Posts Tagged ‘1993’

The Feds Make a Deal to Set Aside More Space for Western Snowy Plovers, San Francisco’s Cutest Birds

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

The Center for Biological Diversity is crowing about more room being designated for the Western Snowy Plover along the west coast.

San Francisco isn’t getting more space for these critters but they already have as much as they need here now, not that some area dog owners agree with the way things are these days.

Anyway, here are some San Francisco Snowy Plovers and the also the deets of the new agreement with the Feds are below.

(Oh, and remember, as always, plover rhymes with lover.)

A snowy plover on Ocean Beach _not_ being harassed by a dog:

Now, Ocean Beach Dog, ooh, somebody over there got an off-leash ticket from the Feds a looooong time ago. (Can you guess what year by looking at the website design? Sure you can.) Oh well. Well, the Feds don’t like Ocean Beach Dog and people what behave like Ocean Beach Dog. The Feds consider us Whacko City, USA because of outfits like OBD, oh well.

Most dogs don’t bother the boids, of course. Can you see the snowy plover?

But some dogs do harass the birds. (These aren’t actually snowy plovers near Lawton and the Great Highway but the dogs don’t know or care about that.)

(Get those Ocean Beach birds, good boy!)

And here’s the sitch up in Crissy Field:

See the birds, see the unleashed dog?

Is is surprising to you that an unleashed dog could find and chase these plovers? What was surprising to me was to hear that this particular boid flew up from Morro Bay (where it was banded and which is like way south of here) all the way up to the Marina District:

Keep on keeping on, plovers:

More Than 24,000 Acres of Critical Habitat Protected for Western Snowy Plover

PORTLAND, Ore.— In response to a Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today designated 24,527 acres (38 square miles) of critical habitat to protect the Pacific Coast population of threatened western snowy plovers in Washington, Oregon and California.

“Protecting critical habitat will help this lovely shorebird continue on the path to recovery,” said Tierra Curry, a conservation biologist at the Center. “Species with federally protected habitat are more than twice as likely to be moving toward recovery than species without it, so this puts a big safety net between plovers and extinction.”

Western snowy plovers breed primarily on beaches in southern Washington, Oregon, California and Baja California. Today’s designation includes four critical habitat units in Washington (covering 6,077 acres), nine units in Oregon (covering 2,112 acres) and 47 units in California (covering 16,337 acres).

Snowy plovers were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, when the coastal population had dropped to 1,500 birds and plovers no longer bred at nearly two-thirds of their former nesting sites. That Endangered Species Act protection allowed the population to increase to more than 3,600 adults by 2010.

Plovers are recovering but still face many threats, including widespread and frequent disturbance of nesting sites by humans, vehicles and off-leash dogs; crushing by off-road vehicles; global climate change; pesticide use; and habitat loss.

The western snowy plover was first granted 19,474 acres of critical habitat in 1999. In 2005 the Bush administration illegally reduced the critical habitat to 12,145 acres, eliminating protection for thousands of acres scientists believed necessary for the snowy plover’s survival and abandoning key habitat areas crucial for recovery. In 2008 the Center sued over the unlawful reduction of the plover’s habitat protections, leading to a settlement agreement with the Service and today’s revised designation.

Today’s final rule includes the reinstatement of habitat areas identified by government scientists as essential that were improperly withdrawn in 2005; inclusion of some areas not currently occupied by plovers but important for their recovery; and addition of habitats such as back-dune systems in an attempt to offset anticipated effects of sea-level rise caused by climate change.

The western snowy plover is a shy, pocket-sized shorebird that weighs less than two ounces and lives for three years. Plovers forage for worms, insects and crustaceans in wet sand and in kelp that has washed ashore. The word “plover” is thought to come from the Old French”plovier” or “rain bird” because plovers were seen on sandy French beaches during spring rains.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.”

Oh, and also remember that San Francisco is for Plovers:

Know Your Bay Area Curly-Haired Redheads: 1993′s “Quest of the Delta Knights” vs. Disney Pixar’s Brand-New “Brave”

Friday, June 8th, 2012

There isresemblance, non?

