San Diego Seal Watch

Wow, the truth is just not in you Dorota.

By cyberKICK on Jun 11, 2010

Of Course Mayor Jerry Sanders denied the City Council’s request to issue an emergency permit to allow immediate placement of the rope guideline. There is no emergency and there is nothing to protect the seals from. Seagulls bother the seals more than people do. And if they were bothered by people, why do they continue to haul out on that beach. By the way, Dan Byrnes and friend did not prevent seals from coming back. In Fact, the seals hauled out all around them while they were sitting on the beach. People using the beach does not prevent the seals from also using the beach which would not be used by seals at all were it not for the Seawall that people built so children could swim in the ocean. Too bad there are too many seals polluting the water and eating all of the natural marine life for children to swim in the ocean here and tourists to enjoy seeing more than just seals here. The City council is not following the law, Section 30230 of the CA Coastal Act, which says that all marine resources must be maintained, not let be condemned, which is what a beach closure does.

By Balanced on Jun 12, 2010

Balanced, you have to understand, it has nothing to do with seals, but rather sales.

If the seals never left the beach, they would starve. Seals often leave the beach for the cool water and to eat. They are 50% blubber, and that fur coat gets rather hot. That is why they stay on the far side in the shade. They come up in the evening and spend the night there, and at other beaches all along the coast. At the Cove, every morning the lifeguards shoo away the seals so that people can use that beach. It is standard practice to shoo them away at beaches all over the california coast. This beach is just special because a bunch of bullies hate children.

By cyberKICK on Jun 12, 2010

It pains me to see what little shits the anti-seal people are. They know damn well what they are doing is blatantly illegal, but that the authorities are clueless and don’t enforce MMPA.

By fsivada on Jun 12, 2010

Are you saying that Dorota hates chidren?
It all makes sense now.
These people are chasing the children off the beach that was built just for them to swim in the ocean.
And getting paid to do it with “donations” by people who believe their lies.
Instead of wasting their money on this man-made one-animal zoo that claims to be for children, perhaps these people should donate to our public school system and help the children with something they really need.

By Balanced on Jun 12, 2010

It is not against the MMPA. Have you read it? I have. It clearly states that you have to change their behavioral patterns, in the context of migration and life-threatening attacks on them. I also contacted the NOAA and asked what would be considered harassment, and was told by the enforcement officer that I would have to wave my hands and chase the animals with the intention of causing them to be harassed. If however they were going for my lunch I could do that with no problem. NOAA went further to say that if seals approach me, then it isn’t harassment no matter what I do. I am not required to run away from them. NOAA even posts on their website ways to remove nuisance seals for cheap, without harming them. They even allow it without a permit.

By cyberKICK on Jun 13, 2010

I don’t care what problems the seals cause. I like them and want to look at them all day long every day. The seals chose this beach so we should give it to them. They were here first. It doesn’t matter if the seals eat all of the other marine life because I can’t see it from the sidewalk. If you don’t like it you can go to another beach. This is a small beach anyway. This is definitely educational for children. Where else can they see seals and not have to pay or drive a hundred miles. There should be as many seals as there can be.

By Jeff on Jun 15, 2010

Wow, how can anyone not understand that seals are more important than children, fish, or any other life form? Too bad the coastal act doesn’t recognize this. The Coastal Act says all marine life has equal importance. Lame. These beautiful seals are rare and need protections.

By Kathy on Jun 16, 2010

Since seals can only live behind 8ft thick sea walls designed specifically to prevent rip tides, undertows, waves and currents, we should be building this walls all up and down the coast to create natural habitat for seals. The funding should of course come from schools, as watching seals sleep is education enough for our children.

Also, we should have life guards as these beaches in case any seals get too tired and need to be rescued so that they won’t drown. We should also bring them buckets of endangered fish to eat. Perhaps little hats, sunglasses and umbrellas. Maybe we could hire some people to give them massages so that we can help eliveate their stress. They also will need some entertainment. Perhaps we can have some bands playing softly for them. In the summer when it gets too hot, we should have mist spraying on them to help keep them cool, and perhaps some air-conditioners.

By cyberKICK on Jun 16, 2010

I’d still like to know what these people are protecting the seals from. Clearly the people using the beach have not scared the seals away because every time after the people who have used the beach leave, the seals come back onto the beach. And there are more and more seals every year. So what do the seals need protection from? This web site never says. This looks like a huge money making scam. Where does all of the money go? A security guard? People are angry not for the seals, but for the harassment they get from these “seal protectors” who put on a show in order to sucker people into giving them money to keep harassing innocent people who simply want to use the beach in peace. Look at me, I’m protecting seals, give me money and I will protect the seals. Have you seen the seals? Most of them are big. If they want to come up on the beach, you’re not going to stop them. I’ve seen them push their way through crowds of people. Why don’t people believe the PhD Biologists who say that these seals don’t need any help on this beach or any other beach? Seals live quite well right alongside people. What qualifications do these people have?

