Comments so far on this story:

1. escortalex wrote on May 15, 2008 11:41 AM:
"Ridiculous is right. Children DO enjoy seeing the seals. And you can see them just fine when they're out on the flat rock where the rookery used to be. Allowing them on the sand only imprints the seals; teaches 'em that it's okay to interact closely with humans. This ain't no Disny movie, Ms. Whitty, and you're training seals to behave unnaturally, in a manner guaranteed to cause problems in the future as those seals are involved in conflicts with humans."

2. escortalex wrote on May 15, 2008 11:46 AM:
""there are plenty of other beaches nearby for people to use." Repeating something doesn't make it true. There is NO sheltered beach within miles of that spot. Name ONE. Children's Pool is a man-made spot. There is a good reason it was BUILT. If you disagree with having a spot for kids and yes, even grown-up divers to access the water without being pounded by waves, fine. Make your case, and we'll tear down the wall and return everything to its natural form. Seals are not pets. Teaching them to relax and be cute little tame animals doesn't do them any favors. Swimming in a cesspool of their own waste doesn't do them any favors. And before you call someone else small-minded, perhaps you can use your large mind, and try to understand the facts of this case."

3. People before nature!!! wrote on May 15, 2008 11:54 AM:
"Don't you people see? The seals are just the start of the threat! First the seals -- then pretty soon the brush-eating goats will come down from the hillsides and we'll be expected to let them nibble our shoes! Go away, seals! The coastline is for PEOPLE, not sea animals. Ellen Browning Scripps would TURN IN HER GRAVE if she knew children and their parents were having to gather at the top of the stairs and watch those creatures lay about on HER beach, but that if they wanted to swim, they'd have to travel up to SEVERAL BLOCKS to a different beach. This is the only place San Diego's young can swim -- THE ONLY PLACE! -- and you would deny them that? Club the seals and pave the beach to make sure their luckier pals don't come looking to squat on this beach, which belongs to humans."

4. Black Sabbath wrote on May 15, 2008 12:15 PM:
"I think that it is nasty to have any type of "shared use" with seals and humans. The seals should be moved on to another location so the area can be used without the present conflicts. The seals will survive as will the seal advocates. It just seems like a big waste of time and energy when there are much more pressing problems facing the City and the world. Sea poop - ugh."

5. District 5 Voter wrote on May 15, 2008 12:50 PM:
"Sorry Tara - looks like you're in the minority here. The seals need to go and the children should be invited in - it's what Ms. Scripps wanted when she left the property to the city. The seals have lots of other places to go, like the ocean and all those rocks that jut out from the water there in La Jolla."

6. With Whitty wrote on May 15, 2008 12:55 PM:
"I'm with you, Ms. Whitty, the seals are a remarkable natural phenomenon at the Children's Pool and have become a fixture on the landscape and a draw for wildlife lovers. Blowing up the sea wall, dredging the beach, driving the animals off with sticks and stones -- it all feel excessive. Ditto, "shared use," a yucky thought. You're right, not one City Council candidate seems to understand this -- or else they're all too afraid to stand up for seals because seals don't vote! Anyone who knows the area knows that the beach at that site is actually dangerous for kids because there is a drop-off and a surge -- but it is a divers' favorite spot, as one writer admits. That's who's mostly lobbying for seal eradication."

7. Just follow the law wrote on May 15, 2008 1:03 PM:
"It isn't about a candidate's opinion one way or the other. This is about a California Supreme Court decision that stated the City of San Diego failed in their responsibility to honor the Trust set up by the State of California when it granted the shoreline in that area to the City of San Diego exclusively for SWIMMING AND FISHING. It is about following the law and the City of San Diego is in a heck of a lot of hot water now because it has continuously failed to uphold the law on a wide range of issues. We need candidates on the City Council who aren't there to make up laws, we need councilmen who WILL FOLLOW THEM. If the Supreme Court said to leave the seals alone, then the Council should leave them alone, but that's not what the court said."

