Home › Environment
Santa Rosa deer, elk law may be repealed
Herds would be removed
Download this story as a podcast!
Archive video
Should they stay or go?
A look at the hunting debate over Santa Rosa Island's non-native wildlife.
Watch now »
STORY TOOLS 
More from EnvironmentWASHINGTON — Congress appears on the verge of overturning a year-old federal law that critics say would in effect have allowed deer and elk hunting to continue indefinitely on Santa Rosa Island.
Language that would repeal the law and allow for the herds' removal from the island has been included in a $500 billion, end-of-year spending bill that Congress is expected to approve this week.
The House passed the bill Monday night on a vote of 253-154. The Senate is expected to give its approval later this week.
"This marks the end to a long battle over Santa Rosa Island," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who inserted the language into the massive spending bill during negotiations between the House and Senate.
The Santa Rosa language is part of a 1,482-page bill that covers the budgets for every Cabinet except the Pentagon. Because it is included in the broader budget bill, opponents will have little, if any, opportunity to strip the language from the legislation.
President Bush said Monday he is hopeful he can sign the bill, but only after Democrats agree to accept funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.
If approved, the measure would mark a huge victory for environmentalists and other groups who have been battling for years to get the non-native deer and elk removed from Santa Rosa by the end of 2011, as mandated by a court settlement.
Santa Rosa, which sits off the coast of Ventura County, is part of Channel Islands National Park.
Ron Sundergill of the National Parks Conservation Association said the Santa Rosa language in the spending bill "would turn around something that shouldn't have been done in the first place.''
"It is a huge victory for all Americans who own the national parks and should be able to use the national parks at all times," Sundergill said.
Lawmakers have been battling over the future of the park for more than two years, when California Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, began pushing legislation to allow the deer and elk to remain on the island permanently.
The herds are owned by Vail & Vickers, a company that runs a commercial hunting operation on the island. Hunter has said he wants the animals to remain on the island so members of the military and their families can continue to take part in the trophy hunts.
The federal law, passed last year at Hunter's urging, rescinded the court settlement and would have allowed the deer and elk to stay on the island permanently. While the law says nothing about the hunting operation, critics have argued it would in essence allow the hunts to continue indefinitely.
Vail & Vickers has said it has no desire to continue the hunting operation beyond 2011.
Regardless, the new legislation pushed by Feinstein and other congressional Democrats would reinstate the terms of the court settlement, facilitating the herds' removal and ending the hunting operation after 2011.
"Santa Rosa Island is a jewel in our national park system and should be open to all of our people, not just a select few," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who had worked with Feinstein to overturn the law.
"With this legislation, we are correcting a mistake that should never have been made," Boxer said.
Rep. Lois Capps, who had pushed similar legislation in the House, said the repeal of the federal law would guarantee that the court-ordered settlement will be fully carried out to protect Santa Rosa and provide unrestricted access to the island year-round after 2011.
Most of the island is closed to the public for four to five months of the year because of the hunts.
"As someone who's visited Santa Rosa Island and witnessed its beauty and rare archaeological and natural resources, I know we have to do all we can to protect this unique national treasure for future generations," said Capps, D-Santa Barbara.
Channel Islands National Park spokeswoman Yvonne Menard declined to comment directly on the legislation because it is pending.
But, she said, until the animals are removed and the hunting operation ends, "much of the island will remain closed to the public for nearly half a year."
"We're very anxious and eager to make this island, which has spectacular resources, available to the public full time for their enjoyment," Menard said.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Posted by res0crek on December 18, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent news!! Thank you Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Lois Capps for fighting to preserve this beautiful island for us, the public!
All of the Channel Islands deserve our protection of their native plants and wildlife. They are such an important part of all of us!
Posted by CharlesP on December 18, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps you all are too STUPID to understand that removing the wildlife, and bringing crude, rude, Americans to the island year round will DESTROY THE PLANTS AND WILDLIFE that exist on the Island.
We have seen this at MOST of the national parks in America. PEOPLE DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN. This is why American tourists are hated around the world. They are called "the ugly Americans".
Posted by Matrim on December 18, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It does seem a little strange, considering that Teddy Roosevelt and some of his fellow hunters were the original conservationists who started the national parks, now others who seem to be interested in going outdoors and enjoying the beauty of nature would want to kick out the hunters. Throughout most of our country, we can share the scarce resource of wilderness land and all enjoy it; even in cities, hunters are welcomed for their contribution to keeping the deer from becoming too much of a problem for their human neighbors. Hunters and other conservationists should be united against unregulated development that can spoil the land for all forms of recreation, not arguing with each other.
It would be interesting to know why the deer are unwelcome on the island, what native wildlife they might interfere with, and how much we taxpayers are going to have to pay to remove them. We hear a lot about the importance of feeding the poor, but here is free food and we are going to pay to get rid of it. It reminds me of a report in another newspaper some years ago, about the Great Smokies, where hunting wild pigs for food is prohibited, but we pay people to hunt them because they are a non-native species - paying some of the same people who would, if it were legal, hunt the same animals free of charge and pay for a license to do that.