By Balanced on Jun 17, 2010

People who think that beach should go to children: the beach is terrible for kids. I played there as a kid. There’s this big dropoff and I remember falling in it & getting cut by a big rock. It’s the worst one. If the seals can enjoy it, let them! Its dangerous for kids and there are at least 5 nearby shores that are actually good, fun places for kids to play.

By alex on Jun 17, 2010

Alex, the custom built beach, with a sea wall designed by a master hydrologist is not good for children? What the heck are you talking about? That is like saying Disneyland isn’t good for children, and we should let the pigeons have it, if they can enjoy it.

By cyberKICK on Jun 18, 2010

Also, I was talking with an actual marine biologist (with a PHD) was telling me that these seals aren’t even the same ones from day to day. Many seals live in the ocean and never come to land. Interesting. That is one of the reason the experts say this beach is totally insignificant to the seals. They don’t need it or care. I guess that explains why they can be found in harbors, on bouy’s and other beaches everywhere. It also explains how they get to and from the islands. Many seals spend month at sea without ever coming ashore, and many haul out on ice.

Let the children have their beach. Protect the other life (the life forms that actually need help). This one animal free petting zoo is rediculus.

By cyberKICK on Jun 18, 2010

The “emergency” rope barrier was nothing more than a shortcut attempted by the city to fast track the complete year round closure of the Children’s Pool. Mayor Sanders rightfully rejected that proposal. Forget the “emergency” rope. The seals will do just fine without it.

Those who support the beach closure must pay a political price and be voted out of office before they invite more lawsuits and cost the city another million dollars.

That inexpensive rope barrier put in place to ban people from the beach has a huge cost in personal freedom. San Diegans are about to be subjected to more oppressive restrictions that place animal rights above human rights. Over the past few years there has been a steady erosion of our right to use our beaches by the San Diego City Council. Had enough yet?

The alcohol ban, smoking ban, swim only where they say you are allowed and only during these hours in this season only. You can’t be trusted to decide for yourself to take on the thrill of jumping from The Clam any longer. And now the latest ban . . . people no longer allowed on a public beach at the Children’s Pool. I guess we still can be trusted to shuffle along the sea wall and watch a bunch of sleeping seals. No wonder our kids are getting so fat!

This seal over-population and the resulting polluted beach must be managed. The number of seals in the La Jolla Cove and Children’s Pool area must be reduced by dispersion and relocation if necessary. The seals that have taken up residence are no longer wild seals. Many are there as the result of being rescued and hand raised by Sea World and they have lost their natural wariness of humans. Of course they feel comfortable with people around. I’m sure they find the seal drones manning the seal trinket tables rather amusing especially when thy start screaming at swimmers, divers and families trying to use the beach.

By Califia on Jun 19, 2010

This population of seals is the result of tampering with the balanced and sustainable seal population that existed in previous years at Children’s Pool. So many were placed in the vicinity of Children’s Pool after a short stay with Sea World, with the hope they would colonize Seal Rock. They found nicer digs and moved into the Children’s Pool. Not a surprise they took advantage of Sea World and the City Council’s misguided management policy from the 1990′s. But problems exist and as we consider solutions we must realize there are only so many seals that this area can accommodate before they have a negative impact on other marine resources and humans. We could manage this seal population. We have foolishly chosen not to with the resulting polluted, overpopulated Children’s Pool and beach where humans are to be discouraged and harassed endlessly by the self appointed seal guardians.

The original immature seals that were rescued and released by Sea World were imprinted on humans as they were rehabilitated for release. The adult rehab seals also picked up a few bad habits. They live in the wild and are successful but they are no longer truly wild with the acquired behaviors from their brief captivity.

The rescued seals learned that humans were somehow a source of food and shelter and those who survived their release back to the wild took those behaviors with them. No doubt their lack of a normal level of wariness of humans was passed on to their offspring and other wild seals as they began moving into Children’s Pool in ever increasing numbers. The seal polluted beach caused closure during that time and the unwarranted extreme protection given these seals also contributed to the entire population of seals becoming habituated to humans. Devoted but misguided seal protection vigilantes also threw in an unhealthy dose of seal coddling. Did we miss giving cute names to any of the pups born this year?