8. Larry wrote on May 15, 2008 1:25 PM:
"escortalex is entirely correct. Cohabitation worked just fine when the seals hung out on the rocks and people were allowed to use the beach that was BUILT FOR THEM."

9. Steve K wrote on May 15, 2008 1:28 PM:
"The problem with the large number of seals at Children's Pool is that the water is contaminated 365 days a year, with e-coliform bacteria; this can't be good for humans or baby seals."

10. People before nature!!! wrote on May 15, 2008 1:44 PM:
"OK, this time without the extreme sarcasm ... Ellen Browning Scripps did not "leave the property to the city." She never owned that land. The public owns the land, if anyone does. Scripps sponsored the construction of the seawall to serve a need that no longer exists. (How many poor, ill children have no other options but to swim there?) And allowing nature to take its course does not violate the law. The law governs humans, not seals. The beach is not being used by humans for any other purpose but to swim and fish. So no law has been violated. As for whether it's "natural" for the seals to be there -- clearly they find the place attractive; they're not just trying to annoy us. And it's certainly no more natural to run them off. This is about selfish humans perceiving a threat where none exists, and that's smallminded."

11. Get A Clue wrote on May 15, 2008 2:14 PM:
"It's always interesting to see how people approach issues. Most issues have good and bad points and the seals and Children's Pool is no different. Yet the emotional dialogue polarizes the issue. Someone isn't "small minded" if they'd like to see the beach returned to human use for which it was originally designed, nor are they "ridiculous" for advocating that the seals remain. Personally, I would prefer that the seals remain. Far more people, including tourists, have and will continue to enjoy having the opportunity to look at the seals year round rather than children using it for a couple of months out of the year. When I took my kids to the beach, I was concerned that it was "safe" and La Jolla Shores is far safer with it's flat beach and calm waves than this "protected" beach. Let's have an intelligent dialogue, not name calling."

12. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 15, 2008 2:34 PM:
"These pages are filled with bitter complaints about elected officials subverting,circumven and skirting the laws yet when they suuport a city ordinance,a State Trust and a Supreme Court decision they're flogged endlessly by folks who claim to know what seals feel and want. Duh? What's next? Checking them for Green cards? Voter registration? Ship'em off to the Coronados where they'll have to work for a living like the rest of us. Sustain the laws and the kid's use of the Pool,as intended. Kids first."

13. firecliff wrote on May 15, 2008 4:52 PM:
"What don't you understand about "Children's Pool"? I swam there as a kid and I find it unfortunate that my kids are denied the same. To the writer who claims the seals are a "phenomenon", give me a break. The kelp beds are full of food and the pool is sheltered from the surf. It dosen't take a biologist from Scripps to tell you it's a matter of convience for the seals. The pool was intended to shelter kids and families from the surf to enjoy the San Diego coastline. I say we pay round trip tickets for a bunch of Eskimos to come down here and we supply them with baseball bats."

14. La Playa Heritage wrote on May 15, 2008 8:49 PM:
"Ms. Scripps did not leave the property of Children's Beach to the City of San Diego. By law, every citizen in the State of California owns Children's Beach. Since no one individual owns the beach, Ms. Scripps was never in a position to give away public land. The very generous Ms. Scripps donated money to build the seawall so children would have shelter from the waves in_the Cove. In order to give money to build a public construction project, the State and City enacted a trust, so that the wall she constructed on public land would provide shelter for children swimming in La Jolla Cove. The trust is not between Ms. Scripps and San Diego for ownership of the beach. The State trust says that instead of the State taking responsibility for the breakwater wall, the City of San Diego will_be responsible for maintaining the wall."

15. Robert M. wrote on May 16, 2008 4:52 AM:
"When I first saw Mrs. Tara Whitty article I thought it was a hoax or she is just being a devil’s advocate. If she is serious, I hope she would think again. I have seen seals take over small boats and sink them. I have seen the scare people away from the beaches. I like to see one once and a while, but they should start some night hunts to thin out the heard. How did they ever get so protected in the first place?"