Thena from Novato, 1993:

Merida from Emeryville, 2012:

Brave is due for release on June 22, 2012 in North America

Our RAND Corporation Releases Update of the Famous 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Study – Read It For Free

Monday, December 6th, 2010

Our Rand Corporation has a new .pdf for you to peruse: Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study.

I’m afraid to click on RAND’s new EULA*, but you should have no problem with it:

*End User License Agreement or whatever it is. I’m all like, I’m not agreeing to that, just the way I reacted when I saw similar click box as I was trying to make a post at SFist one day back in ought-eight. The upshot of RAND’s new policy is that I’m now afraid to even read their pdfs, much less borrow text from them. Oh well. I mean, if people for whom I’m doing favors want to sue me, they’re welcome to do so, but I’m not going to make it easy for them, I’m not going to make their case a lead-pipe cinch through a written contract right from the get-go…

Anyway, all the deets, license and pdf-free:

“At the request of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Secretary of Defense, the RAND Corporation conducted a study on sexual orientation and U.S. military policy in order to provide information and analysis that might be considered in discussing the possible repeal of the law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The study examined DADT implementation; U.S. public and military opinion about allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military without restriction; and the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexual orientation, and related health issues. RAND conducted focus groups with military personnel and a survey of gay, lesbian, and bisexual military personnel. RAND researchers also examined the comparable experiences of other institutions, domestic agencies, and foreign militaries, as well as how repeal of DADT might affect unit cohesion and military readiness and effectiveness.

“Most polling data suggest that a majority of Americans support allowing gay people to serve in the military without restriction. The research concludes that there would be little impact on recruiting and retention of military personnel and on unit cohesion and performance. Current research and the experience during World War II shows that cohesion of combat units comes from the common threat of the enemy, not from prior shared values and attitudes. The majority of gay and lesbian service members who responded to RAND’s survey reported that, although they did not talk about their sexual orientation, many unit members already knew that there was a gay service member in their unit. The vast majority indicated that they would remain circumspect in how they make their orientation known to other service members. Many military focus group participants said that they knew gay men and lesbians who were serving and respected their contributions. Many major U.S. allies, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have allowed gay individuals to serve without restriction for a number of years. They report no effect on unit performance or on their ability to meet recruitment goals. No country provides special accommodations for privacy or special training on sexual orientation. Police and fire departments, as well as federal agencies, major corporations, and colleges, all report that they have integrated gay individuals without serious problems and without negative effects on performance — and without making specific accommodations — by applying a strict policy of nondiscrimination.”

Pretty soon, “Ask, Tell” will be the Law of the Land, unambiguously…

Home Country of Assault Victim Rests Easy After San Francisco Attack

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

I’ll tell you, the reason why the home county of the exchange student who was recently sexually asaulted in San Franciscois resting easy these days is that the media of said home country isn’t aware of the attack. And why’s that? Apparently, it’s the policy of San Francisco to not give out that kind of information. Per the SF Appeal:

“Police are not releasing information about the country the alleged victim is from in order to protect her identity, Tomioka said.”

I’m wondering how small a country has to be such that saying its name discloses the identity of any particular tourist in San Francisco.

IMG_8524-copy

Like if there’s a famous exchange program in Monaco (population 30k) and they send ten students a year to the States? That would seem to fit the bill, fair enough.

But what if the exchange student is from one of the following Big Ten tourist-producing countries (countries avec concomitant robust, aggresive media, of course)?

Germany

United Kingdom

France

China

Italy

Japan

Canada

Russia

South Korea

Mexico

If the student is from one of these countries, I’d be hard-pressed to see how saying the name of the country would identify any particular person from that country. Maybe there’s a written policy, or maybe there’s an unwritten rule, the way the MSM won’t report routine cases of Golden Gate Bridge jumpings?

That is all.

San Francisco’s One Rincon Hill vs. New Sheriff’s Facility – Which is Better?

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

In the left corner we have One Rincon Hill, South Tower, standing 641 feet tall. Compare that with the “New Sheriff’s Facility” jail (the “glamour slammer“) on the right.

Which building is better?

Click to expand:

img_8553-copy.jpg

I–my idea, when we started out was to have a, you know, rising up, in the form of an undulating, ovulating ground that you don’t get so much nowadays.”