A recent article in the Signon SD website has a seal researcher claiming there is a transitory population of around 500 individually identified seals using the Children’s Pool. If five hundred seals have used the beach at Children’s Pool at one time or another and only approximately two hundred maximum at any one time are on the beach, then the other three hundred seem to be faring just fine without the Children’s Pool Beach. There really are other places the seals can use. So far the seals and seal lions have segregated themselves to the Children’s Pool and La Jolla Cove. Increased competition for food and shelter will cause both beaches to be occupied by their growing population before long. Are we really ready to surrender our two most beautiful recreational beaches to the seals? We should not, we don’t need to.
The seals will be just fine without permitting exclusive use of those beaches.

There is an unnatural comfort level with human interaction brought back to the general population of seals with unintended and unwanted results.

I would like nothing more than for the balance to be restored at Children’s Pool. However the seal protection side will hear none of it. They have made it their religion to secure exclusive use of the Children’s Pool for the seals. Humans be damned in their quest to protect a population of seals that are in no way threatened or endangered here in La Jolla or anywhere else in their range. So yes, we may again need to correct this imbalance caused by the San Diego City Council at Children’s Pool using the courts to maintain public access to a public beach.

The City Council chose to ignore the problems at the pool even after being repeatedly ordered by the courts to manage the Children’s Pool in accordance with the Tidelands Trust. The council shows no sign that they have learned from their past experience and have deep pockets of taxpayer money to try to force a marine mammal park into a swimming pool built and dedicated for use by human children and their families. The intended use for this small sliver of man made beach could not be more obvious and carried with it the rule of law in it’s designation. Too bad politics got in the way and laws were ignored. The amendment to the Tidelands Trust only added Marine Mammal Park to the original uses. It did not supercede or replace the original uses.

Result: Chaos at Children’s Pool.

We have the opportunity to correct past mistakes and restore the natural balance of the La Jolla coastline by managing the seal population. We soon will need to do the same for the seal lions as they move further into the La Jolla Cove with the encouragement of seal religionists and their supporters on the City Council.

By Califia on Jun 19, 2010

During the last beach cleanup day (photos appear above) several hundred pounds of seal feces were removed entirely from the beach and disposed of properly. If left on the beach it is not good for seals or people. It was not just sand and seaweed moved on the beach as this website authors are claiming.

The city is refusing to clean the public beach endangering the seals and people who are lawfully using the beach. Responsible beach users will continue to hold beach cleanup days as needed. The City of San Diego refuses to abide by their duty to maintain Children’s Pool as is required by the Children’s Pool Trust.

By Califia on Jun 19, 2010

Dorota, I’ve been there when seals landed on the beach just to the south of that one, and it was all of a sudden closed also. Also, this one beach due to the lack of waterflow (designed that was to prevent currents) this beach is the worst one for seals. It is just as natural as watching the seals at the zoo. At the zoo you can get closer than the sidewalk. The unique life is all but gone from that beach. Now it is a 1 animal zoo, where before there was a huge variety of life to be seen there. All that feces used to be a variety of life. Or are you saying that seals don’t eat sealife. How many seals do you need?

By cyberKICK on Jun 20, 2010

So Clearly this is not about the seals. This is about People who want to Watch the seals. At least at the Zoo they clean up after the animals so it doesn’t smell so bad. Here, people are looking at a seal toilet full of their stinky poo and smelly pee. And don’t forget how good it feels between your toes. Some might even make it back to your car. The Seawall was designed to create a pool, not a toilet. The flow of water in and out of the pool from tidal action is probably only enough for a few seals to use this as a toilet. Let the people watch the seals out on Seal Rock or the rocks on the other side of the Seawall. This beach, by State Law, was built to be a Children’s Pool. If you want a seal pool, to look at seals and their poo, go build it somewhere else. This development is taken.

By Balanced on Jun 21, 2010

How many seals are needed?

By cyberKICK on Jun 21, 2010

We should vote on it.
Oh wait, we already did.
SB-428
There was the addition of “marine mammal park for the enjoyment and educational benefit of children.”
How is a poop filled beach enjoyable or educational to anyone?
How natural is a seawall?
Marine Mammal Park sounds like a zoo to me.
The City can’t even maintain the bathrooms. How are they going to maintain a marine mammal park?
Even the residents are complaining about the smell. Tourists don’t care. They get a free show and they leave. People who want to use the beach and who live here are left to clean up the mess. And they do. What a shame that a City would turn its back on its residents like this.

