Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to CHIL EagleCAM. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Santa Rosa Island; Recent developments re: Vail & Vickers
Topic Started: Oct 1 2006, 06:33 PM (6,578 Views)
kljinusa
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
I have never started a new topic before, but this is an important development regarding our Channel Islands Nat'l Park and the Vail & Vickers dispute. Please read the Ventura County Star article as soon as you can, they will pull off the link in the next couple of days.

You may have to register if you are unfamiliar with VCS, but you only have to do this once if you click on remember me. It's worth signing on for local Ventura County news, they won't sell your name or send you junk emails.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/count...5034228,00.html

Keep in mind how much the taxpayers paid for this island on behalf of the National Park Service and how often it's open to the public...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KLJinOz
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
There appears to be a two-pronged downside:

Quote:
 
"Our main preference is that they remain where they are, with or without hunting," Vail said.


'They' being the elk and deer. I thought the whole point of buying the Isl and the 2011 limitation was to save the flora and fauna....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peppermint
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
The way I read that article....extended hunting does not seem like a done deal. For one thing, I think there are some real legal issues regarding that federal court order. I do not think the bill passed by Congress can supercede that court order. Is not the court ABOVE Congress? It may go all the way to the Supreme Court before it's over. Also...V & V do not sound inclined to continue the hunting. And...would they be able to charge $5000 and up to disabled veterans? Would taxpayers be willing to pay that on their behalf....methinks NO WAY!! I don't think V & V would be interested in operating it all at a loss. I am inclined to agree with Peter...that in the end...continued hunting very well may not happen.

I think the most important issue for right now....TODAY...is for us to put on public pressure to disallow lead ammunition.....immediately! I will be taking Patti's lead and writing a letter to the NPS, to all of my state and federal legislators, and perhaps even the Montrose Settlement group since they have spent so much money in the restoration following the DDT toxic disaster to wildlife. Let's get the lead OUT!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eagle Duo
Member Avatar
Eagleholic
peppermint,Oct 1 2006
09:55 PM
Let's get the lead OUT!

Good one Patti! I agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KLJinOz
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Comments:

Quote:
 
I do not think the bill passed by Congress can supercede that court order. Is not the court ABOVE Congress?


No the Court is NOT above Congress. Congress has the RIGHT to pass bills (laws), it is the Court's job to interpret the law (legislation) to ensure its legality to the Constitution.

Quote:
 
V & V do not sound inclined to continue the hunting


V & V currently LEASE the hunting operations out, so its an money spinner for them. Perhaps the avenue to go is to put pressure on the operation leasing the hunting privileges .

Quote:
 
put on public pressure to disallow lead ammunition


I AGREE totally. This is something that needs to be actioned now.

KLJinOz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Patti
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Copied from my post under Questions:

I have emailed the National Park Service and hope to hear from them. I will let you know if I hear back.

Write to

Channel Islands National Park
1901 Spinnaker Drive
Ventura, CA 93001

E-mail Us
http://www.nps.gov/PWR/sendmail.htm?o=%3B2.../chis/index.htm

Phone

Visitor Information
(805) 658-5730

Fax
(805) 658-5799
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peppermint
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Oz: what I'm thinking is this...the new bill does not overturn the court decision for the Vails to remove/reduce the size of the herd. It merely allows for continued hunting IF that's what they want to do. Like I say...I think there are still some major legal issues that will cause more conflict. I will be curious to see how Lois Capps responds to the details. I think she was on the bill committee.

"Tim Vail would not say for sure what his family's plans are for the continued hunting of deer and elk on the island beyond 2011." This does not sound to me like they are saying...yeahhhhhhhh...we can just keep going the way we have been.

"Language permitting the hunts was included in the final version of an annual defense bill agreed to by House and Senate negotiators, according to Democratic House aides." They are permitting the hunts....not making it mandatory that the Vails HAVE to have hunting.

"A court order allowed the family's company, Vail & Vickers, to continue limited hunting operations on the island but dictated that the animals be removed by 2011 because they interfere with Santa Rosa's endangered plant and animal species. The court order stipulates that there should be fewer than 740 elk and 425 deer on the island" It is possible there won't be anything TO hunt??

