Ojai Wildlife League

June 11, 2010

To: Mr Jack Collins, Bureau of Reclamation, jwcollins@usbr.gov,

Re: Construction by Lake Casitas Municipal Water District of new six foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire tilted inward, along Santa Ana Rd. from Highway 150 to Lake Casitas Dam

It is our understanding that the Bureau of Reclamation is the agency acting as the landlord and property owner of Lake Casitas, including the land under and adjacent to the lake. It is also our understanding that lands under the umbrella of the Bureau of Reclamation are to be protected from development, thus implying they are to be left in a natural state, including the wildlife that live there. We understand that you have a final say on whether or not this fence can be built and therefore we address our concerns to you, especially in the face of having been overruled by the Lake Casitas Municipal Water Board at their meeting of May 28, 2010. .

The Ojai Wildlife league sees this fence as being in direct conflict with the Bureau of Reclamation’s stated purposes on behalf of the taxpayers. We feel that this fence will cause harm to local wildlife, especially larger animals, and could inadvertently cause a danger to motorists affected by disoriented wildlife attempting to get access to the lake.

These are open lands that house a myriad of wildlife who use this lake as a water source. As the water drains in from streams surrounding the lake, both above ground and underground, it becomes a primary source of water for wildlife in summer and fall as streams go dry.

Currently, the Lake Casitas Municipal Water Board are claiming that this fence will have no impact as they claim that wildlife can crawl through “some of the 18 inch culverts under the road or climb through thickets within the gullies that are too difficult to fence”. The board didn’t seem to know exactly how many of these culverts and thickets there were.

Clearly these few culverts and thickets do not meet the definition by Department of Fish and Game as wildlife corridors, which are miles wide, not inches wide. Especially when it is considered that this fence will create a solid high fence line all along Santa Ana road as it links up with pre-existing fences erected by Casitas and other private landowners.
This fence, if allowed to progress, will in effect be a wall that is miles long. There is also a question as to the legality of this type of fencing under the currant zoning laws in this county.

No environmental impact report was done concerning impact on wildlife:
“Director Kaiser questioned the current wildlife corridors and paths and asked if they were studied. Mr. Cole explained that specific studies on that were not conducted.” From hearing on May 28, 2010.

We need to ask ourselves what was and is the intent of the bureau when they created this watershed and lake for a water supply. Was it to provide recreational businesses for the profit of a small group of owners? Because we believe that the motivation behind this fence is to prevent people from entering the lake without paying fees.

They are claiming that they are concerned because someone allegedly tried to bring a boat in along some area which could pose a danger by bringing in the quagga mussel. However exactly where and when this occurred is unclear. And looking at the terrain, we doubt this could have happened. And “Trying to enter” and succeeding are two different things. There is so much activity and people that we doubt anyone could ever be successful at entering with a boat in this area.

Also there is a berm that runs along the side of the road, with a drop off of between one foot to almost four feet before the land becomes rough terrain. We feel this is a natural and effective deterrent and there is no need for any type of fencing.

Additional Concerns:

The Federal Government, through the arm of the Bureau of Reclamation, has given this for-profit partnership a gift–the gift of essentially free water, the gift of a very favorable 50 year lease of the land, the allowing of tremendous improvements which generate major cash, the allowing of major events, boating, fishing, camping, a water park for children, a fee for coming into the park, a fee for dogs etc. etc, and the many other cash opportunities that the lake has relentlessly pursued.

These activities seriously degrade the quality of the water being sold to the Ojai Valley community. The Lake Casitas Board continues to allow the use of lead sinkers by fishermen, which have been further adding to this degradation of the water.

