL WALNUTS 2 EGGS SEASONING OF CHOICE BAKING POWDER
Soak lentils for 3 hours. Blend all ingredients until smooth. Add water to obtain desired thickness of batter. The mules like the batter somewhat thick.Then stur in baking powder
NOTE: Raw lentils taste terrible so that’s what the apple cider vinegar does it gets rid of that terrible raw lentil taste and most of the taste of the apple cider vinegar also goes away as it works to get rid of the raw lentil taste so when you’re done you got a real good base to add any kind of flavoring you so choose
The Mules got here last night about 5:00pm. We walked 15 miles from the place we left yesterday morning.
Pictured are some of the people we met along the way during our walk from Bonsall to Valley Center. The energy of the people that make the effort to make contact with the mules is much valued and needed by the three mules journey. As it moves through in and around the California Megatropolis. The Mules seem to be leapfrogging their way around California these days few days of traveling few days of rest then take a leap and wind up somewhere else.
Traveled 8 miles from Vista to get here to Bonsall last night. No rain, but a lot of moisture in the air. Stuff got pretty wet. Got dried out, packed up and left.
Catherine invited the mules to stop at her stable in Vista. Her farrier Kevin put shoes on Rosie. And Catherine’s veterinarian Dr Selders did an acupuncture treatment. Rosie also got a massage by Haley. Many thanks to Catherine and all those who treated Rosie so well.
No sooner had the Mules got into Ventura then we were approached by police officer informing us he had gotten a call that we were scaring the school children on the other side of the fence. And we couldn’t stop here for any amount of time because we were on private property. I said no we are on a public easement. He continued to insist we were on private property. A school teacher came over and informed the officer she had followed us for years and we were perfectly okay where we were. He decided to leave and did.
Do City county parks need to be closed to a lone traveler? Moving under their own power and their own speed whether by bicycle walking carrying a backpack or walking with a pack animal. The mules say no. A person traveling alone entering a park after dusk when Park is closed with the sole purpose of pitching a small tent. Then staying the night then getting up in the morning and leaving to continue their journey is a threat to no one. Parks are meant to be used by people engaged in outside activity the three mule journey is certainly doing that. The mules can see no good common sense reason to prevent us or anybody else like us from resting for the night in a park.
The Mules have received a number of comments on this post on our 3 Mules Facebook page. There seems to be a concerted effort to identify us with a homeless encampment people living on sidewalks packed into a small area with no running water no sanitation because they can no longer afford decent housing. The mules live on the move travel alone. Never stay on public space for more than 24 hours most often than not less than 24 hours. We present none of the problems of a homeless encampment. Yet by reading these comments they’re all trying to infer that we do. Well the mules think it’s absolutely mystifying that we’re still walking through in and around this extremely dangerous megatropolis how we choose when we choose. For a weak cowardly little man and one mule it’s truly a spiritual endeavor. When the time comes for our eternal soul to leave the body that we are attached to we will have no regrets.
The following is a factual encounter the Mules had with Ventura County Sheriff. Nothing more and nothing less. The Mules were traveling south along the bike path yesterday when two officers pulled up got out of their cruiser and approached us. We pulled out our phone and took a picture. They said no worries you’re not in any trouble you’re not doing anything wrong. We said we didn’t call 911 we didn’t call for any help. They replied we’re just curious we don’t see mules around here too often. One officer said we can offer you resources. The Mules said if we need help we will call you and be glad to get it.
Then the questions started coming and we did respond with we don’t answer questions. They wanted to know where we were coming from, where we were going, do we live around here, how long have you been in the area. We replied to all their questions with we don’t answer questions.
They seem to have determined no progress was going to be made. So they left. So the Mules continued on their way walking just walking carrying no weapons. Living as all monks of the outside do one day at a time and doing nothing else.
Our journey has been on pause in Kern County, California, as we rest and repair gear. As we wait, the Mules have been invited guests on private property of a long-time friend Lori Ann Wiley. On November 24, 2025, something unexpected happened that reminded us how fragile the right to live freely and traveling by horse can be.
