San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and frog

Press clippings from around the world.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
mwentz
Posts: 152
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 3:06 pm

San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and frog

Post by mwentz »

Seems that the SF golf course has been killing SF garter snakes and red legged frogs. They were given the option to give the property to the parks department, but declined.

http://sfappeal.com/2013/07/judge-sf-mu ... park-suit/

However, the SF airport is doing things to protect the SF garter and the red legged frog. Using goats to control weeds.

http://seattletimes.com/html/travel/202 ... tsxml.html
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by hellihooks »

Sounds as though the golf course, run by the city, actually won the case... they don't have to change anything they do, and only had to pay 1/4 of what they could have been fined. :| jim
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by AndyO'Connor »

And was I reading it with the misunderstanding that they were approved permits for "incidental take" for "accidentally" killing snakes and frogs with lawnmowers and pumping ponds used by both species? So basically going forward, they are not only going to keep doing what they are doing, but now have proper permission to do so?

If that's the case, I want to walk 20 feet in front of the lawnmowers from now on, and have "incidental take" of any SF garters that would have been chopped up, but instead become an "incidental" breeding colony for me. This case outcome seems ridiculous, as if the judge doesn't properly understand the Endangered Species Act. Maybe I don't either, but this seems wrong.
mwentz
Posts: 152
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by mwentz »

Re Andy and Jim.

I had the same general thoughts about the golf course. But I wanted others thoughts. To me it sounds like manicipalities (or other government entities) can do what they want if they have a little money. But I would be niave thinking it has been any other way.

To extend your line of thought andy. Maybe you, me, the judge, and the golf course don't understand the ESA but I know your line of thought sounds much more morally correct than just mowing over a SF Garter. Maybe this thread os the innapropriate place for this discussion, but this is just one more example where habitat destruction should be a consideration where a private citizen could have an increased take permit (as long as they were not affiliated with the organization destroying the habitat).

Hopefully there is an appeal, and a higher court make the right desicion. Or goes off the board, and makes California institute habitat destruction take permits as a consession, knowing that money interests always win when it comes to environmental protection laws.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by hellihooks »

Perhaps the city-run golf course will figure out it's cheaper to hire someone a few hrs a week, to walk in front of the mower and perhaps not mow over egg masses. I think there should be a set fee (say 10,000) for every garter killed... they could pay someone less than that to make sure it doesn't happen... :D jim
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by Kelly Mc »

The worse part of this city (SF) is the hype it tries to project in having "progressive" "green" stances - but its all fake.

Its a thoroughly anthrocentric city just like all the rest.

There are like, 1000 less important things than these species and all of them are more important than a few elite people playing golf. :x
mwentz
Posts: 152
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by mwentz »

Kelly MC - I couldn't agree with you more. The city is supposed to be the bastion of progressive green thought. With the "I don't own a car" types, and the worship of government types, but like you said, as soon as an endangered species gets in the way of having a golf course in the city, let the snake and frog be damned.


It is instances like this that chips away at my willingness to obey any law or regulation outside of things like the golden rule.

But at least we have learned something. Golf is more important in SF than the ESA. From the goat article we learned that the ESA is more important than airports (or at least runway area maintainance convenience)

So: Golf > ESA > Airports. Or it can be seen this way: (something that benefits the elite) > Endangered species > (something that everybody can use)

If the airport grounds maintainace crew were smart, they would just carry 9 irons with them, and they wouldn't need to use the goats.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: San Fransico golf course loses case over SF gater and fr

Post by hellihooks »

I know there's a good joke in there somewhere, using 'rough'...just haven't had enough coffee yet, for it to come to me (slept in... :lol: ) jim
Post Reply