As an active wildlife organization in the Ojai-Ventura area we believe that this is a travesty to the lands, wildlife and people that live in this area. We hope you will reject this plan, or at the very least require an environmental impact study and reconsideration of the type of fencing being proposed.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

For the Ojai Wildlife League:

Sue Williamson
Jean Marie Webster
Marty Fast
Suza Francina
Jodi Brandt

Cc: Casitas Municipal Water District Board of Directors
Ojai City Council Members
Steve Bennett, District 1 Supervisor, County of Ventura
The Ojai Valley Municipal Advisory Council
Ojai Valley News

Sierra Club Fights Inhumane Bear Hunting

The Sierra Club has filed a letter opposing a California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) proposal to expand the use of dogs by bear hunters.  If approved, the DFG proposal will increase the hounding of bears by dog packs, as well as expand black bear hunting into San Luis Obispo County and other areas of the state.  It will remove the current 1,700 season limit of bears “harvested”, and allow an unlimited number of bears to be killed by California hunters during bear season, which usually runs concurrently with deer hunting season.

The Sierra Club has called upon the Commission to adopt regulations that require dogs be in the physical control of hunters at all times, as required by the Fish and Game Code.

We strongly oppose uncontrolled hounding of bears, a practice which results in gruesome injuries to bears and dogs.  DFG regulations make it a crime to hunt cubs and mother bears.  The uncontrolled packs of hounds do not read or follow those rules. When a mother bear stands and fights to protect her clubs, dogs may be seriously injured or killed.

The DFG proposal will allow the use of GPS devices and tip-switches.  The tip switches signal the hunters that a bear has been treed.  The hunters follow the GPS signals to the dogs and shoot the terrified bear out of the tree.

Hounding places dogs, bears, and other forest animals, such as endangered species like the Pacific Fisher, at risk. The use of dogs to hunt bears is the favored method of bear poachers, legitimizing hounding will lead to more poaching.

Allowing dogs and bears to fight is illegal under the state’s animal cruelty laws. Californians should not get an exemption to these laws by buying a hunting license.

Richard J. Garcia, Sierra Club - CNRCC – Black Bear Task Force – Chair

This is the letter sent to FGC by a statewide coalition of groups, listed at the end.

Please don’t forget to write your letters to the CA Fish and Game Commission by April 15.  EVERY LETTER COUNTS.  Their email address is fgc@fgc.ca.gov

March 13, 2010

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

P.O. Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Via email: fgc@fgc.ca.gov, Director@dfg.ca.gov, eloft@dfg.ca.gov

Dear California Fish and Game Commission:

March 13, 2010

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

P.O. Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Via email: fgc@fgc.ca.gov, Director@dfg.ca.gov, eloft@dfg.ca.gov

Dear California Fish and Game Commission:

We, the undersigned organizations representing more than three million Californians,

oppose the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) proposals to expand

black bear hunting. The agency recently unveiled plans to: allow an unlimited number

of bears to be killed across California during the hunting season; permit the use of hightech

global positioning equipment and “tip switches” on hound collars to make it easy

to locate and kill a bear; open the first-ever bear hunting season in San Luis Obispo

county and expand the hunts in Modoc and Lassen counties; and significantly expand

the hound training season, allowing hounds to harass bears nearly all year long. We

urge you to reject these proposals because they are scientifically indefensible,

unnecessary, and environmentally harmful. Specifically, we contend the Commission

should oppose CDFG’s plans for the following reasons:

• The agency has not demonstrated any need for these regulatory changes other

than to placate hunting interests, nor does the CDFG provide sufficient

information to assess the detrimental effects these changes may have on bears.

According to CDFG data, the number of bears killed legally by hunters has steadily

increased well beyond the agency’s own 1,700 annual season limit. Yet, the CDFG

has yet to analyze how these dramatic increases have affected state and local bear

populations, behavior, social structure, reproduction, and cubs. Increasing the quota

or eliminating the cap altogether will further stress the state’s bear population and

put some local populations at risk.

There is no guarantee that expanding hunting into San Luis Obispo, Lassen, or

Modoc counties will not adversely impact the black bear population in those

counties. The CDFG has not conducted specific research in these counties to

determine the size, distribution, or demographics of the populations to assess

whether these local bear populations can withstand an increase in hunting activity.

