Once Again, The Department of DUH
Few months ago, the state Fish and Game Commission announced they were taking testimony to see how everyone feels about hunting black bears in the County. There were a flurry of letters-to-the-editors encouraging folks to send in their public comment. Then, in today’s Tribune, the headline: “Questions doom bear hunt for 2009.” Writes David Sneed, “The department had recommended allowing bear hunting in the county for the first time. It also recommended eliminating a limit to the number of bears that can be taken statewide in a season.
“Both changes generated significant public opposition. . . . .” and then comes this howler: “The main criticism was that the state lacked the data necessary to justify a hunt.”
Turns out that “the department based its initial recommendation to allow a hunt on the number of nuisance complaints the agency received, the number of bears hit by cars and the use of baited scent stations. Bear numbers in San Luis Obispo County appear to be very similar to the numbers in Santa Barbara County, where the state already allows hunting, biologist said.”
The numbers “appear” to be similar? Are based on nuisance complaints? (Are the nuisance complaints worse in one particular area over another? If so, why open the entire county and/or state to unlimited hunting when a limited focus “culling” would likely take care of the “nuisance” problem?) Well, apparently on “appearance” and the basis of “nuisance,” the proposal was that not only would hunting commence, but there would be no limit to the number of bears you can kill.
Well, this sure didn’t make much sense to me. I mean, before you literally make it totally open season on bears (No Limit! Git Yer AK-47s! Kill ever’ damned bear inna county! Inna State! Call out the dawgs! Aw, heck with the dawgs, helicopter shoots, anyone?), shouldn’t you make sure bears really are a problem in the county? Like, people wake up in the middle of the night to find bears snuffling down the hallway. Trip over the damned things on the way to the bathroom? Open the kitchen cabinet and what falls out? Right, a doggone bear!
That way you’d at least know you’ve got a real state-wide or county-wide problem, not just a local, perhaps seasonal problem caused by inappropriate urban/rural interfaces, weather changes (drought, lack of food,), territory changes, the natural up and down of cycles of boom and bust population numbers, & etc. And if it’s simply a localized problem, apply a limited, local culling operation rather than a no-limit open season, all of which should be based on the best possible data, not merely “appearances.”
Well, for now, bears will shuffle around the county in peace and the Fish and Wildlife Commissioners will re-visit the issue next year. Maybe during that time, somebody will come up with some better data so before the guns start blazing folks will have a better idea of why they’re killing whatever it is they’re killing and have a pretty good handle on what the consequences of that kill-quota will have on all the other variables in a reasonably balanced ecosystem.
And maybe somebody will come up with an education program: What To Do When A Bear Falls Out Of Your Refrigerator At 3 a.m. and Other Tips For Living With Wildlife When You Build Your Dream Home In The “Country” And Then Get Shocked – SHOCKED – When The Damned Raccoons, Deer, Possums, Feral Cats, Your Neighbor’s Garbage Can Raiding Dog, Bobcats, Mountain Lions and Coyotes All Show Up To Eat Your Cat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Well, bears in MontaƱa de Oro would explain why there have been raccoons in my back yard in the last few nights.
Seriously, the job of estimating animal abundance is not easy and it is highly unlikely that the estimated counts would be based on complaints. Fish and Game could probably be asked to explain their methodology for estimating bear counts if you really care.
Maybe you should find out if that is what they've done before you start suggesting that decisions are being made on appearances instead of the best possible data.
Furthermore, we must wonder what sort of data would be sufficient to justify a hunt. Is it a particular number of bears per acre? Bears per acre in suburban locations? Exurban locations?
Lastly, the statement "Bear numbers in San Luis Obispo County appear to be very similar to the numbers in Santa Barbara County" is worth considering. What does that mean in the context that the estimated bear counts have a margin of error. If I tell you that the IQs of people in prisons and out of prisons "appear to be very similar" because they are within a margin of error from each other it begs the question of what that margin of error is. If it is a +/- 20%, you could have very dissimilar IQs in and out of prison.
Let's not forget F & W's decision to continue the hunting of Black Brant right next to the estuary. A huge audience of protesters and a few hunters testified, as I recall. All our protests came to naught on that one, so I guess we should be very grateful for this.
Newsflash:
Over at sewerwatch, Ron deleted another one of my comments and added a rumor and some speculation based on the rumor.
What else is new?
The funny thing is this ... he seems to allow the comments from everyone else but from me. I guess it is because he is tired of my directly challenging him on whether his opinion matches up with the facts. I suspect that if anyone else bothers posting over there and directly challenges Ron, he'll eventually accuse them of taking orders from Pandora or from me and they too will be banned.
I love it when people ban free speech or try to censor others ... it really clarifies the question of who is afraid to be challenged and who has the facts on their side.
We really return a few dozen Grizzly Bears to roam around "The Valley of the Bears"... They were here first and probably created the all the darned nitrate pollution under our magic sand...
Why don't we set them free in Clark Canyon first and then at Tri-W... In a short time, we wouldn't have a need for a sewer... Wouldn't that satisfy all those who don't want any sewer... and would sure slow down the building...
