Forget fossil hunting at Venice Beach

[CBulla]

IMNSHO the folks living in condos on the barrier islands shouldn't be there in the first place. They still haven't learned that a Hurricane is Mother Ocean's way of explaining to the uninitiated that they are living too close to the beach!

Funny, I don't work in that field and use that exact same statement as well as recognize your facts about sand and its poor retention abilites. Basic observation and time is more than enough to support that.

We need to protest this. This site should be protected just for the fact of the reef and for the aspect, that its a historical site. Call me if you are interested in forming a task force and setting something up. This really angers me that they would do this to such a place. Write your senators immediatley. ill call the Ocean conservancy and surfrider foundation. how stupid can people be?

Ya'll have been lurking my posts! I posted the city of Venice website and city managers name as a start for contact. I'll be happy to pull out the names of state senators or represenatives and their contact information for anyone interested.

 

[ReefGuy]

Update:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140371/1060

They're in a hurry to finish the renourishment before the next hurricane season. I guess they want to get it done before they have to do it again. There isn't a lot of time, but apparently, they haven't started taking bids yet. That starts this week.

They intend to add "100 feet or more to the width of the shoreline". The area they intend to destroy is from the inlet (just north of the public beach) to the pier.

 

[peengers]

I can understand how people are upset at the thought of losing the venice beach tooth location to restoration, but I fail to see how restoring the beach is any different ethically than letting hordes of divers harvest fossils from the waters in front of it. If you want to complain about destroying the ecosystem then you shouldn't harvest teeth.

In any event, it's a sad loss because I wanted some.

 

[Firebrand]

I can understand how people are upset at the thought of losing the venice beach tooth location to restoration, but I fail to see how restoring the beach is any different ethically than letting hordes of divers harvest fossils from the waters in front of it. If you want to complain about destroying the ecosystem then you shouldn't harvest teeth.

In any event, it's a sad loss because I wanted some.

And how do fossils contribute to the ecosystem? Understand that divers could stir up the sand and it gets transported 30 meters down current before it settles, but I don't see how diving for sharks teeth screws up the Venice Beach ecosystem. For what it's worth, I have a bachelors in Environmental Science too.

 

[ReefGuy]

If you want to complain about something, please read the post first.

There's plenty of fossils further out at the boneyard, or further south at Casperson. That's not why I'm angry. Just past the fossil beds is a reef system that will be destroyed by this "enrichment" project.

Reef systems in the gulf are hard to come by. I have not dove ANY artificial reefs in the gulf that has the life exhibited naturally at Venice Beach. It's not spectacular like Cozumel or even the keys, but it is a thriving ecosystem with sponges, gargonians, and other softies that I have yet to identify, including a large softie that looks remarkably like bouquets of flowers (or like a barrel cactus, complete with bloom on top). Not to mention all of the life that won't be destroyed, but will lose their habitat -mantis shrimps, crabs, and even the fish that serve to bring in the larger fish that people fish for off of the beach. To me, this is like bulldozing an oasis in the desert.

Now if you could explain to me how harvesting sharks teeth damages the ecosystem?

BTW, Venice also has a problem with waterways that are being silted up. Care to guess what at least one source of THAT problem is? Oddly enough, this very issue is being argued over as we speak.

I can understand how people are upset at the thought of losing the venice beach tooth location to restoration, but I fail to see how restoring the beach is any different ethically than letting hordes of divers harvest fossils from the waters in front of it. If you want to complain about destroying the ecosystem then you shouldn't harvest teeth.

In any event, it's a sad loss because I wanted some.

 

[RonFrank]

The article goes on for pages about how sad it is that the sharks teeth will be displaced, with first hand accounts from people living in Canada of all things, but on the first page there is this:

"The city also must build three artificial reefs, a federal requirement to compensate for several natural ones covered up in the renourishment process."

Then no mention again. I'm not sure which is sadder, that our government continues to pour billions of dollars along the entire length of the eastern seaboard from Altantic city to S. FL, and along the gulf coast moving sand around that dissappears in ONE storm, or that the reporter that wrote the story MISSED the REAL issue, wrecking natrual reefs in an area where there are VERY few.

And "Covered Up" ??? How about utterly Destroyed, killing and displacing an entire eco-system!!

OK ReefGuy, time for action!! Get down there and chain yourself to the front of that....errr.... Reef?? Hmm, this is not going to be easy...

Unfortunately IMO this would take some serious $$$$ and political pressure to stop. Ironically the sea is rather difficult to control (hence the problem in the first place) and all it takes is a good storm to completely reverse any effort to build sandpiles on/off the shore. Unfortunately when/if the natrual reef is uncovered once again, it will be dead.

I guess one confusing thing for me is that if the reefs were there when the beach was where the city liked it, why do they now have to pile sand on top that was never there in the first place???

If you want to complain about something, please read the post first.

There's plenty of fossils further out at the boneyard, or further south at Casperson. That's not why I'm angry. Just past the fossil beds is a reef system that will be destroyed by this "enrichment" project.

Reef systems in the gulf are hard to come by. I have not dove ANY artificial reefs in the gulf that has the life exhibited naturally at Venice Beach. It's not spectacular like Cozumel or even the keys, but it is a thriving ecosystem with sponges, gargonians, and other softies that I have yet to identify, including a large softie that looks remarkably like bouquets of flowers (or like a barrel cactus, complete with bloom on top). Not to mention all of the life that won't be destroyed, but will lose their habitat -mantis shrimps, crabs, and even the fish that serve to bring in the larger fish that people fish for off of the beach. To me, this is like bulldozing an oasis in the desert.

 

[ReefGuy]

Exactly my point, Ron. They've been dropping artificial "reefs" around here left and right. I'm all for that, but "artificial reef" is really a misnomer here. They should be called "Fish habitats".

Anyone who has been on the Spiegle Grove should be able to visualize what I'm saying. The Grove was dropped, what, three years ago? What kind of corals are growing on it now? This in a part of the country where coral at least propigates with relative ease (bleaching issues aside).

Peengers, Firebrand and I are hitting Venice beach on Saturday. You're more than welcome to come with us. Especially if you want to see the reef before it's gone.

 

[Firebrand]

Well stated guys!

 

[peengers]

Peengers, Firebrand and I are hitting Venice beach on Saturday. You're more than welcome to come with us. Especially if you want to see the reef before it's gone.

I'd love to, but I'm hopefully going to be diving off of a boat on saturday.

Thanks for the invite though.

 

[peengers]

And how do fossils contribute to the ecosystem?

They don't. But they are part of a resource that can eventually be depleted if care isn't taken with respect to harvesting.