First, the article suggests that Concar's farming operations are in violation of the law. The farming of this land is entirely legal and is part of an on-going farming operation that has occurred on the property since at least the 1940s. Concar's land is no different than other farmland in Half Moon Bay with regard to these on-going farming operations. The fact that there is a pending application to change the use of the land does not alter the owner's right to continue the current farming operations on this property.
Secondly, the US Fish and Wildlife Service had not made an "August determination" that the North Wavecrest property "is habitat for the California red-legged frog" as reported in the newspaper. The US Fish and Wildlife Service had expressed an opinion that portions of the property appeared to be "suitable habitat" for red-legged frogs, but has not made any formal determination that the property does in fact constitute sensitive habitat.
|
|
The article goes on to state "Concar Enterprises was aware the U.S. (sic) Department of Fish and Game and the state (sic) Department of Fish and Wildlife recently deemed the land as red-legged frog habitat." This is a misquote. I told the reporter that Concar Enterprises is aware that there is concern by the USFWS that there may be redlegged frogs present on the property, and that Concar takes these concerns seriously and thus employed a qualified biologist to monitor its farming operations as a precaution.
At no time did I say that Concar was aware that the property has been "deemed red-legged frog habitat", because, as I said before, Concar has been informed of no such formal designation.
We understand that the USFWS has determined that a dead snake alleged to have been found on the Wavecrest site was a common coast garter snake and not a special status species, and although there was no intent to injure any animal, if one in fact has been injured, this was not the species the monitoring biologist was charged to avoid.
These common garter snakes exist in abundance on the coast and in farming areas, unlike the protected San Francisco garter snake, which has very different feeding and behavioral patterns. One is as likely to accidentally kill a coast garter snake mowing their lawn, and any inference that the presence of these types of snakes in the area has correlation with the presence of the endangered San Francisco garter snake simply lacks scientific basis.
The article goes on: "The attorney maintains that her client has a right to manage the land it sees fit." This is also a misquote. I did not say they can use their property as they see fit. I did state that it is our opinion that Concar has the legal right to farm its land.
Concar's farming operations are not in violation of any law. The article suggests otherwise and is therefore injurious to the property owners and the public's right to complete and accurate reporting.
Julia M. Baigent is a Woodside resident and the attorney for Wavecrest Village property owners, Concar Enterprises.
w