Yup, let's bring back the Bears to the Valley of the Bears...!!!
You are a fool indeed if you expect sensible things from the F&W.
Let's take the rules on take for the Canary Rockfish as an example.
It is illegal to take a canary rockfish in California,
It was determined through very questionable data that the fish was in danger, in fact in SLO county there was a study by Cal Poly that frankly contradicted what the F&W decreed but because that study wasn't a F&W controlled study and F&W didn't have the resources to do a study, that study was ignored, OK, no big deal you may think.
Well if you know anything about fishing there is no way to insure that a Canary Rockfish wont take your bait and there is no way for an angler to know he or she has caught a Canary Rockfish until it's reeled in.
The result of this ban was that any Canary Rockfish caught was discarded in the water after landing.
Reeling in ANY rockfish from more than say 33 feet almost always kills the fish, so release was not really a good option, There were lots of ideas by local fishermen like counting a Canary as two fish ect. F&W was deaf.
Result, lots of bird and seal food and wasted fish.
F&W is a bureaucracy just like any other (RWQCB?)
Alon Perlman said...
Los Osos Community Advisory Council (of which I am a member)will discuss a response on Thursday
LOCAC Meeting April 23, 2009
The Los Osos Community Advisory Council will hold its regular April meeting on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 7PM at the South Bay Community Center in Los Osos.
"The agenda items will include a discussion of the proposed expansion of bear hunting into San Luis Obispo and the proposal that LOCAC go on record as officially opposing these changes."
LOCAC
Mike.
If a bear discharges nitrates in the Elfin forest and no one is there to record it, did it really happen?
Alon, Depends on if the bear farted or not.
If it farted, it contributed to global warming and the scientist in Antarctica will get an extra dose of skin cancer.
The best way to ensure the survival of bears is to eat them, where would the lowly cow be if it wasn't delicious?
Mikey,
I have trouble trying to figure out if you're the sarcastic left-leaning conservative and me the bitter right-leaning liberal or the other way around.
Sharkey, seems our paradigm shifts oh-so slightly.
A shifting target is seldom bullseyed.
I get a little confused also... If I can ever learn to type, spell and edit on the fly, I'd try to be more consistent.... I used to hunt and fish all over SLO County... never caught a bear or shot a canary fish though... and Gene Needham never caught me either...
Seriously though, there are very, very few bears in all of SLO County and I have a hard time recalling when one made it down Questa Grade into SLO Town... without getting run over... When was the last time a bear was reported in a backyard in Atascadero or Paso or S.Margarita... There may be a few left along the coast toward Big Sewer or east where the wild pigs run... It would not have surprised me if there was to have been an allowed hunt to have seen a lottery style drawing for the very few licenses to be written... and if someone really wants a bear, then they wouldn't want a scranny coastal black bear... Alaska and Montana is where I'd go if I really wanted a bear... I'd be a lot more concerned about the Puma's we have along all of the coastal hills...including Montana de Oro... but I jog with a slower partner these days, so I'm safe...
I am a bit surprised by all the attention just the idea of possibly allowing a bear hunt received, but maybe it was because some extremist group badgered the F&G long enough that they put the proposal out there for conversation... But that idea is long dead and there must be more important issues for our own local crazies to wring their hands over... Tri-W Escargo anyone...?????
P.S. I've eaten bear, its outstanding.
P.P.S. There is no such thing as wild pigs or wild horses.
They are all feral.
Sorry Mike Green... Last pig I took in Montery County, was pretty darn wild to me...!!! ..and I was only hunting deer when the darn pig attacked me... self defense your honor...!!!
I didn't particularily like bear, but it beats feral pig...
P.P.P.S.
Had (feral) pig its wonderful, unfortunately horse was declared illegal for homo sapiens, only dogs get to eat them in California.
Maybe in France.
Rattlesnake, now that's just darn nasty, Taste like snake, not chicken.
Mike, now there is a conundrum, Is it illegal for a feral pig to eat a homo sapiens?
Would they condemn the pig to capital punishment?
I wonder if PETA would hold candle light vigils.
The pig didn't know it was against the law, honest!
I believe a true naturalist sees the reality we have fostered on ourselves, all kidding aside, we need to look at what is possible to keep our environment healthy enough to support the greatest amount of species variability, the best stew has the most ingredients.
And it tastes better too.
Hi All,
As Ron Crawford has a tendency to delete my (and SharInlets) posts form his blog site, I have posted it here too. Enjoy!
*********
As posted on SewerWatch:
Ron,
YOU BLOGGED:
"So, let me see if I have your guys' argument straight:
If Prohibition Zone residents were to take the county's three years and $6 million worth of careful analysis, and simply toss it out the window, and instead, do what 90-percent (at least) of your town doesn't want, and build a "sewer-park" at the Tri-W site, the project would be better, cheaper, and faster."
RESPONSE:
That's PARTIALLY correct.
The forces driving the project back into the boundaries of the CSD....maybe even Tri-W, is NOT the County or the PZ property owners.
