Talk:Channel Islands (California)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.220.125.111 (talk) at 07:23, 20 October 2007 (→‎Mexican Claims). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCalifornia Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations.
WikiProject iconCalifornia Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations.

They are uninhabited (not counting military personnels, which are not permanent settlers)? --Menchi 07:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Catalina has two cities, Two Harbors and Avalon. Also the areas of the National Park have park rangers that live on the island I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.175.94 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 March 2005.

Why are they called Channel Islands, since they are not in a channel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 July 2005.

I am just taking a very wild guess, but I do know that there is a very deep "channel" between the islands and the mainland. That might be the source for the name. BlankVerse ∅ 08:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a geology section that discusses their formation. It would be a good place for the answer to this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.77.40 (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Mexican Claims

Hi there, is it true that Mexico have/has claims over ths Channel Islands?

I've heard talks about this recently, In Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua there is a Mexican History Fair going on, where a Peruvian historian Ricardo Melgar stated that Seven Islands were taken away by the U.S for Military Strategic Reasons during WWII and Mexico has not claimed them due to fear of worsenin bilateral relation. This will sure start another controversy in Mexico in the following days. The Islands that supposelly belong to Mexico are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Santa Bárbara, San Nicolás, Santa Catarina and San Clemente. The link below is one of the news released in Mexico on the 19th of October, 2007 article is ion Spanish.


http://mx.news.yahoo.com/s/20102007/38/nacional-m-xico-debe-reclamar-soberan-7-islas-tomadas-ee.html

Military use

I know that most of the Channel Islands (all but Catalina) were under control of the military during WWII. I was told that the rabbits on Santa Barbara Island were released there during WWII so that the observers on the island would have fresh meat if they were cut off from the mainland for any length of time. I assume the single quonset hut on SBI is also of WWII vintage. BlankVerse 23:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Catalina was at least partially under military control. -Willmcw 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it apparently was also completely under military control. Apparently some residents were allowed to stay, to provide services to the military personel, but the few civilian residents allowed to stay had to have permits from the USCG to travel to and from the island. Most people had to leave and tourism was forbidden, I get the impression that all non-essential civilian travel was halted. Thats all according to this website. I'm reading up on it now so I can make the section more accurate. Thanks for pointing this out BlankVerse and Willmcw.
PS I'm leaving for the weekend. Feel free to make the changes yourselves (as if that needs to be said), I'm getting this all from the web anyhow. If not I'll do it when I get back. Try to reference your infor though please, to many articles are being written without references, its a travesty. --Brentt 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I seem to recall, from my visits to Catalina when I was young that Catalina's military history goes back farther than WWII. I remember my dad and a friend having a discussion when we were driving around the island one day that there was actually an outpost that dates from the civil war. Of course a discussion overheard when I was 8 years old isn't a reliable source, but if anyone knows anything about it, or can find out, it might be interesting. More about the natives would be neat too. (What kind of boats did they use btw? I won't even dare take my dad's bayliner there, I can't imagine making regular trips in something even less substantial.) --Brentt 00:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine WW I, and possibly even the Spanish-American War, but I think that any even remote connection to the American Civil War is highly unlikely (but I've been proved wrong on my assumptions before). BlankVerse 08:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Point, at the Golden Gate, was built for the Civil War. OTOH, Drum Barracks says it is the "only major American Civil War landmark in Southern California". At the time, Los Angeles was of very minor importance compared to S.F. I do remember reading about some WWI military activity. (further discussion along these lines might be better held at Talk:Santa Catalina Island, California). -Willmcw 09:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it was a fort that was involved in the civil war, it was just a military facility that dates from the civil war. It probably was not involved in the fighting of course if its true. But a military facility isn't so far-fetched. Its probably insignificant either way, and if it is interesting would be better on the Santa Catalina Island article as Willmcw pointed out. --Brentt 10:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The tomol boats used by Chumash and Tongva tribes were the most sophisticated technology used by North American Indians, according to one major anthropologist. Modern folks with courage have used kayaks, etc. Thanks for the input on military uses of the islands. -Willmcw 00:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there is a non-mainstream theory that the Chumash got their boat designs from Polynesians that had crossed the Pacific. BlankVerse 08:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and of course another, slightly more mainstream theory has an early migration along the Pacific coast of ice-locked North America, partly confirmed by the 10,000 year old remains found on Santa Rosa and a southern island. What I find most surprising is the material that they used—redwood lumber. Where do redwoods grow in SoCal? Nowhere. The trunks would just float down the coast from the north and wash up on the beach, like manna. That was a nice arrangement. -Willmcw 09:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-native species

This article talks briefly about a few of the native species. I think that it also should briefly cover the problems of the non-native goats, pigs, grasses, etc. BlankVerse 08:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with this article is that so many topics are covered in the individual island articles. Likewise, the island articles often have to repeat the same information. There's no good way around it. As the "master article", perhaps it's justifiable to have here snippets or summaries from all the island articles on a particular topic even if that is duplication. -Willmcw 10:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I wanted was some brief discussion that said all of the islands have had some impact from non-native species, and in several cases there have been steps taken to eliminate (goats on San Clemente) or reduce (Bison on Santa Catalina) the impact of the non-native species. BlankVerse 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counties

From a discussion with Will Beback regarding what county Santa Barbara Island is in, I realized that fact is not always clear. So I looked up each island on the Geographic Names Database:

To anyone familiar with Southern California geography, this is really unintuitive. Like, why is San Clemente Island, which is at the same latitute as Oceanside or Encinitas, assigned to Los Angeles county? szyslak (t, c, e) 04:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. -Will Beback 07:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, what is now Orange County was once part of LA County (which is not mentioned in the Wikipedia Orange County, California article). Even Avalon, California has a latitude that would put it into San Diego County, if that was the main criteria, but since Catalina Island is physical closer to LA County, that was probably the reason it ended up in that county. The largely uninhabited San Clemente Island may have just been lumped together with Catalina in the beginning.
It would be interesting to see if documentation could be found showing why Catalina Island stayed with LA County when Orange County was created. Did the residents of Avalon have any say in the matter? Perhaps because most of the commerce and transportation links are through San Pedro and Long Beach, Catalina Island was kept in LA County. BlankVerse 12:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check article - anon IP unsourced edits

Please see history with a time just prior to this post. Ronbo76 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather silly to me to go thorugh and just change sq. kilometers to sq. miles (but then we keep getting anon IPs and n00bs that convert American English to British English, or vice versa, so I'm not surprised that it was done). What 75.80.166.237 (talk · contribs) should have done is changed the table so that it had both measurements. It also looks like they might have messed up the conversion for Santa Barbara Island based on the data in the Wikipedia article, but that should be checked with an outside source. BlankVerse 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Channel_Islands_(California)&oldid=165798794"