The event is free and will take place at Casa de La Luna, 710 S. La Luna, Meiners Oaks, Sept. 11, from 5 pm until 10 pm. Bring your own chairs, blankets, food and water (no drugs, alcohol or weapons). For more info. call Julie Tumamait at 805-646-6214 or Margaret Elliot at 805-320-2460.

Let these people know just how you feel about this idea. Please pass this information on to anyone you may know who might be interested in stating their opinion. The first reports on the issue took place on Aug. 13-14. This is only the beginning of this process and the perfect time to state your opinion. Thank you for caring for the bears.

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

In order for the Ojai Wildlife League to better serve the Ojai Community, we need information only you can provide. Thank you in advance for filling this out and mailing it back to us. You will need to copy the text, paste it into a document, print it, fill it out and mail it to:

Ojai Wildlife League, 1129 Maricopa Highway PMB #90, Ojai, CA 93023
THANKS!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name:
Address:
Description of property:

City/Town:
E-mail Address:
Phone Numbers:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fill In or Circle Your Response:

1. Date/Time of the most recent bear sighting:

2. Was it a mother with cub(s)? How many cubs?

3. Did the bear have a radio collar and/or ear tag? If yes, what color were the ear tags?

4. Bear Activity: Passing Through? Searching for food? Actively Feeding? Other (describe):

5. How many years have bears been sighted on this property?

6. Please indicate the seasons and frequency of bear sightings at this site.

7. Circle items associated with bear sightings:

Bird seed/feeder Garbage Barbeque Grill Pet Food Compost Plants/shrubbery Birdhouse

Circle the property damaged by the bear:

Bird feeder BBQ Doors/windows of garage/outbuildings Screens/windows on porch

Door and/or window of house Garbage receptacles Fence Feed Storage Unit

Ornamental Tree/Shrub

Circle any agricultural damage:

Beehives Poultry Livestock Cultivated Crops Orchards Fencing Other:

(Please describe other items/damage in the later “comments” section.)

8. Did you attempt to scare the bear off your property? Were you successful?

If yes, what did you do?

9. Did you contact police or anyone else for help or advice? Who?

What happened?

10. Would you speak with an OWL volunteer about sightings on your property?

12. Would you be open to other alternatives if a bear became a problem?

Please provide any additional comments here:

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

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

Opinion: Expanded bear hunt don’t pass smell test

Wayne Pacelle

March 14, 2010 12:22 PM

For too long, the California Department of Fish and Game has served the interests of the trophy-hunting lobby over the interests of the millions of California residents who do not hunt. Wildlife watchers in California outnumber bear hunters by a factor of 250 to 1. But nothing demonstrates just how far the agency will go to placate this narrow trophy-hunting constituency than new proposals to expand the range and the terms for killing black bears with packs of dogs in California.

With these steps, the department is walking straight into an expensive and needless wrangle with voters — because rank-and-file citizens cannot, and will not, condone this kind of unsporting and inhumane mismanagement and may be left with no choice but another ballot initiative to bring the government to its senses.

Californians may remember that in the 1980s the department pressed to authorize a trophy hunting season for mountain lions, despite objections from the public. Wildlife protection and humane organizations eventually initiated a ballot measure, which voters approved in 1990 and then affirmed again in 1996. Unfortunately, this lesson appears lost on today’s department regulators.

The department is calling for a significant expansion of the range open to hound hunting of bears, including starting a season in San Luis Obispo County, no doubt to give trophy hunters from Los Angeles and the Bay Area a convenient hunting ground. Farther north, the department wants to expand the bear hunting range in Modoc and Lassen counties. This is heavily forested country and prime bear habitat. The adoption of this proposal surely will mean more harassed and dead bears.

That’s to the liking of the trophy-hunting lobby, of course, and the department is bending over backward to be accommodating. DFG proposes to rescind a regulation that automatically ends the season once 1,700 bears have been killed. For the last three years, hunters have met this quota early and the season was curtailed. Now, under this abrogation of responsibility, trophy hunters can take aim on an unlimited number of bears — a shocking step backward.

But it gets even worse. Much worse. The department also proposes expanding the hound-hunting season across much of the state. It already is legal in California to chase bears with packs of radio-collared hounds, despite the fact that bears have less stamina than dogs and must soon seek refuge in a tree. DFG now wants to permit this activity all season long, beginning just as soon as bears emerge from their dens with dependent cubs. This would separate mothers from their cubs — and even make tiny bears targets.

Hound hunters typically use radio telemetry devices, the same devices bear researchers and national park employees use to track bears.

But the department wants to allow even more sophisticated technology to ease the trophy hunters’ path. Under the DFG plan, high-tech hunters could use Global Positioning System transmitters on their dogs’ collars, complete with “tip switches.”

That way, dogs are released to chase bears and trophy hunters can climb back into their heated trucks to drink coffee while they track the “hunt” on a portable GPS receiver. When dogs tree a bear, they stop looking down at the ground — bear hounds track by scent — and raise their heads to look up into the tree. If they look up for a long period of time, a “tip switch” on the collar alerts the shooters that the chase is over.

The trophy hunters grab their rifles, follow the GPS signal straight to the bear, and shoot the trapped animal at point-blank range off a tree branch. It’s about as sporting as following a printed zoo map to the bear grotto.

These proposals didn’t bubble up from California communities dealing with increased conflicts with bears — not that such conflicts are resolved by expanding hunting. Rather, this reckless war on the state’s natural resources was proposed by trophy hunters who want to shoot more black bears and mount their hides and heads on their walls.

California’s bears are an icon for our state. They are a natural treasure we all enjoy and appreciate, and they need and deserve protection, particularly in light of poaching pressures from those professional rings that sell bear parts abroad. It’s outrageous enough that California allows any hounding of black bears, but bears have only “dodged the bullet” and avoided eradication in California because regulations have maintained an annual quota.

The leadership of the trophy hunting lobby again shows its colors in demanding no interference — and short-sighted regulators have obliged by not even bothering to conduct research on local bear populations in the areas of the proposed expansion to determine what impact an unlimited trophy hunt might have on the health and stability of the bear populations in the effective areas.

Most responsible hunters profess an ethic of sportsmanship and fair chase, and the use of high-tech devices to shoot unlimited numbers of bears doesn’t meet the smell test.

Voters in Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington have taken to the polls already to protect bears against hound hunting. Voters in California have already displayed their desire to put majestic wildlife ahead of the misguided and selfish interests of an overreaching trophy hunting lobby.

The mission of the Department of Fish and Game includes managing our diverse wildlife and their habitats for “their use and enjoyment by the public.” It’s time they stand up for wildlife and for the entire “public,” not just trophy hunters.

The author is president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.