SAN FRANCISCO - The future of Sharp Park is still up in the air.

San Francisco supervisors have approved an ordinance to transfer the city-owned park to the National Park Service, but Mayor Ed Lee is threatening a veto, saying he wants more time to review other options.

Brent Plater, president of the Wild Equity Institute, says the park is plagued by crumbling infrastructure and ongoing flooding problems and is in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

"The golf course loses money every year; it kills two endangered species - the San Francisco garter snake and the California red-legged frog - and it's inconsistent with the recreational preferences and demands of modern Bay Area residents."

A survey by the Park Department, Plater says, found that hiking trails are the primary recreation priority for San Francisco residents. Golfers want the seaside course to stay open because the green fees are affordable. The ordinance doesn't mandate the golf course be closed, but opponents assume that will happen.

Plater says the ordinance makes sense because it simply requires the city to compare options with the National Park Service against options it has been pursuing with other parties to manage Sharp Park.

"We believe that once those options are reviewed in the light of day through a public process, it'll become very clear to the city that the best option to pursue for everyone is a new National Park partnership at Sharp Park."

Sharp Park is surrounded by national park properties, so Plater says the plan would be to integrate the parks.

"Create connecting trails between the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the Coastal Trail, which is on the beach at Sharp Park. Possibly providing some other kinds of recreational opportunities like group campgrounds, and most importantly putting a visitor's center for the National Park Service in San Mateo County.

Lee has until Dec. 23 to issue a veto.

More information is online at savethefrogs.com.



get more stories like this via email

The state Department of Natural Resources and Iowa State University are looking for volunteers to help create a new Bumble Bee Atlas.

Bees are an important part of the ecosystem, and scientists are figuring out their habitats to help them thrive.

Iowa is home to at least 14 species of bumble bees that help pollinate native wildflowers and flowering crops in farm fields and backyard gardens.

Iowa State University University Professor of Sustainable Agriculture and plant pathologist Matt O'Neal said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed several bee species as endangered.

"And that includes the Rusty Patch bumble bee," said O'Neal, "20% of what it used to be, and that includes parts of Iowa. There is also evidence that other bumble species are in decline and so, this survey will give us a chance to see where those bees are and how abundant they are."

With that information, O'Neal said scientists can work to protect the bees' habitats and create Iowa's Bumble Bee Atlas.

It's part of a larger project to map the bees and foster bee development nationwide. Sign up online to volunteer.

The national project is part of a collaboration with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Some 900 people have volunteered for the national atlas project, and counted more than 20,000 bumble bees - which O'Neal said face several major threats.

"Pesticide exposure, parasite and pathogens," said O'Neal, "and then the last 'P,' and probably the most important, is poor forage."

The researchers will work to alleviate those threats by knowing where the bees are.

Volunteers have discovered species thought to be gone from their states, contributed to new field guides, and improved scientists' understanding of bumble bee populations across the country.




get more stories like this via email

A coalition of conservation groups has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for refusing to relist wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies is part of the suit. The Alliance sued to successfully overturn the wolf's delisting in 2012 but the move fell victim to congressional funding bill negotiations.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the alliance, said the wolves clearly qualify to be protected under the Act and hunting is driving down their numbers, which could cause problems for the animals.

"As their numbers decline, they are at greater risk for inbreeding," Garrity pointed out. "Once inbreeding sets in, the population is sunk."

Livestock and cattle owners argued wolves are a threat to their flocks and herds and want their numbers reduced. The suit was filed in federal District Court in Missoula.

Beyond keeping a robust population of wolves on Montana's lands and helping their species thrive, Garrity noted wolves can also help reduce the population of diseased animals.

"We're starting to have disease in deer, such as Chronic Wasting Disease," Garrity explained. "Predators like wolves are really good at focusing on the sick animals, so that's an excellent way to control Chronic Wasting Disease."

Garrity added wolf management policies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, all of which allow aggressive hunting of the animals, fail to protect wolves and all native species for future generations, the primary mandate of the Endangered Species Act.

A lawsuit over a federal agency's decision not to boost wolf protections in New Mexico and other western states has been filed, days after video surfaced showing the torture of a captured wolf.

According to accounts, a Wyoming man ran the wolf down with a snowmobile in late February, disabling it. He then took it to a local bar and posed for photos before shooting it.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said federal protections under the Endangered Species Act are essential because there are still those who don't respect wildlife.

"That's why wolves were driven extinct in the first place, is because these types of people were the ones who controlled the public policy discussion throughout much of the 20th century when wolves were driven extinct," he said.

In early February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to restore protections for gray wolves in western states. The agency said it concluded the animals weren't in danger of extinction under the Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of Western Watersheds and a coalition of nine other conservation groups.

Molvar believes the federal agency's decision not to re-designate western wolves as "endangered" was profoundly misguided. He said some states such as New Mexico and Colorado have adopted extra penalties for killing wolves, but the Endangered Species Act lets hunters in other states off the hook if they claim it was a case of mistaken identity.

"There were special loopholes for Wyoming, Idaho and Montana - and also parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah - so it does beg the question of how often this is happening quietly and under the radar," he explained.

In Wyoming, wolves and coyotes, which are considered predators, aren't eligible for protections under the state's animal cruelty statute. To date, the only penalty inflicted on the person shown on social media tormenting the wolf was a $250 fine by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.