By Balanced on Jun 21, 2010

You can get the same enjoyment by using the toilet at home, and NOT lighting a match. You can also get the same educational benefit by looking in the toilet when you are done. See everybody wins!

By SalesBooth on Jun 21, 2010

Mr. Balanced, don’t you know, seals are the most important thing on this planet. If god feels generous enough to bless us with seals, we should all evacuate any area seals want to go. They should have all the endandered food they want. GOD BLESS THE SEALS!

By cyberKICK on Jun 22, 2010

found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later

By emt training on Jun 22, 2010

Seal poo is good for the environment. Children shouldn’t go to the beach anyway. It’s too dangerous. They should just play in their bathtub.

By Jeff on Jun 22, 2010

It’s all about the seals. They need protection. Seal poo is good for the seals and the environment. That’s why they roll around in it.

By Jeff on Jun 22, 2010

Of course seal poo is good. Why else would it come from such awesome animals? Heaven is full of seal poo! Everybody in heaven gets lots and lots of seal poo!

By cyberKICK on Jun 22, 2010

Now you’re just being silly.

By Balanced on Jun 22, 2010

This whole thing is silly. You don’t build powerlines so pigeons have a place to sit. Why would you build a custom beach for seals to poo in?

By cyberKICK on Jun 23, 2010

Exactly. The City accepted responsibility to maintain the beach behind the specially designed seawall in 1931 and now is too incompetent to do so. The state should remove the trust, remove the seawall and restore the beach to its natural condition. Then at least the unnatural pollution and loss of marine life caused by the seals can possibly be corrected. The trust was very clear that the seawall was to create a park for children and their families to swim in the ocean. How many parks have been built and then closed to people because a common animal that only passes by had decided to sleep there. What is the purpose of this website. To take your money. What is the purpose of the people above the children’s pool. To take your money. Have you saved anything or protected anything. No. The seals will keep doing what they’ve been doing since before the wall was built in 1931 and ever since; they will live in the ocean and haul out onto rocks and pretty much anywhere they feel like. The seals are in no danger.

By Balanced on Jun 23, 2010

So, Balanced, are you saying that if a flock of seagulls decides to land in a public park, we shouldn’t close the park and protect the gulls? That may be true, but gulls are not nearly as amazing as seals.

By cyberKICK on Jun 25, 2010

Well, the beach was awesome today, lots of seals, lots of people. Everybody having a good time. One seal was so friendly is would rub its nose on you and tickle you with its wiskers. It would also rub you a bit and enjoyed when we would rub it back. Especially seemed to like to have its tummy rubbed. In the water they are much more bold!

The kids enjoyed it, and really didn’t want to leave even when it got cold…

What a great day!

By cyberKICK on Jun 27, 2010

I heard they hired a park ranger, and he will be starting soon. That means more fun weekends to come!

By cyberKICK on Jun 29, 2010

The only reason a park ranger is needed is to stop people from harassing other people. This pool was built for children and their families and they shouldn’t feel afraid to use it.

By Balanced on Jun 29, 2010

Yes, balanced, but we were blessed with seals. Seals are more important than people. The seals should have the whole ocean, all the beaches, and as far inland as they can get. If necessary we should feed our children to them. If we are able to make enough seals that fish becomes hard for them to catch (obviously).

By cyberKICK on Jun 29, 2010

People and animals should never interact. It’s not natural. Animals bite and they’re dirty. People could get sick or bitten. We should build more parks for animals and close them to people so we can just look at the animals. The children’s pool isn’t for children anymore since the seals are using it now. If seagulls started using a park then we should close the park for the seagulls and just look at them. People have lots of other parks to use. How selfish.

By Jeff on Jun 29, 2010

Exactly. I saw pigeons on a powerline at home. We should turn off power to that line to keep them safe. We don’t want their little claws to penetrate the insulation and get them electricuted. We can even close the road so that people can see the pigeons whenever thay want!

Also, sometimes termites just want to eat houses. We should let them. Afterall, they were here first.

By cyberKICK on Jun 29, 2010

I want to see video of the Children’s Pool from Sunday. I heard people and their children were playing frisbee, building sand castles, swimming with the seals. Imagine that, nobody was bitten by a seal.

By Balanced on Jun 29, 2010

I’d like to see a video of anybody being bitten by a harbor seal EVER! I don’t think they bite. Is there even a record of a common seal attacking a human who wasn’t trying to hurt them?

By cyberKICK on Jun 29, 2010

You won’t see a video from sunday because it would show people and seals getting along just fine. A video from sunday wouldn’t “support the cause”.

