Preservation of Wildlife Corridor Faces Nov. 12 Verdict

The fate of a suddenly controversial proposal by a coalition of environmentalists, homeowners and local government agencies to preserve a wildlife corridor in northern Los Angeles and southeastern Ventura counties will be decided Nov. 12.

The coalition wants a government-funded study of the movement of animals, particularly mammals such as deer, foxes and coyotes, in an area referred to as the Santa Susana Mountains wildlife corridor. The corridor runs between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana mountains on the east and north and the Simi Hills and Santa Monica Mountains on the west and south.

Restricting a species to an isolated area decreases the diversity of its gene pool, lowering its prospects for survival, proponents of the proposal say.

The study’s findings would assist local government agencies to identify land for acquisition and to limit development in areas critical to the movement of wildlife.

The Ventura County Fish and Game Commission has scheduled a special meeting Nov. 12 to decide whether to recommend that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors set aside $5,000 for the study. The supervisors generally follow the commission’s recommendations.

The wildlife coalition has asked the Los Angeles County Fish and Game Commission to recommend that Los Angeles County provide the remaining $5,000 for the $10,000 study. The Los Angeles County commission Thursday approved a $2,500 payment, leaving the other $2,500 contingent on the Ventura commission’s providing its $5,000 share.

Supporters of the proposal expressed anger Friday about a statement made by a state wildlife official at Thursday’s Ventura County commission meeting, which they interpreted as questioning their motives.

The Ventura County commission postponed action on the proposal after Roger Reese, a patrol captain in the state Fish and Game Department’s wildlife protection division, requested time to review the request and offer advice.

Reese said he wanted a department biologist to determine whether the request was an appropriate issue for a fish and game commission, or even feasible given the development that has already occurred.

A Matter of Motives

“The proposal may be valid and may actually aid wildlife, or the motivation behind it may be to limit land use and housing density and not be of aid to wildlife,” Reese said in an interview Friday, reiterating concerns he expressed at the meeting.

If the motive behind the proposal is to restrict growth, some other agency should review it, he said.

“He obviously wasn’t aware of the concerted efforts of people from that area and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,” responded Ventura County Supervisor Madge Schaefer, a supporter of the study. “I believe their concerns are very sincere and really not deserving of this kind of off-hand remark.”

The main agency seeking the study is the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, a joint effort of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Conejo and Rancho Simi Recreation and Park districts. Simi Valley and Chatsworth homeowner groups are also active supporters.

Schaefer expressed surprise and disappointment “that the state suddenly stepped in and decided there may be a problem,” since the study has been under discussion for more than six months.

Reese said state fish and game officials had not been consulted about the plan earlier. State wildlife officials do not have to approve the plan, but they are usually consulted on such cases, he said.

Commission Chairman Jim Donlon said Friday that the five-member commission would not have acted Thursday under any circumstances because it did not receive the written proposal from the wildlife coalition until Thursday’s meeting.

Rorie Skei, chairwoman of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, expressed confidence Friday that the study will be approved. She said Reese has worked with the authority on other projects and called his comment “just a matter of a misunderstanding.”