THE DRIVING FORCES that are shaping what the County does are the governmental agencies that providing permits that the County MUST GET to build a project
Regardless of the analysis that the County has done, or the results of the recent survey, the CCC (the Mother of all permitting agencies) has made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the County Plan does not meet the SLO-LCP or State laws regarding the conversion of AG land to other, growth inducing uses. The reason is very simple...the County DOES HAVE SITING ALTERNATIVES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF AG LAND....specifically there are urban parcels that may be used (such as Tri-W). No matter how hard the County tries, it will not convince the CCC or the State to allow the conversion of AG land when other non-ag sites are available; even if those in-town non-ag sites are POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR.
Further, IF the County insists on using Ag land, the CCC will REQUIRE two items that are politically impossible to meet (hence never get a CDP for the project):
1. The CCC will require the formation of an AG LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM to prevent growth-inducing forces of a WWTP by forcing large parcel private property owners to give up control of their property development rights ...i.e. essentially codify the lands use as AG forever. The County (and the PZ property owners) will have to pay the parcel owners compensation for giving up their development rights; which is a VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE proposition.
2. The CCC will require that an out-of-town site be brought into the boundaries of the LOCSD.
To do so, the property owners out of town will have a public election to decide IF they want to be absorbed by the CSD or not. The likelihood of such an election being successful is zero.
Why would any property owner want to be forced into a bankrupted CSD; and have the pleasure of letting a WWTF be located in their area?. Ain’t' going to happen.
So Ron, it boils down to the fact that the County, regardless of all their analysis, cannot avoid the codes of their own LCP or the States clear policy that the conversion of Ag land to non-ag uses is only allowed if NO OTHER NON-AG LAND SITING ALTERNATIVES EXIST.
-R
s posted on Rons's blog:
Richard and the rest of you sewergeeks,
Go on over to:
http://uncoveredslo.com/
There is an appropriate article for your off-topic posts... enjoy
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the link. I have been reading Uncoveredslo for some time.
Regarding the lead story about folks making (again) unsubstantiated allegations about past LOCSD actions while demanding action by the DA.......so what?
Also, I doubt Supervisor Mechem appreciates the article's insinuation that he supports the activities of those making the accusations.
Now I like a good thriller as much any the next guy; however, the 'evidence' these folks presented to the DA was not factual evidence at all, just suspicion and puffery. The issues and past CSD actions they are 'reporting' are not new; have been investigated in the past; and found not to be improper or illegal either.
IF there had been any VALID legal basis to pursue a lawsuit by the post recall CSD against past CSD staff and/or board members, such a lawsuit would have been prosecuted years ago.
Regardless of the excuse that the CSD has not litigated their lawsuit 'due to the Bankruptcy', the CSD has the legal right to pursue any lawsuit if they desire. The US Bankruptcy Court would allow the CSD to proceed with the lawsuit if they wanted to; as the CSD has not been denied doing so in other cases (such as the PZLDF lawsuit). In reality, the CSD has not proceeded to litigation as their case is a loser. Frankly, they keep the lawsuit in bankruptcy strictly for political reasons....much better (and easier) for those making the allegations to leave the issues and allegations hanging out there unresolved (and part of their political arsenal of insinuation to discredit others) than actually having to prove their case judicially under the law.
-R
PS: Yes, my last post is off topic. I apologize for that.
Oh Yeah...this is a post on Sewerwatch that Ron will probably delete too. Again, sorry for being off topic.
***********
Ron,
YOU BLOGGED:
"CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."
-- Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance, Current"
RESPONSE:
BINGO!
You hit the nail on the head....ALL OF LOS OSOS and the surrounding area is ESH, including every piece of urban land and AG land; and heavily salted with culturally significance attributes too. No site is free of issues.
However, the CCC and the CZLUO holds existing AG land as more sensitive and in need of preservation than ESH.
Ag land cannot be replaced without destroying ESH...or converting urban land back to Ag land. As ALL land in Los Osos is considered ESH (either significant or minor), it is UNAVOIDABLE NOT TO DISTURB ESH when developing anything. But that does not mean that development is not allowed...just that when you develop you must take into account the ESH being disturbed and MITIGATE FOR its LOSS / DISTURBANCE.
The CCC has made it clear that they would rather see ESH disturbed and mitigated to achieve the goal of clean water (THE major coastal resource) than to have AG land converted to other growth-inducing uses. This belief is a CORE CCC POLICY backed by State legislation; and has long as it is they will not allow the County to use AG land either for a WWTF treatment site or for waste water disposal AS LONG AS THERE ARE NON AG LAND SITES AVAILABLE FOR BOTH TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL.
The County will not be able to factually demonstrate to the CCC that they do not have other viable alternative site available per CZLUO Section 23.08.288d; hence the County out-of-town WWTP on AG lands will never get a Coastal Development Permit from the CCC.
Now Ron, if you want to continue to be not relevant to what is happening here in Los Osos by sticking by your 'it's all Pandora's fault...and her little dog too' fantasy, be my guest. What is occurring has nothing to do with Pandora or 'behavior-based marketing'. But remember...reality is far more fascinating than wishful thinking.
-R
Post a Comment