By cyberKICK on Jun 29, 2010

And what is their cause? This web site claims to be protecting the seals but they don’t say what they are protecting them from. What would happen if these people weren’t “protecting the seals”. I suppose some seals would go somewhere else and some would stay. At least the beach would be cleaner. All that these people are doing is causing a dirty beach and a significant decrease in other marine life. How are the seals facing tough times without the rope? What a bunch of lunatics. The only problems are the ones caused by these people. Why are the police called? – these people are fighting with law abiding beach goers. Why is the City spending millions on law suits? – these people are suing the City. And for what? So that these seals can use this beach as a rest stop and toilet instead of some other beach or rock more suited to the seals’ needs. The City clearly doesn’t care that someone spent money to build this beach and dedicate it to children and to the people of the State of California. The City was given this land for the specific purpose of maintaining a Park on it. But now it is being destroyed by ignorance and stupidity. I hope that the Coastal Commission has more sense and denies all further nonsense about roping or closing the Park. The new Park Ranger needs to be in charge of one thing – Cleaning The Park and keeping it that way.

By Balanced on Jun 29, 2010

We are saving seals from having to live on rocks and other beaches. These seals like to be looked at, and we are fighting for their right to be looked at. Also, they need a place to have babies. If this place didn’t exist, they could have their babies. Seals never had babies until this wall was built, clearly.

Balanced, I am getting tired of your arguments that don’t make sense. It is almost like you don’t understand the importance of the seals, and in turn, how important this beach is to them. Everybody knows that seals are the most amazing animals in the world.

By cyberKICK on Jun 30, 2010

I think that it is clear since there have been no updates in about 3 weeks, that not having the rope has changed nothing. If the rope was so necessary, there would probably be plenty of updates and such documanting the problems of not having the rope. Clearly the rope is not needed.

By cyberKICK on Jun 30, 2010

The rope is needed.
The people are scaring away all of the seals.
Now I only have a few seals to look at.
And the beach isn’t going to be full of healthy seal poo that smells so good; especially on those hot days. Someone still might be bitten by one of these cute loveable seals. I’ll be really sad if I can’t look at seals whenever I want anymore. Why don’t people just leave the beach just in case a seal wants to come out of the water because it’s tired and needs to rest. I don’t care if the seals can sleep underwater or float on their back to sleep. I want them to sleep here. It’s all about people who want to see seals. We are not selfish. We’re giving the beach to the seals whether they need it or not. And that will be money well spent no matter how much it costs. We need to look at seals.

By Jeff on Jun 30, 2010

I totally agree Jeff. What is important to remember is that seals need this beach, and can’t survive without it. I can’t believe the city is going to allow fireworks. You know, it might actually cause the seals to go in to the water at night! They could drown or get lost. Somebody should file for an emergency restriction on fireworks on the 4th. People don’t need them, and the poor seals need their rest.

By SalesBooth on Jun 30, 2010

Looks like this weekend will be fun also. Maybe some bbq, swimming, etc. I’d recommend coming down to the beach and joining us in some fun. Watching some fireworks would be cool too.

By cyberKICK on Jul 1, 2010

I’ve heard that someone has a video of a person being bitten by a seal.

These are wild animals. The public *must not* harass the seals under MMPA. The law in effect protects the the foolish people that try to pet the seals as well as the seals.

CyberKICK, I saw that you referenced MMPA a few weeks ago. I assure that MMPA is unambiguous in its protection of the marine mammals. The law needs to be observed by all people that believe in the rule of law.

By fsivada on Jul 1, 2010

MMPA Regulations
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/mmpa_regs_216.pdf)

Emphasis mine.

Subpart B—Prohibitions
§ 216.11 Prohibited taking.
Except as otherwise provided in subparts
C, D, and I of this part 216 or in
part 228 or 229, it is unlawful for:
.
.
.
(b) Any person, vessel, or conveyance
to take any marine mammal in waters
or on lands under the jurisdiction of
the United States

From Section 216.3 Definitions…
“Take” means to harass, hunt, capture,
collect, or kill, or attempt to harass,
hunt, capture, collect, or kill any marine
mammal. This includes, without
limitation, any of the following: The
collection of dead animals, or parts
thereof; the restraint or detention of a
marine mammal, no matter how temporary;
tagging a marine mammal; the
negligent or intentional operation of
an aircraft or vessel, or the doing of any other negligent or intentional act
which results in disturbing or molesting
a marine mammal; and feeding or
attempting to feed a marine mammal
in the wild.