The Visit from Animal Control While I was on the driveway sorting through my pack gear, a Kern County Animal Control vehicle pulled up. Officer B. Tipton, Badge #46, approached me and asked if the mule belonged to me. I said yes. He explained that neighbors had called, concerned the mule had no shelter.
Temperature on November 24, 2025 at the Mules current location.
I was surprised. Rosie doesn’t need shelter—she’s fine. The officer insisted that Kern County law requires horses to have shelter from the elements. I’m thinking, we’re in clear sunny Bakersfield with mild temperatures. Rosie has grown her thick winter coat. I sleep outside in the same weather temperature as Rosie and I don’t have a fur coat.
Officer Tipton in his Kern County Animal Control vehicle writing citations to impound Rosie.
Officer Tipton went back to his truck to write a citation. He exited his truck, walked onto the private property to post the citation on the front door, and told me I had two days to provide shelter for my mule Rosie, or she would be impounded.
The Notification After he left, I took a photo of the yellow piece of paper from Kern County Animal Services.
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SEIZE ANIMALActivity #25-110122 Date 11/24/25 Time: 12:28pm Pursuant to Penal Code sections 597.1(a), 597.1(b), and 597.1(f), Kern County Animal Services intends to seize the animal(s) as described below on 11/26/25.
Animal(s) (Description including special markings, collar, forms of identification, license, microship, ID): Brown mule
This animal will be seized because: PC 597(b) and KC Ord 7.08.110(F)
Officer Tipton, Badge #46
The owner, person authorized to keep the animal, or agent must contact Kern County Animal Services within 2 business days of the notice date or all animals on the property will be seized.
The cost for care and treatment of the animal seized are the responsibility of the owner. No animal will be returned until all charges are paid. Failure to request or attend a scheduled hearing on all animals seized shall result in the liability for all charges and may result in the relinquishment of ownership.
He also posted a yellow paper titled NOTICE TO COMPLY paper that was checked “INADEQUATE/NO SHELTER” with written remarks.
“Mule is required to have shelter and failure to provide shelter will result in impound of the animal and criminal charges.” A reinspection will be made on 11/26/25. Failure to correct may result in legal action and/or your animal may be impounded. Please contact us if you have any questions. Officer Tipton, Badge #46.
Since the Mules had only two days to respond to the NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SEIZE ANIMAL, the Mules had to respond. Lori, savvy with the law, researched the matter and sent emails to Kern County Animal Services and the Kern County Board of Supervisors.
On Tuesday, November 26, 2025, the Mules walked 3.5 miles (about 2 hours) to Kern County Animal Services to deliver our response to their charge to Nick Cullen, the Director of Kern County Animal Services. We called in advance to notify them that we were going there. After waiting for about 15 minutes, Director Cullen finally came out and said that our issue had been abated and that our mule would not be seized. We requested this in writing and he gave us a document stating “Compliance Verified; Situation Abated.”
He pointed out on the document the Memo section on what the person was complaining about: “BARKING DOG/COMPLAINT FORM…REASON FOR COMPLAINT – MULE ABUSE/NEGLECT” and said it was in the “animal care ordinances.” As well, he provided the additional pages below on Animal Services Requirements with 7.08.110 F highlighted “All persons shall provide proper shelter and protection from the weather for all animals at all times.”
Kern County Animal Services Activity Card/Complaint
Image 1 of 6
Kern County Animal Services Activity Card/Complaint
We said that it doesn’t apply to us since the ordinance applies to an animal that is sick or in extreme weather conditions. We also told him that before a complaint is acted upon, it should be investigated, and there was no investigation.
Director Cullen said, “To be honest with you, if you read that law, it’s vague. And, if you provide (shelter, they’ll still stand outside). We did abate it and you got proof of that.”