• An expansion of bear hunting will place additional pressures on bears, who face a

host of threats from poaching, habitat alteration, human encroachment into wildlife

areas, aggressive government lethal control programs, and climate change.

• State wildlife officials have failed to assess the impacts of poaching. Illegal killing

of bears has increased world-wide, fueled by a booming market, for bear parts,

especially bear gallbladders used in traditional Asian medicine and bear paws,

considered a delicacy in soup. Bear gallbladders can go for $5,000 a pound.

Poaching of wildlife has become epidemic across the state. Violations rose from

6,538 in 2003 to 17,840 in 2007. The illegal sale of California wildlife and wildlife

parts generates an estimated $100 million a year, second only to the illegal drug

trade, according to CDFG officials. Yet, the state has just 358 game wardens

patrolling 300,000 square miles of land and water. It makes no sense to expand bear

hunting when state wildlife law enforcement capabilities are so crippled. Permitting

hunters to use GPS devices on hounds will only exacerbate poaching.

• Trophy hunting ignores the ecological value of bears. Apex species, such as bears,

cougars, and wolves, play critical roles in maintaining ecosystems. Black bears often

scavenge for food, playing an important role in recycling carrion. Bears also help

transport berry seeds. Along salmon spawning streams, bear scat and the remains of

fish carried into the woods contribute to the long-term nutrient cycle in old-growth

forest. Even cambium feeding by bears, which sometimes kills trees, creates widely

scattered snags that benefit other species of wildlife.

• Hound hunting of bears is unsporting, unethical, and environmentally harmful.

In California, bears can be legally chased by hounds, treed, and then shot by

hunters. Hounds have been known to pursue bears with cubs, increasing the risk

that cubs could be separated from their mothers, then orphaned. It is not

uncommon for hounds to maim bears, especially cubs, and even more common for

bears to maim or kill an entire pack of hounds. In addition, hounds may pursue

non-targeted animals, including imperiled species, putting additional stress on

those species. Allowing hunters to place GPS devices and tip switches on hounds

will inevitably make it much easier for hunters, as well as poachers, to kill more

bears.

• Hunting does not reduce conflicts with bears. Trophy hunters target the largest

bears who may look good on a wall or as a throw rug, not the young males who are

primarily responsible for conflicts. Furthermore, hunting takes place far from

homes, while so-called “problem bears” usually live in the urban-suburban

interface. Shooting bears at random is as effective at reducing conflicts as shooting

into a crowded room is at reducing crime. And using hunting as an aggressive and

expansive lethal control of bears ignores the root cause of bear-human conflicts.

Most encounters with bears are the result of irresponsible human behavior (e.g.

landowners who refuse to depose of garbage properly).

• Hunting of bears puts the public at risk. California is densely populated state and

many people recreate in bear country. Since hunting hounds are usually off-leash,

packs of hounds may trespass onto private land, harass companion, farm, and ranch

animals, and destroy private property. The presence of packs of hunting hounds

also disturbs the peace and tranquility of those who recreate in the backcountry.

We therefore urge you to reject the CDFG’s proposals to expand bear hunting in

California. Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Vincent at Big Wildlife,

604-618-1030 or Nicole Paquette, The Humane Society of the United States, 916-455-1479.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

This letter was signed by the following organizations:

Action for Animals * All Creatures * All for Animals * American Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals * Animal Commandos * Animal Emancipation * Animal Legal Defense Fund *

Animal Perspective * Animal Protection and Rescue League * Animal Rescue Team * BEAR League *

BEAR-WITH-US.org * Big Wildlife * C.A.R.E. * California Church IMPACT * California Federation

for Animal Legislation * Center for Biological Diversity * Chico For Animal Rights * Contra Costa

Humane Society * Empty Cages Collective * Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo *

Environmental Defense Center * EPIC- Environmental Protection Information Center * Food

Empowerment Project * Forests Forever * Fund for Animals Wildlife Center * Fund for Wild

Nature * Green Party of San Luis Obispo * Grizzly People * In Defense of Animals * In Gaia’s Hands,