By fsivada on Jul 1, 2010

Well, you left out the defination of “harassment”
According to the MMPA:
The term “harassment” means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which—
(i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or
(ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
How does petting violate either of these?
Second, they are not in the wild, they are in a marine mammal park, and as per several sources, a marine mammal park is a park where animals are on display and cared for properly. They need proper veterinary care, and be treated in specific humane ways. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_mammal_park
Section 216.3 is not from the MMPA, but rather another definition set that only applies if the definition isn’t in the MMPA. It is actually in the Code of Federal Regulations – Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries. Your quoted definition for “take” was replaced in the MMPA by:

“The term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”

By cyberKICK on Jul 1, 2010

The MMPA works well when the seals are in the wild. I don’t believe that you can call a public beach “the wild”; Especially when the beach is artificially made. People aren’t going to the seals; the seals are coming to the people. Do people think that the seawall just sprouted up on its own? If NOAA or the NMFS felt that these seals needed “protecting” they would certainly do it. I would bet that the video of a person being bitten by a seal is not of a harbor seal.
Also remember that The primary objective of the MMPA is to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem and to obtain and maintain an optimum sustainable population of marine mammals.
Well the marine ecosystem at the Children’s Pool has probably been destroyed since there are probably way more than the optimum population of marine mammals here.
But of course the argument always seems to lead back to the seal watchers who really don’t care about anything other than their own ability to look at seals whenever they want and for as long as they want. That is all that they are looking to protect. Otherwise they wouldn’t stand for allowing the seals to roll around in their own feces. Imagine the uproar if the Zoo or SeaWorld didn’t clean up after their animals. But here it seems that no matter how unsanitary, as long as the seals are there, it’s okay. How wrong is that?

By Balanced on Jul 1, 2010

True, at a marine mammal park, they would certainly have to clean it. I don’t know why the city is exempt from maintaining this park.

By cyberKICK on Jul 2, 2010

cyberKICK, the seals are *not* in a marine mammal park. Any sane court in the world would rule that they are in the wild. Seriously, you would do yourself a service if you would not make such wild claims.
I will further explore the definition of harassment in these pages.

By fsivada on Jul 2, 2010

I have explorer the defination of harassment, and I even called NOAA enforcement to find out what harassment is. According to NOAA in order to harass the seals I would have to chase after them. If seals approach you, you can interact as you see fit. If they try to take your lunch you are allowed to chase them away. On the NOAA page they have a list of things you are allowed to do to chase them away.

Regarding the marine mammal park, that is what they are calling the childrens pool beach. It is one the the items in the list of uses of the childrens pool beach. That is the only reason the seals are there. Otherwise they would be chased away like they are from other beaches all over the coast.

If you believe you have a defination that overrides the defination of harassment in the MMPA please show it. Show why it overrides he defination as defined in the MMPA.

By cyberKICK on Jul 2, 2010

I don’t care what you call it; the wild, marine mammal park, seal rookery, toilet. The seals need to be there because people want to look at them. It also doesn’t matter that the seals never used the beach before the seawall was built. They want to use it now. If a family of birds or rats or seagulls or pigeons or other animal wanted to use another park then people should leave the park and only look at the animals. The park will become their natural environment because that’s where they live and people should never disturb wild animals. Animals are natural and people are not.

By Jeff on Jul 2, 2010

The courts have already ruled that this beach is a park and that the City must clean it. But I suppose those weren’t “sane” courts. The seals are only in the wild when they are out in the ocean. Yes, when the seals are on the beach and in the water inside the seawall, they most certainly are in a Park. SeaWorld has cared for more than one of these animals although I don’t believe that the City has the proper permits for this development to be a marine mammal park. After all it was built for the specific purpose to be a bathing pool for children and a public park. There really should be an environmental report before the location can properly be called a marine mammal park. Right now the seals are just a nuisance for the people who have always used this park. Would you buy pigeons to poop all over your car. No? Then why would you bring in seals to poop all over your beach. And again, this beach was made by humans the same way a lake can be made by building a dam. And if you built a lake, wouldn’t you want to control what animals use the lake? I suppose you would consider that “wild” too and not a park. You could fill it with pirahna fish and just tell people to be careful, fish were here before humans. In fact, fish were here before seals. So really we should be protecting the fish from the seals that should be protected from humans. But wait, seals eat fish. Humans eat seals. So we’re protecting the food from the predators. Because that’s what happens in the wild.