We then left Kern County Animal Services shortly after 4pm, and walked two hours back to where we are staying. Attending to this situation took up three days time and mental stress for myself and my host family. The Monk lost three days needed to work on our gear.
Challenging the ILLEGAL Citation
We had one day to contest and research the law as the threat to seize Rosie was in two days. [Note: The Mules thank Lori for her work in helping with the research, writing the letter in support of us, and accompanying the Mules in the visit to Kern County Animal Services.]
California Penal Code 597(b) is the primary statute used by law enforcement, including Kern County Animal Services, to address animal neglect and cruelty.
California Penal Code 597(b) verbiage.
Kern County Ordinance 7.08.110(F) states: All persons shall provide proper shelter and protection from the weather for all animals at all times. This includes, but is not limited to, shade to protect animals from the direct rays of the sun and prevent overheating with care given to proportion of animal and positioning to provide maximum protection; flooring or platforms raised off the ground, of suitable size to accommodate the animal and allow for retention of body heat. When animals are housed outdoors when the mean temperature is forty-five (45) degrees Fahrenheit or below or is eighty (80) degrees Fahrenheit or above, animals shall be so acclimated.
“A Guide: Minimum Standards of Horse Care in the State of California (February 2023) by the University of California, Davis – School of Veterinary Medicine – Center for Equine Health (link), Shelter (pages 27-31): “Shelter in the form of a structure should be available for horses in cases of prolonged extreme weather conditions (below freezing temperatures, excessively high temperatures and/or humidity, high winds, excessive rainfall), regardless of the horses’ age, breed or body condition. However, any horse that shows physical deterioration, loss of body condition or weight, or failure to adapt to the weather conditions (weight loss, lethargy, anorexia, wasting) must be provided with shelter adequate to stabilize their body condition without severe loss of weight, injury or illness.“
Shelter requirements apply to confined animals or those exposed to extreme weather. Rosie wasn’t confined, nor was she suffering from freezing temperatures, high heat, or dangerous winds. She is healthy, grazing daily, with natural windbreaks and shade from a mature tree. When Officer Tipton wrote us up for abuse and neglect, the temperature was 67F, and Rosie had access to water next to her.
Rosie has grown a thick winter coat, which she will shed when temperatures warm up in late spring.
What “In Transit” Means Being “in transit” means traveling from one place to another. For the 3 Mules, this is a way of life. I have lived outside with mules for over 42 years, and we deal with the weather by going North in the summer and South in the winter. We don’t use a barn nor do we pull one behind us to jump inside when the weather gets bad. For Kern County to have Ordinance 7.08.110(F) “All persons shall provide proper shelter and protection from the weather for all animals at all times” is RIDICULOUS!!! The Mules are outside all day every day walking. How does one walk and move with an animal with a shelter over us at all times?
Discrepancy in Kern County case report The Activity Card /Abatement that Director Cullen handed back to me has an offense shown different than what he handed me the previous day. On the Activity Card dated 11/25, it states “OWNER/RESTRAINT – MULE TIED ON SHORT RESTRAINT TO FENCE.” No where on this Activity Card talks about shelter PC 597(b) or Kern County Ordinance 7.08.110(F).
What’s long and what’s short is a matter of opinion. I took video while Tipton was in his truck writing up the Seize Order that shows Rosie on a 20+ foot rope with plenty of room to safely move about and with a bucket of water. Rosie was tied to the fence because I was on the driveway in the process of packing her up with the gear that I have been repairing and bring her on a walk to test the gear on her.
The Bigger Picture This wasn’t the first time we’ve received notices or threats. Each time, the matter has been resolved with explanation and evidence. The complaint that Kern County Animal Services received from a “concerned citizen” was of “Mule Abuse/Neglect.” Rosie shows no signs of distress, weight loss, or illness. In fact, the officer himself acknowledged that Rosie is in great shape.
