bb wrote:
wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

But scientists who study seabirds and other species on the islands 28
miles off the coast of San Francisco -- which some call "California's
Galapagos" -- said even limited public visits could have serious
effects on populations of birds and marine mammals that have

rebounded

since access to the islands by humans was strictly limited in 1969.


Limited to bearded, birkenstock wearing F&W or non-profit biologists as
a private playground.

But if they don't wear Birkenstock's? Do they have to be Demoncrats and
gay marriage proponents? Voted for Kerry and in favor of child molestation?

Seriously though, I agree with you that some people have a selfish take
on the issue, but gee whiz Brian, you have the camps separated so well!
It just isn't that black and white. You have good points, but if you
wish to do a limbaugh on everything, it hurts your position.

But back to the issue at hand, it would not be all that difficult to
have the amateurs trained to minimize the impact on the birds and other
critters.

If "A single person can cause a great amount of damage even before they
know they are doing it", then well, those birds and sea lions and
whatever are going to go extinct on the PDQ regardless of wherther
humans visit the island or not.


Critics of the bill also warn that it could be precedent setting,
allowing not just ham radio operators but birders and others to visit
the main island, which is less than a quarter of a square mile in

area

and is densely packed with seabirds and other marine life.


Maybe they'll get white spots on their LL Bean hats.

Wouldn't it be terrible to allow birders on the island? Birders are a
known source of bird extinction, especially since they hate birds so
much............

- Mike KB3EIA -