16. BlkJK wrote on May 16, 2008 6:39 AM:
"San Diego is swarming with kids and has numerous places where they can run around for the hell of it. In La Jolla, the little urchins can watch the seals and perhaps ponder everyone's place in nature and the universe-- perhaps even rising above their parent-induced egocentricism and wonder where kids fit in as well. Let's leave the seals alone."

17. Ain't Whitty wrote on May 16, 2008 7:38 AM:
"Whitty's rhetoric is a nice example of trivializing the opinions of those with whom she disagrees so as to make them seem absurd. But it fails because the ones who disagree with Whitty are not ''small minded'' but merely wish to keep the beach for its original purpose, which is for children. Seals can be found all along the coast and we do not need a museum for them, especially one that smells as bad as the Children's Pool now does. And in case you didn't know, those seals also tend to attract the sharks that feed on them, much to the danger of people in the water at the Cove. Recent attacks may have something to do with the increase in seal population. Whitty. Please go swimming soon, and often. Thanks."

18. lawjudy wrote on May 16, 2008 7:56 AM:
"Robert M. is confusing California sea lions with harbor seals. Sea lion males can reach 800 pounds versus harbor seal males at about 200. Harbor seals are shy, not agressive and territorial like sea lions. All these animals are part of the marine ecosystem and to have a harbor seal rookery so accessible to public viewing is a rare and special opportunity for all to enjoy. The main antagonists in this controversy seem to be middle aged to old men who do not seem to have much interest in children's use of the beach but their own."

19. Steve K wrote on May 16, 2008 8:17 AM:
"If the Children's Pool is dredged it will be the sandy beach and nice, safe, sheltered pool, with tide pools on one side, that it once was."

20. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 16, 2008 9:25 AM:
"Leaving the sea lions alone on Pier 39 in San Francisco has turned into a disaster for everyone save the animals and their numbers grow every season.They've become completely dependent upon humans for food and foul the entire area sending up stench that's unbearable. The entire situation is completely un-natural. I can only imagine that because they seem to fly the next cause celebre will be the Roof Rats Liberation Front. Laws and tradition should be honored and justice blind. Send the herd packing and bring back the Children."

21. Maura Larkins wrote on May 16, 2008 10:26 AM:
"I didn't have strong feelings about this issue until the recent shark attack in Solana Beach. We have set up a delivery system to provide free meals for sharks right in the middle of our heavily-populated beaches. It's likely that the shark population has risen along with the seal population, but we just didn't notice. I now think that the pool should be returned to children."

22. MtGoat wrote on May 16, 2008 10:29 AM:
"Your kids want a sheltered beach, then take them to Mission or San Diego Bays. Your kids want to see a seal, then take them to the cove. It strikes me that the anti-seal crowd is so narrow minded that they can't see that many people enjoy the presence of the seals, and the anit-seal crowd is too pig-headed to give up 200 liner feet of shoreline. Really, the loss of 200-feet of swimming beach is peanuts -- Mission Bay has miles of swimming beach the anti-seal crowd can use, and they can be happy that there are no seals in MB."

23. With Whitty wrote on May 16, 2008 12:32 PM:
"What an amazing topic to engender so much comment! I'm still with Whitty, minus the negative remarks about others' opinions. (They can't help themselves, Ms. Whitty.) Just a few points: Harbor seals don't capsize boats, though I am sure Minutepeople would be happy if the recent flotilla of boats smuggling "illegals" and drugs were sunk by any means. A court has ruled we need to dredge sand and repair the seawall, but maybe we could deed the area to the federal government like we did to circumvent court rulings about the Cross on Mt. Soledad. Seals are said to be shark-bait, but if swimmers are not "sharing" the habitat with seals, it's probably "safe." North County had a tragic shark attack on a swimmer, but no seal rookery of any kind. Jack Griffiths is pompous and politically adrift, but his "Roof Rats Liberation Front" idea is funny."