So if Rosie “is in great shape” why didn’t the officer move on and go away, instead of issuing a notice to SEIZE THE ANIMAL. He should have just looked the situation over and left. Instead, Kern County Animal Control Officer Tipton was asserting his power to harass me and illegally seize my mule.
The issue highlights a growing tension: more laws are being created that restrict the right to move freely in the way we choose. For us, living outside with the mules isn’t neglect—it’s a centuries-old way of life.
Conclusion The Mules remains happy, healthy, and in transit—just as we have been for decades. The citation was abated, but the encounter is a reminder of how important it is for all citizens, living in the United States of America, to defend the freedom to live simply, peacefully, and legally on the open road.
The Mules believe the above documented experience with California’s animal control laws clearly demonstrates a hidden agenda. The Megatropolis is after all the space for its buildings and machines. It has no intention of sharing it with other modes of living. This is a threat to all those who love and cherish the ages old sacred relationship between human being and horse. Horse ownership requires a certain amount of space that the Megatroplis needs and wants. The Megatropolis is plotting and scheming to destroy this sacred relationship between man and horse. To repeat myself, this experience that the 3 Mules just had with animal control clearly demonstrates the Megatropolis’ real intentions in passing these laws that are vague and subject to a wide range of interpretation.
These two photos on the left depict a typical place a person stopping for the night, traveling whether by horse, bicycle or foot would look like using public space for no more than a period of 24 hours. These pictures show a stark difference between a homeless encampment that can be there for weeks, months, years, versus a persons traveling using their own power at their own speed.
On June 12, 2025 Mules sent San Jose Mayor Mahan the following letter. (We also sent the email to San Mateo Mayor Fung but did not receive a response back. Mayor Mahan’s office sent back a response to that letter. We welcome you to read it. The Mules certainly did. This letter seems to be to us the mules a long drawn out attempt to justify this law passed by San Jose to deal with the consequences of so-called homeless encampments. But nowhere in their letter responding to our letter was there any mention or acknowledgment that the Mules or anybody else traveling under their own power in own speed how they choose when they choose. Stopping for no more than a period of 24 hours on public land to spend the night would not be subject to the requirements and consequences of this law.
To Mayor Mahan and Mayor Fung:
I recently read a news article that your cities recently passed an ordinance to arrest people if they refuse offers of shelter or stop to sleep or rest outside in public spaces. In the past, I’ve stopped at San Jose City Hall and Millbrae City Hall to hand deliver my letter requesting you to stop the use of California Penal Code 647(e) and any municipal code of similar nature that criminalizes the nomadic lifestyle, which has been practiced for all of human history and is deeply rooted in American tradition, practiced by many up to this day.
We, the Mules, live a lifestyle of motion, never staying on public land for more than a night, always less than 24 hours. We walk, never using an automobile, leading my pack mule, carrying all my simple belongings: a one-person tent, a sleeping bag, a one-burner camp stove, a cooking pot, food, clothes, and very little else. The Mules and myself have been wandering around the Western United States for over 40 years and up and down the state of California for 12 years, going from city to city, town to town never once committing any of the offenses PC 647(e) or your municipal code was written then passed to address (i.e., the blight caused by long-term tent encampments).
The 3 Mule Journey does not willingly engage in the living inside lifestyle, whether it be in a house, jail, barracks, etc. Instead, the Mules practice a nomadic lifestyle living outside with respect and in harmony with all that surrounds us.
We are supported by the spiritual energy that we gather from everybody and everything that surrounds us as we walk from town to town, city to city. The energy we gather then harbors and awaits to materialize into whatever we need as we pursue our journey. This is the way of this place for those who travel and live (non-motorized traveling) in service to it. The 3 Mules Journey spreads the message of living harmoniously with the earth. This way of life is a commitment to protecting the environment and living in tune with the Natural World, one step at a time.
We are deeply concerned that using your city ordinance that criminalizes a lone traveler such as the 3 Mules or anyone else traveling in a similar way and are not committing any of the abuses that your ordinance was passed to prevent is a criminal act in and of itself. Intended or unintended, it will also reduce access and use of the public space to all citizens. To travel under their own power and their own speed, how they choose, when they choose, whether living outside as the 3 Mules do, or inside houses and tents as most people do.