Earth, & Animal Ministry * Kind Planet * Klamath Forest Alliance * Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands

Center * Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care * Last Chance for Animals Arizona * Latino Democrats of

Stanislaus County * League of Humane Voters – California Chapter * Luka’s List of Just Causes *

Marin Vegetarian Education Group * Mountain Lion Foundation * North County Humane Society *

Ocean Defenders Alliance * Ojai Wildlife League * Orange County People for Animals * Paw PAC *

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals * Return To Freedom, American Wild Horse Sanctuary *

San Francisco Vegetarian Society * Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals *

Sierra Club – Kern-Kaweah Chapter * Sierra Club – Mineral King Group * Sierra Club – Mojave

Group, San Gorgonio Chapter * Sierra Club – Placer * Group Sierra Club – San Francisco Bay

Chapter * Sierra Club – Santa Lucia Chapter * The Humane Society of the United States * The Urban

Cat Project * United Animal Nations * Ventana Wilderness League * Wild in the City * Wildlife Care

of Ventura County

I just read the article in the Star (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jan/29/ojai-group-discusses-how-to-prevent-bear/) about your newly formed organization. I am glad the residents of Ojai are willing to search for solutions regarding Bears, Lions, etc. As a resident of Ojai, and a property owner the bear visited a few times, we called Fish & Game. I know many Ojai residents did also. We were told the bear was not a threat and Fish & Game would not come out. Only when the bear made it to downtown did Fish & Game respond- by killing it. I thought they were there to protect the Wildlife. We need a few organizations we can call,  your website is a good resource-to come out and deal with the bears, lions, etc. I know this is a common problem in other states too and we can learn from those organizations on how they deal with it. Let’s not involve Fish & Game with Ojai wildlife anymore. We can handle the situation for the betterment of Ojai and it’s wild creatures.

The CA Dept. of Fish and Game is asking for an increase in the annual “bear harvest” from the current 1700 to UNLIMITED.  They also want to allow GPS collars on bear hunting dogs.  Use of dogs is already outlawed in some states.

Go to our “HELP” section for more information and a link to where you can learn how to take action.

Here’s the press release which tells you where you can view the whole document and where to send comments:

> California Department of Fish and Game News Release  Jan. 27, 2010

> Contact:

> Doug Updike, DFG Wildlife Branch, (916) 445-3652

> Kirsten Macintyre, DFG Communications, (916) 322-8988

> Environmental Documents Regarding Changes to Bear and Elk Hunting Regulations Now Available for Comment.  The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has completed the draft environmental documents (DEDs) related to proposed black bear and elk hunting regulations changes. DFG is seeking written comments from the public through March 13, 2010.

> The DEDs were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as required by law. The documents can now be viewed online at

www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice

> Written comments should be submitted to:

> Dr. Eric Loft, Chief

> Department of Fish and Game

> Wildlife Branch

> 1812 Ninth St.

> Sacramento, CA 95818

> Comments received from the public about these DEDs will be incorporated into the final environmental documents that are scheduled for completion in April 2010.

In the dark early morning hours of October 10, 2009, a black bear wandered into downtown Ojai, California. After milling around through a few back yards and taking a nap on someone’s patio, he treed himself. As the sun came up, people became aware of this extraordinary Saturday morning spectacle in the center of town and a crowd formed to watch this bear slumber the day away in a tree.

With local Police and the Department of Fish and Game both present, by-standers staring up at the bear asked officials what would happen to him. Many were told he would be given a chance to come down in the quiet of the night so that he could be encouraged back to the forest from which he came. However, a few hours after nightfall, the bear was shot down from the tree with a tranquilizer gun and later euthanized.

The Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) was born in response to what many people felt was an intensely sad and very unnecessary ending to this story.

Still in the beginning stages of formation, OWL is in the process of gathering information about the resources we have as a community so that we can then begin to instill new options for the wildlife that comes into our communities. Our goals are tri-fold: to ensure public safety, educate the public about wild animal encounters and bring about humane and non-lethal wildlife removal.