24. Larry wrote on May 16, 2008 3:14 PM:
"Really, the loss of 200-feet of swimming beach is peanuts ---- Yeah? Tell that to the multitudes of divers who used to use casa as a safe way to enter that area. South casa isn't nearly as safe, and wipeout beach south of that is even worse."

25. Duh wrote on May 16, 2008 4:47 PM:
"Well, it is simply stated - that land was given to the city by the Scripps family for the children to have a safe place to swim. the city did not hold up their end of the bargain, and the courts have decided the outcome. Remove the seals, and return the beach to the owners original intention. Why is that so hard for people to accept!? Perhaps when the "small-minded" people that are for the seals should accept that when the die, all of the stuff will be given to random people and their choices are irrelevant!"

26. lajollagreg wrote on May 16, 2008 6:28 PM:
"Tara You said "Why are we allowing unreasonable people to demand that we spend money to disturb the seal colony that so many people enjoy visiting?" How much money do you think the lawsuit has cost taxpayers? Remimber this law suit was used as a weapon and a threat againist the city if they did not follow the wishes of the activists (Eco-Terriorist) and now that they have lost do you think they will step up and contribute DREAM ON! Do you think they will even go down to the beach and offer to clean it up? Again Dream On! This is about money, they make it with seals they don't without."

27. lajollagreg wrote on May 16, 2008 6:53 PM:
"A sign posted near Children's Pool, not to feed the squirles is funny but should read.....Please do not feed the Activist money....Giving them money makes they dependant on Humans and increases their population so that pest control may be needed. Help the Activists by NOT giving them Money."

28. Genki wrote on May 17, 2008 8:14 AM:
"If it is for children, then if seals are banned from the beach, adults should be as well. No divers should be allowed to use the beach."

29. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 17, 2008 10:05 AM:
"Pompous:excessively elevated or ornate: Hey, I'm not the one interpreting the deep seated feelings of seals.You won't find me at the end of the jetty, arms extended,flapping my hands together trying to ordain the inner most thoughts of the Arf,Arf crowd.Is that excessively elevated or excessively alieviated?Like from reality? If being in support of La Jolla's children,Mrs Scripps,the State Trust,the Supreme Court,the City Council,Phil Thalheimer,the ADT burdened neighborhood and legions of others is politically adrift well mark me Guilty.Alas,I'm restricted in whom I'm capable of relating to,however, as an environmentalist at heart,here's an ARF-ARF to let you know my heart's in the right place. How's my pronounciation?"

30. Ginny in Point Loma wrote on May 17, 2008 10:08 AM:
"I took my chldren to Mission Bay when they were small, to improve their swimming skills. Beautiful beaches, calm water, easy parking, no seals! The La Jolla parents just have to put their children in their super gas-guzzling hummers and drive a few miles to Mission Bay. Leave the seals alone(they don't drive)!"

31. PBgirl wrote on May 17, 2008 10:42 AM:
"Wow - this whole discussion is hilarious. The person who says we should use the beach as originally intended cracks me up.....like the sea wall just magically showed up with a "Children's Pool" sign on it - at the beginning of time. The wall would never pass muster now with either the citizens or the Coastal Commission. Children need to learn to swim BEFORE going in the ocean - spend the dredging money on keeping the pools open. Oh - and referringto La Jolla as an entity separate from San Diego is an error. La Jolla is a community of the city of San Diego just like Pacific Beach, Encanto, Rancho Bernardo, Del Cerro and San Ysidro."