When my mule and I walk through the Bay Area again as we head north in the summer and pass through again in the fall as we head south for the winter, will we be forcibly stopped by police forcing us to shelter when we obviously have no need of it? Then be arrested on a trespassing charge for refusing three times to accept that help? If your city does arrest the Mules, your city will surely face a lawsuit infused with the energy of all the people who follow the Three Mule Journey over the 12 years we have traveled up and down north and south throughout the state of California.
I urge you to reconsider the enforcement of codes that will criminalize a lone traveler, whether traveling by horse, bicycle, foot, or any other means under their own power and speed. I look forward to your response to bring any codes having a similar effect to a more accurate and clear condition on the issues it was meant to address.
Sincerely,
The Mules
The Mayor’s Office Response to our letter
On June 16, 2025, the Mules received the following response back from the City of San Jose Mayor’s Office. This letter seems to be to us the Mules a long drawn out attempt to justify this law passed by San Jose to deal with the consequences of so-called homeless encampments. But nowhere in their letter responding to our letter was there any mention or acknowledgment that the Mules or anybody else traveling under their own power in own speed how they choose when they choose. Stopping for no more than a period of 24 hours on public land to spend the night would not be subject to the requirements and consequences of this law.
Hi John,
Thank you for contacting Mayor Matt’s office. We appreciate your engagement and want to take this opportunity to clarify several important points about the Mayor’s Responsibility to Shelter proposal, especially in light of recent conversations and the spread of misinformation.
This proposal has sparked strong reactions because it’s bold, because it breaks with the status quo, and because it reintroduces something long missing from our homelessness strategy: accountability. That accountability runs both ways—government has a responsibility to offer shelter and care, and individuals have a responsibility to use it when it’s available.
The Mayor’s Responsibility to Shelter proposal stands in stark contrast to more punitive measures being adopted elsewhere. Just this week, Governor Gavin Newsom called on cities across California to ban homeless encampments on public property by introducing a model ordinance aimed at clearing such encampments. And in Fremont, leaders have already enacted one of the state’s most aggressive anti-camping bans—prohibiting tents and sleeping in most public areas, without first requiring offers of shelter.
San José is charting a more humane and effective path. Our approach emphasizes compassionate intervention and repeated offers of shelter, paired with reasonable expectations that those offers be accepted.
But with strong ideas come strong reactions — and unfortunately, a fair amount of misconception. So let’s separate myth from fact:
MYTH: This proposal criminalizes poverty and homelessness.
FACT: It’s the exact opposite – this proposal holds people accountable for getting out of homelessness. It’s focused on engaging and intervening when people repeatedly show that they are unwilling or unable to accept a hand up and out of homelessness.
MYTH: This proposal will put homeless people in jail.
FACT: In Santa Clara County, people do not serve jail sentences for trespassing or most other low-level misdemeanors, which our Sheriff recently confirmed. But we can use repeat, non-violent misdemeanor charges to work with the Mental Health and Drug Courts to help compel people to engage in treatment.
MYTH: Our shelters are dangerous, chaotic places that have lots of arbitrary rules and are places where no one wants to be.
FACT: We’ve specifically designed our interim housing sites to be low-barrier. They are safe and dignified, with mostly private rooms with doors that lock and en-suite bathrooms. We allow people to bring their partner, pets, and possessions. We don’t have a curfew and we don’t kick people out after a predetermined number of days or months. We have separate sites for families with children.There’s a reason our sites run at nearly 95% occupancy and are effective at graduating people into more permanent housing solutions. People are much safer when they choose to come indoors than when they decide to stay on the streets.
This initiative is not about jail or punishment. It’s about intervention — reaching the most vulnerable people with repeated offers of shelter, care, and ultimately, treatment if they cannot accept help on their own.
