Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceAs expected, the California Coastal Commission unanimously decided last week to give the green light to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s plans to end the failed sea otter translocation program — which was designed to transfer otters who swam south of Point Conception to San Nicolas Island — and extend protections for the threatened species to the entire Southern California coast.
As has happened at every step of the process, commercial fishermen, who are worried that an expanding otter population will decimate the shellfish industry, argued vehemently against the end of the program, but the commission sided with the feds. Meanwhile, a bill by Rep. Elton Gallegly to thwart the end of the program in order to help those fishermen lingers as an addendum to a defense bill currently moving through Congress.
Previous Month
Comments
Gotta love it. Only in California are the egos big enough to think they can tell the ocean creatures where to swim. How much taxpayer money was wasted on THIS boondoggle. How much longterm pension obligation did the state accrue on these employees....Bah... Humbug.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But the boondoggle must be a great idea because the wise old Congressman Gallegly wants to continue the program, as reported in this same article.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2012 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
^^^
My question is who were those "egos"?
As I understand it, the relocation program's original goal was to re-establish the decimated otter population in southern waters near San Nicolas Island.
At the same time, there was some kind of separate quid-pro-quo agreement to create the "no otter zone". According to the articles below, the beneficiaries of that "compromise" were the oil industry, the Defense Department, and the commerical shellfish industry. Were they the "egos"?:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_otter
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
Regarding the original goals of the relocation program (not related to the "no otter zone compromise") as is always the case with applied science, I think you can always learn/benefit from mistakes too. It sounds like USFW realized this long ago, but other interests wanted to keep the "no otter zone" going.
Someone please correct if I got this wrong.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2012 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No otter state than California would think of this. It's otterly absurd. Next thing you know they will be relocating them to East Beach.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2012 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That would be otterly cool!
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2012 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's barely room for five dolphins on East Beach, that's otter insanity.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2012 at 1:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The "egos" were those that thought that they could control where in the sea the animals go. Liberal, conservative, irrelevant.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)