By Balanced on Jul 2, 2010

I don’t care about any of that. I just want to look at seals and only on this one beach. I don’t care if they are everywhere. People pay money to see them on this beach because they need protection.

By Jeff on Jul 2, 2010

cyberKick and Balanced, the answers to most of your questions are contained in my post of July 1…

“…the doing of any other negligent or intentional act which results in *disturbing* or molesting a marine mammal.”

Petting clearly disturbs the seals. Anytime a human is within its flight zone, a seal is *very* disturbed.

Per Wikipedia: “The flight zone of an animal is the area surrounding the animal that will cause alarm and escape behavior when encroached upon.”

Hence, if you cause a seal to even look up from its sleep in anticipation of fleeing, you have violated MMPA Regulations.

Governmental regulations have the force of law. See Wikipedia “Administrative law”. For example, MMPA was passed by Congress in 1972. NOAA then wrote the MMPA regulations that expand upon MMPA. Those regs are updated regularly. The “law” is the total of MMPA, the regs *and* any case law.

(You do of course know that Federal law supersedes *all* state and local law?)

Just like humans, seals need sleep. The term sheltering in Level B harassment (that you quoted as ii) is synonymous with allowing the seals to haul out and get their needed sleep.

I am happy that we are having this discussion. We seem to be making progress towards a common understanding, perhaps even a compromise. Key to that is discussing actual law, rather than merely posting opinions.

But keep in mind that as long as seals are being disturbed at any time, animal advocates will be active within all branches of government and in person, to make sure the seals are left alone. We will be on this issue until the end of time.

By fsivada on Jul 5, 2010

Dear fsivada,
You say that you want to discuss actual law rather than merely opinions but posting opinions is all that you have been doing. So here are a couple relevant Federal Laws that you like so much:

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act:
Section 303
The Congress finds and declares that it is the national
policy—
(1) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to
restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal
zone for this and succeeding generations;
(E) public access to the coasts for recreation purposes,

MMPA Section 109(h) [Taking of Marine Mammals as Part of Official Duties.]
(1)Nothing in this title or title IV shall prevent a Federal, State, or local government official or employee or a person designated under section 112(c) from taking, in the course of his or her duties as an official, employee, or designee, a marine mammal in a humane manner (including euthanasia) if such taking is for-
(A) the protection or welfare of the mammal
(B) the protection of the public health and welfare, or
(C) the nonlethal removal of nuisance animals.

So what does this mean? If the seals at the Children’s Pool are affecting public health [which they are], or are a nuisance [which they are thanks to the “animal advocates”], then the City, which is a local government, or the State, without a permit, can simply prevent the seals from hauling out at the Children’s Pool [a development]. What a simple solution. Problem solved. Thank you fsivada. This was a great discussion.

By the way, seals don’t need the Children’s Pool to get their needed sleep. But apparently that is just a matter of opinion. Or simply ignorance. Exactly how many seals have you heard of that have drowned because they couldn’t get enough sleep. I wonder where seals in the open ocean sleep? Do you think that Hawaiian seals swam all of the way to Hawaii without sleeping?

By Balanced on Jul 6, 2010

Balanced and fsivada, this has never been a matter of law. If the activists would leave, then there would be no problem.

If you want to explore the law, look at SB 428, or even better, the original trust. The MMPA clearly states that harassment is severe and extreme. Peaceful coexistance is not harassment. You are trying to take the MMPA and cite parts out of context.

NOAA has made it clear what harassment is, and I even called in and asked. With all the engangered species around, our efforts would be more valuable protecting animals that actually need protecting. For many years people and seals have used that beach, and the only life forms getting upset are “animal activists”.

By cyberKICK on Jul 6, 2010

I love seals. I don’t care about laws and codes. Nobody should. The thing to keep in mind is that GOD put these animals on the earth for us to look at them, and we are blessed.

Praise GOD and the seals

By IluvSEALS on Jul 7, 2010

The law doesn’t matter. All that matters is that people want to look at seals and yell at anyone who tries to use this beach because this is where seals choose to go and people choose this beach for these seals. More people choose this beach for these seals and so they should have it because when more people want something than not then they should have it and it doesn’t matter who owns it or what laws there are because people will do what they want before the law can stop them and by that time the law can be changed. So people should just leave the seals alone so people can look at them because that is what the seals want too. They want to be looked at and bite anyone who tries to stop them from being looked at.

By Jeff on Jul 7, 2010

Dear fsivada,
What happened to our discussion? You haven’t given up yet have you? The seals are counting on you to protect them. Perhaps reality is setting in? I see that Jeff will never get it or perhaps he is making fun of all of this. Either way, under California law, which is supported by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the public has the right to use all lands seaward of the ambulatory Mean High Tide Line.

fsivada, correct me if I’m missing something.

What does this mean? Well, let’s say that somehow the City closed the beach legally; then under California law, the public will still always have the right to use the beach that is below the ambulatory Mean High Tide Line, and have convenient access to it. The City can’t EVER keep people out of the water or off of the beach because the owner of this land/ocean is the United States, not the City. Remember those federal laws you like so much. Since the SeaWall changes the way the beach forms, the ambulatory Mean High Tide Line is where the high tide line would be if the SeaWall were not there. The 1931 Trust, and SB 428, apparently has already prevented the location from becoming a seal reserve. I guess they’ll keep trying. So keep dreaming.

Surely you can find something wrong with this reasoning.

By Balanced on Jul 8, 2010

Right, so if it can’t be a seal sanctuary, it must be a park. If it is a park, than interaction with the animals in inevitable. Sort of like squirrels in a park. If the squirrels become too numerous, or dangerous, they are moved or terminated. Fortunately for the seals, the ocean is a big place, and it is easy for them to find other places to go. Since this colony has about 500 animals, and only about 40 to 60 use the beach at a time now, and 200 or less during the pubbing season, you know the rest are somewhere else. Marine biologists have already said this beach in insignificant to seals. Sounds like the city wanted to make it a sanctuary, was denied, and are now trying to make a sanctuary but calling it a marine mammal park. Problem is that a marine mammal park is still a park, and that give preference to people. Animals are controlled and managed in parks.

By cyberKICK on Jul 8, 2010

You chowderheads don’t know what your talking about.

By Jeff on Jul 9, 2010

The courts have already ruled that this beach is a park and that the City must clean it. But I suppose those weren’t “sane” courts. The seals are only in the wild when they are out in the ocean. Yes, when the seals are on the beach and in the water inside the seawall, they most certainly are in a Park. SeaWorld has cared for more than one of these animals although I don’t believe that the City has the proper permits for this development to be a marine mammal park. After all it was built for the specific purpose to be a bathing pool for children and a public park. There really should be an environmental report before the location can properly be called a marine mammal park. Right now the seals are just a nuisance for the people who have always used this park. Would you buy pigeons to poop all over your car. No? Then why would you bring in seals to poop all over your beach. And again, this beach was made by humans the same way a lake can be made by building a dam. And if you built a lake, wouldn’t you want to control what animals use the lake? I suppose you would consider that “wild” too and not a park. You could fill it with pirahna fish and just tell people to be careful, fish were here before humans. In fact, fish were here before seals. So really we should be protecting the fish from the seals that should be protected from humans. But wait, seals eat fish. Humans eat seals. So we’re protecting the food from the predators. Because that’s what happens in the wild.
+1

By Dui Lawyer on Jul 9, 2010

Jeff, all you have is insults? If you have a logical or genuine point to make, then make it.

Clearly law isn’t important to the City, and because GOD wants the seals here, we should break the law to keep the seals.

By cyberKICK on Jul 9, 2010

What I don’t understand, is if it is a public beach, how can it be allowed to get so unsanitary? All public parks are routinly cleaned. Public Park, Marine Mammal Park, etc all need to be cleaned. Imagine if at the zoo they didn’t clean after the animals. This beach is not a sanctuary, it is a park. Sanctuary means animals have priority, park means people have priority. If they want a sanctuary, they should apply for it, and change its designation.

By PublicUse on Jul 15, 2010

A+ would read again

By mode20100 on Aug 25, 2010

ok got it

By free antivirus on Sep 13, 2010

haha

By limewire download on Sep 15, 2010

Beneficial info and excellent design you got here! I want to thank you for sharing your ideas and putting the time into the stuff you publish! Great work!

By federal student loan on Nov 8, 2010

Aw, this was a genuinely quality blog post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a fantastic blog post… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and never seem to get something done. Regards, Kasha.

By Kasha on Nov 19, 2010

Extraordinary website, such a knowledge I’ve been searching for, thank you it practically helped me

By Auschwitz tour on Nov 26, 2010

Hello! Is it Okay if I ask anything kinda off topic? I’m trying to view this page on my iphone nonetheless it will not show up appropriately, do you may have any options? Thanks in advance!

By Dalton Kurcaba on Dec 9, 2010

extreme blog you’ve pick up

By Quentin Rowser on Dec 13, 2010

Nothing for nothing.

———————————–

By harley davidson on Dec 13, 2010