The City’s current four-part implementation plan includes:
Step one is updating our Code of Conduct to reflect that when shelter is offered, we expect people to accept it. We know there is a portion of our homeless population that is service-resistant. The percentage fluctuates by encampment, but we often find one-fifth to one-third of people who reject offers of shelter. And to these folks, we’re making it clear: if there is a place available, we expect it to be used. This is about compassion paired with accountability — recognizing that a path off the streets is both a right and a responsibility.
Step twois about bringing our outreach teams in house. By centralizing these services within our Housing Department, we can improve efficiency, lower costs, and ensure that each person has a detailed case file. This means better data monitoring, more effective follow-up, and a stronger ability to track individual progress. Outreach will be smarter, more connected, and more accountable.
Step three is the creation of a Neighborhood Quality of Life Unit within the San José Police Department, which was a proposal in the March Budget Message. This dedicated team will work hand-in-hand with our Housing Department to prioritize enforcement of the muni code based on real-time data. Their role will be to maintain public safety and enforce the updated Code of Conduct and quality of life crimes, whether committed by housed or unhoused residents.
Step four is working with the County to find places where our officers can bring people directly to access support services after three refusals of shelter – like the Mission St Recovery Center. We know that many of our homeless neighbors are struggling with addiction or mental health challenges that make it harder for them to make a rational decision about their own well-being. This partnership would allow us to connect them with treatment faster and more effectively.
This isn’t about giving up on people. It’s about refusing to let them suffer. When someone repeatedly refuses shelter because they’re struggling with an addiction or untreated mental illness that is keeping them from making a rational decision about their own well-being, the City has reached its limit in the help it can provide. The County, as the provider of health and human services, must step in to provide the appropriate services, resources, and treatment. In this scenario, an arrest would get someone into the care of the County where they could receive help through a diversion program.
The alternative – letting someone languish on our streets – doesn’t help anyone. Over 200 people died on our streets last year. Our children don’t feel safe walking to school, our small businesses are being harmed, and our parks and creeks are polluted with trash and biowaste. We spend tens of millions of tax-payer dollars every year just managing the impacts of encampments.
Unlike Governor Newsom’s proposal and Fremont’s encampment ban which emphasize enforcement first, San José is charting a middle path — one grounded in dignity, compassion, and shared responsibility. The Mayor’s proposed Responsibility to Shelter initiative is designed to be both compassionate and effective, focusing on providing shelter and services before considering enforcement. This approach ensures that we address the needs of our unhoused neighbors while maintaining public health and safety.
Thank you again for connecting with our office.
Best,
Leilani
Neighborhood Outreach team
The Mule’s Conclusion
A citizen in America a free country has the absolute right to freely travel move from one place to another how they choose when they choose and responsibility to do just that. This law as it has been crafted without a doubt will step out in the way and say to those who choose a life that nurtures and benefits the soul rather than the pocketbook . No go no further we’ve offered you help three times you’ve refused get off your horse get off your bike take off your backpack you’re going to jail. So the above being understood the city council and mayor of San Jose must remove the ambiguity in this law and bring clarity to it. And clearly state the stark and absolute difference between a person traveling and a person living within an encampment.
These two photos on the left of the lone traveler, traveling whether by horse, bicycle or foot using public space no more than a period of 24 hours to rest for the night, shows the stark contrast with a homeless encampment who is there with lots of belongings for more than 24 hours.
So those who are charged to enforce this homeless enchantment law will not be confused as to the stark difference between an homeless encampment and American citizens traveling freely how they choose when they choose a practice that has been revered throughout American history and still is to this day.
The Mules believe a law written with ambiguity is no accident. Ambiguity allows opinion to step up and push away facts. In my opinion you’re homeless I’ve offered you help three times you’ve refused. Get off your horse your bike put down your backpack you’re going to jail.
DEFINITION AMBIGUITY: the quality of being open to more than one interpretation, inexactness