Thanks for the interesting article.
Posted by tom.kaiser on December 18, 2007 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why let the Park Service decide what species will be exterminated and which preserved? Let the people who will be enjoying the Islands decide. Deer have been seen swimming to the Channel Islands; it is doubtful that the Island Fox got there by swimming. More likely brought over by the Chumash. If so, by the Park Service's logic, it also should be exterminated. I think the elk are an improvement to the Island and should be left for the enjoyment of the public to observe in such a beautiful setting.
Posted by kljinusa on December 18, 2007 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Having been to Santa Cruz several times in recent years and Santa Rosa once, I support the NPS efforts to remove non-native species. The Nature Conservancy side of Santa Cruz is a good example of how devastating deer and pigs were to the ecosystem of the islands. They started restoration efforts years ago and their side of the island is quite lush compared to the barreness of the NPS side. All of us can get involved with the Channel Islands, they belong to us and that's the purpose of repealing Rep Hunter's legislation. There are many opportunities to contribute. Educate yourself, and visit them.
http://www.nature.org/magazine/winter...
http://www.iws.org/
http://chil.vcoe.org/eagle_cam.htm
Special thanks to National Park Service, Institute for Wildlife Studies, Ventura Office of Education, Friends of the Island Fox, Montrose Settlement Group and finally to the Star for keeping this issue on your front page.
Posted by sslocal on December 18, 2007 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The question of how much it will cost to remove them should be raised. Of course all the animal activists will not protest even though the animals will be left to rot. I say we let the hunters come to the island and eliminate them. Use the fees generated to improve this and the other islands.
Posted by kljinusa on December 18, 2007 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They can hunt to their heart's desire until 2011. V&V is responsible for the costs of removing the remaining animals, it's not at taxpayer's expense unless they renig on the settlement agreement.
Posted by kljinusa on December 18, 2007 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Learn more by clicking on the links I provided above. The answers to your questions are there. The NPS conducts talks regarding the Channel Islands National Park on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at the Channel Islands Nat'l Park Visitor's Center in Ventura Harbor, 7pm. The topics range from marine fisheries, bald eagles, island foxes, sea urchins, ranching history...
The talks are free and the NPS conducts a question & answer session afterwards.
Get involved...
Posted by Ozzie on December 18, 2007 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fantastic news for Santa Cruz and part of the restoration operations of the Islands to as natural original condition it can be considering the invasive species introduced. I too live on an Island (continent) and know what destruction invasive species can have on the flora & fauna. Ozzie
Posted by boggman on December 19, 2007 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Two things that the article failed to mention: The original sale contract between the owners of the island and the NPS called for cattle, deer, and elk to remain on the island; and, the deer and elk are free of chronic wasting disease and could be used as a restocking source if CWD destroys NATIVE deer and elk herds on the mainland. If the NPS can get away with this breach of contract, then all the conservation easements drawn up by groups like the Nature Conservancy can also be ignored.
Posted by srudelski on December 19, 2007 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hunting is not an appropriate activity in a national park. There are other government lands (national forests, blm land etc.) that are open for hunting. National Parks are for preservation. The nps should not be spending taxpayer dollars to maintain non native species in a national park to the detriment of the native ecosystem so that a few people can hunt them. The animals contribute to the near extinction of the unique island fox that only has the islands to exist on. They also damage rare endemic plant communities and Chumash archaeological sites.
Deer and elk did not swim to the islands. They were brought to them by the former land owners to be hunted. The hunt restricts public access to the island. The Vails agreed to remove the animals by 2011 and that is what should happen.
This is not about hunting in general, it is about hunting in a national park.
Posted by Jman on December 19, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Teddy Roosevelt was right to be involved in creating national parks, but we should manage public lands by today's standards, not by the standards of 100 years ago. Srudelski is right, hunting isn't appropriate in a National Park.
I hunt deer in the National Forests, which are managed for multiple uses. National Parks are the few wild places that are supposed to remain unchanged for future generations.
These islands evolved in isolation over millions of years. The relatively recent addition of deer and elk for commercial purposes doesn't mean they should be there after 2011. In the big picture of history, the ranching era on Santa Rosa Island will be rich with human stories, but damaging to the island environment. Protecting the unique plants and animals that are only found on the island takes precedent over non native deer and elk, and the monetary interests of former owners who already sold the island to all of us (taxpayers) for millions of dollars.
Posted by QuestionAuthority on December 20, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say return the Deer and Elk to their Natural Habitats on the Mainland and let them roam free. I'm not big on hunting for sport, but I don't have a problem with people hunting to put food on their tables... but that's another story. The Island should be returned to it's Natural Condition and enjoyed by all Citizens/Taxpayers who choose to visit. After all... National Parks and National Forests belong to the People......RIGHT? ? ? ? Yeah
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.