"Should the family decide not to pursue hunting after 2011, it would be faced with the question of what to do with the deer and elk, which it owns. Vail said the family could decide to sell the animals. This also would raise a new set of issues, such as whether the animals should be sold to an owner that would leave them on Santa Rosa, or to someone who would take them somewhere else." Again...raises the possibility that there won't be any animals to hunt.

"Our main preference is that they remain where they are, with or without hunting," Vail said." Again....doesn't seem like a done deal that they will continue to allow the hunting...especially if there is no income generated. I know Vails don't run the
hunting operation but you can be sure they are making a nice profit from it at the moment.

I just find a bit of hope in the language here...but then...we all know that news media can greatly distort things. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. The important thing is to not stand idly by.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KLJinOz
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
You're right Peppermint, the law does not act retroactively (or rarely anyway), so a previous Court order would stand. That is not to say that the legislature cant change the existing rules by passing laws. A law to allow a particular group to hunt on the Island sounds more restrictive than broad for sure.

Quote:
 
I know Vails don't run the hunting operation but you can be sure they are making a nice profit from it at the moment.


I was thinking about this for a long time. I wonder WHO the owners are of the operation that DOES run has the lease..... now that would be interesting to know because the leasing company would have the greatest financial interest in this entire affair.

Are there any gumshoes out there to find out?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peppermint
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Oz: here's a start: "The Vails eventually entered into an agreement with a Los Molinos-based company, Multiple Use Managers Inc., to run the hunting operation"

I think Congress would have a difficult time passing any more laws/bills regarding this issue. The whole issue has been VERY unpopular and I really think the only reason it passed this time was because it was tacked onto a defense bill and Congress has been under pressure to get the new bill passed before heading home for elections. Politics stinks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KLJinOz
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Here is another start: Multiple Use Managers = http://mumwildlife.com/

I have to finish my law essay, when I do, I want to find out more of the following:
1. Who are the Directors of MUM?
2. It appears that the Vail lease is subleased? (Is that within the terms of the grant of license to the Vails?)
3. Is there any connection between the Directors and the politician pushing the proposal for continued hunting (my conspiracy antennas are up....)

whaddya think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peppermint
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
I think perhaps the plot thickens.

I THINK the Vails now lease the land from the NPS but I am not sure MUM leases land from the Vails or are merely contracted with to run the hunting expeditions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peppermint
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
OMG....the photos on that MUM site make me ill. PATTI, DON'T go there!! They call themselves conservationists???????

"We find it sad that the Federal Government is planning to exterminate these hundreds of wild elk and deer when you consider that there are millions of people within a hundred miles of the island who have never seen a deer or elk in the wild. We think the public would relish the chance to view these majestic animals." WHY??? So wealthy hunters can then pay a LOT of money to SHOOT them???

Oz: I have a feeling Duncan Hunter has no connection to this group. However, his constituency is San Diego which is Navy Navy Navy. Does the bill that just passed turn the island over to the Navy or does it leave it with the NPS?

I can't read any more about this tonight or I'll never get to sleep. See y'all tomorrow....er...later today.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KLJinOz
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
its is a pretty sickening website.

Quote:
 
Wayne and Gordon Long have committed their professional careers to working with the wildlife, their habitat needs, and the landowner. We are professional wildlife biologists and private entrepreneurs.


I'd like to see their credentials

These guys are definite NOT wildlife warriors
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peppermint
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
That statement made me ill as well. The site makes it sound like they are taking credit for "raising" such big beautiful animals....on an island with no natural predators...for trophys? And the proud grins....I wonder if any of them read our forum??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hulabird
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
I say we all blast them with e-mails info@mumwildlife.com and inquiries http://mumwildlife.com/index.php?pg=inquiry

What a positively horrible website. What possible pleasure can be gleaned from killing a defenseless (or defense having) animal. Those guys need to wipe those hideous smiles off their faces.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Daily Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply