3 comments | [Disclosure: I am a marine mammal biologist. My job involves protecting dolphins, whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions under The Marine Mammal Protection Act. However, I do not write this as a biologist, but as an aestheticist. This way, I avoid annoying my employer by separating my opinions from my work. The Federal Government is funny that way.]
Years ago, I was at a La Jolla playground with my daughter, when a woman approached me with a clipboard. She wanted me to sign a petition to Save Children’s Pool. “From what?” I asked. Well, from being overrun with seals, she answered. Years later, seal opponents and advocates are still in and out of court over the issue. Recently, the City Council came up with a plan that could potentially keep the seals in place.
Two common arguments against the seals’ presence (seal feces and shark attractors) are disingenuous at best. A brief walk a few hundred meters to the north of the seal rookery, seaward of the Contemporary Art Museum, will convince you (and your nose) that bigger pollution sources are being ignored. As for sharks, a rookery of 200 harbor seals is unlikely to have a local impact, when you consider that the nearby Channel Islands are home to orders of magnitude greater numbers of seals and sea lions. Besides, southern California is a nursery area for juvenile white sharks, which don’t eat marine mammals. If you want to worry about a white shark attack, trade places with a northern elephant seal near the Farallon Islands for a summer.
That leaves only the Ellen Browning Scripps legacy as an argument against the seals. Scripps was responsible for the creation of Children’s Pool in the 1930s as a place where young children could safely swim. Today, I don’t think the argument that the children of La Jolla lack a safe place to swim stands up in the presence of the sandy expanse of La Jolla Shores beach. But a judge recently ruled that the 1931 trust governing the cove “does not permit joint use between humans and seals, [and] does not permit use by seals of the beach as a habitat.” This confuses me, because the issue should not be joint use. Either let the seals stay or get rid of them and let La Jolla have its exclusive beach back. Joint use is not realistic, given the size of the beach, because there will always be some wise guy trying to pet or hug a wild seal. More recently, the California State Senate voted 30-4 to approve legislation that could eventually result in an amendment of the 1931 trust that would allow for the Children’s Pool to be designated as a marine mammal park.
The La Jolla seals are a rarity - a wild harbor seal rookery in an urban environment. We are lucky to get so close to these animals. I’ve spent many hours counting seals and sea lions on the Channel Islands, and believe me, if harbor seals get a whiff of you from 100 yards away, they spook and make a mad dash for the surf. Approximately 40,000 harbor seals occupy California (I am a coauthor of the recent scientific paper that resulted in this estimate). This is the only harbor seal rookery I’ve seen where the animals are not afraid of people. They should be afraid of lawyers though. Already, lawyers are preparing for battle against the City Council’s recent action that would prevent the seals’ removal. Along the mainland, the next chance to see harbor seals is at Point Mugu, near Ventura. The public can’t enjoy that rookery, because it is on U.S. military property, where the Navy takes pride in their presence. Harbor seals get a better reception from our military than they do from ‘The Jewel’ of San Diego! Let’s get this out of the courts, out of the City Council, and give the decision to the children of San Diego. It’s called The Children’s Pool for a reason, but we haven’t heard their voices. Why not let the children of San Diego (the whole city, not just La Jolla) vote on the seals’ fate? Imagine the civic value this democratic exercise would bring to kids and schools! La Jolla parents who attempted to influence their child’s vote would be prosecuted for election tampering. Ellen Browning Scripps would approve of the vote, no matter which way it went, because she would have wanted what the children want.
Jim Carretta is a research biologist based in La Jolla. He can be reached at JCarretta@yahoo.com
Tags: SDNN
Comment by: Scott Posted: May 22, 2009, 6:24 pm
Wow, I’m completely with you on letting the seals stay. How anyone could possibly think that children will gain more from the removal of these animals than from having them in the neighborhood is beyond me.
On a side note, there’s no excuse for all the sea lion killing going on up North, on the Columbia river. Up there, people are blaming sea lions for eating “too many” fish, instead of examining the wisdom of fishing for endangered fish with gill nets, which they are doing.
So things are tough all over for seals and sea lions. People just can’t seem to get along with the world around us.
Comment by: Paul Pomes Posted: May 23, 2009, 7:41 pm
The seals are a nuisance, moreso the nannies volunteering to “protect” them. The issue is quite simple: the city made an agreement to preserve the pool for children as part of the trust. Efforts to second-guess Ellen Scripts intentions are pure revisionism. They make a mockery of contracts and endanger future charitable donations to the public trust. If donors aren’t sure their wishes will be honored, they will likely divert their gifts elsewhere.
Comment by: Carrie Posted: May 31, 2009, 8:11 pm
Times have changed since La Jolla was a windswept barely inhabited Point. Chances are that Scripps, observing the delight of children today who watch the seals, would have given money to keep the seals there.
Senator Chris Kehoe is working on legislation to allow the City to decide the fate of the beach, which is more sensible than allowing the courts to do it.