how sad that EPIC doesn't have the same attitude towards the barred owl....
For as long as I've live in Humboldt County the food served at this establishment has been unrecognizable to an Italian palate. Poorly cooked seafood risotto covered in cheep domestic Parmesan cheese and over cooked pasta, my point to those journalists covering the local food scene it that they do an establishment no favors when they cover for mediocre food.
...and on their web page devoted to the northern spotted owl EPIC can't even be bothered to tell their acolytes that according to the USFWS barred owls are currently a far bigger threat to NSOs than logging.
Another strike against radical environmental activism and the weasel biologist a that support them.
Not impressed with the Bayfront and in questioning how well this eatery is doing I would be worried that this new proposed eatery is more of the same.
Although the stupidity of comparing northern California to the Greater Yellowstone Complex in discussing wolf ecology speaks for it self, the notion of estimated tourist dollars is interesting. The same was said concerning Headwaters Forest and the second Redwood Park take. Sure enough, the Redwoods are a significant source of tourist income, but ecological value aside, the Headwaters Forest seems to have cost the community economy more than it has contributed. As far as the economic contribution of Redwood Park, a trip through Orick speaks for itself.
I submit that any tourist coming to the north coast to see wolves would be sorely disappointed as by all indications wolves were very rare in western part of the State. Having found no evidence of wolves in Humboldt County, one can be certain that wolves were rare in the Redwoods, if they existed at all.
Authorized as an Act of Congress, the Yellow Stone National Park wolf reintroduction is a perfect case study of “adaptive management” gone wrong. Although the goals and parameters could not have been better defined, x numbers of animals in a given area, predator/prey dynamics are cyclic, and in the absence of hunting, these overstocked parklands no doubt provided an early and unexpected boost to wolf populations.
Alas, feel good biology and the law of unintended consequences. Failing to take into account the possibility that populations would recover too fast, there seems to have been no existing plan how to deal with such a situation. Flocking to catch a glimpse of a wolf, visitor rates increased, and so did Park revenues; that ungulate populations in the park were plummeting was less of an issue. It was not until wolves started seeking prey outside the Park that the locals started to take notice.
“Wolves do not need wilderness or protected lands to thrive, but they do best and there are fewer wolf-human conflicts in large blocks of wildlands that are not used for intensive livestock production.” That is a quote from TWS official paper on wolf policy, but I challenge anyone to find an example where endangered species protection has been applied to a population of one.
It’s ironic that just as the USFWS has de-listed this species under federal law, Californian’s have listed it under their own endangered species act. A better-informed journalist would have noted that State listing differs significantly from federal listing in that it does not afford the same type of blanket protection against incidental take of individuals. Limited to animals within the population’s current range, I fail to see how anyone can argue that it should include the entire state. Whilst pro-and anti-wolf lawyers are gleefully rubbing their hands together, the losers will no doubt be California’s rural populations. Yuba, Glenn, Tehama, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties have already voted for succession, but they will not be the last.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
In Print This Week:
Mar 30, 2017
vol XXVIII issue 13
Past Lives of the Coral Sea
North Coast Journal
Website powered by Foundation