32. LJCitizen wrote on May 17, 2008 11:28 AM:
"The issue boils down to whether the humans are willing to share any part of the S.D. coastline with harbor seals. If so, we have to bear with the (I would say minor) inconvenience of taking our children to an alternate beach location such as La Jolla Shores, Windansea, etc. Health and safety complaints swirling around this issue are 'red herrings', as there are a great many health and safety threats present in the ocean, not just seal poo and the once-a-decade shark attack. Can't we just share a little bit of the coast with the seals? It hasn't affected my La Jolla lifestyle one bit. On the contrary, a visit to the seals never fails to delight young and old visitors alike."

33. Fred wrote on May 17, 2008 12:11 PM:
"Jack Griffiths' line about the Roof Rats Liberation Front is well spoken. I often ask animal rights types if they're for unlimited infestation of rats, roaches, mice, e-coli, flu virus and Republicans. They rarely have an intellectually honest answer. This seems to be a habit on their part for many other issues, too."

34. Ann wrote on May 17, 2008 12:53 PM:
"I have lived in San Diego my entire life and swam an many beaches but never the Children's pool. I never felt deprived. It's not really about the children because most kids would probably say leave the seals alone. If the seals were uncomfortable enough on the beach, they would take up residence on the rocks and I doubt any of them would die doing it. I really don't care about the issue but it is amusing to see so many so adamant on either side! It's a microcosm for what is wrong in politics. There is never any middle ground."

35. DLS wrote on May 17, 2008 4:29 PM:
"Why not a Win-Win situation for the seal advocates and the divers? Since the overwhelming public sentiment, including the children, want to keep and protect the seals for the joy and education afforded in viewing these animals in their natural environment, they should definitely stay. If a handful of divers want to use the beach for ocean access too i.e. Larry's comment, why not install a rope line allowing them to enter and exit the water in a "non-distruptive" way on the far right of the beach? Maybe we can work together to come up with a solution and go above and beyond all this animosity and unecessary expense."

36. With Whitty wrote on May 18, 2008 10:11 AM:
"From a water safety point of view and speaking from experience, the Children's Pool has never been a safe place for little kids because of surge and drop-off. Divers and seals -- political enemies -- don't mind surges and steep drop-offs. The waters at Windansea are no place for little kids either because of rough deep water and shorebreaks. Surfers are competent in waves and deep water and are careful about neck-breaking shorebreaks. I wouldn't put a rubber ducky in the water at Mission Bay because of frequent pollution, but there is no surge, no drop-off, no big waves or shorebreak. But kids can picnic, use the playground or fly a kite there. Which leaves Torrey Pines, La Jolla Shores, Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach and Mission Beach -- no seals, no alcohol or rioting rowdies, flat sand, nice waves and wonderful lifeguards."

37. Carrie wrote on May 18, 2008 9:51 PM:
"DLS has a great solution - allowing divers to enter the water along the edge. It could be tried as a pilot program, and it's quite possible that the seals would adapt to it well. As for "pollution" from seals, I haven't seen any evidence that this is a human health hazard. If it's not, then so what?"

38. Steve K wrote on May 19, 2008 10:57 AM:
"The Children's Pool needs restoration. Dredging will reduce the size of the sandy beach and eliminate the drop-off. Safe venting for the breakwater will allow the cove to flush, which will keep the pool from refilling with sand and clear pollution from the area. A smaller beach won't be attractive to such a large population of seals; if seals want to share the haul out on the beach, they're numbers won't be so high and the water will stay clean and safe for humans and seals alike. Meanwhile hopefully a population seals will reestablish on Seal Rock, their traditional hang out, so people can view harbor seals without going on a harbor excursion or Sea World."

39. With Whitty wrote on May 19, 2008 11:50 AM:
"Carrie and DLS -- Much as I disagree with the divers lobby of grownups that wants to drive off seals and keep the "Children's Pool" to itself, I wouldn't want to see divers sickened by swimming in seal poop. That beach is considered polluted for human use and is posted as such in the newspaper on the weather page, much as Mission Beach and Imperial Beach are posted from time to time when they too are polluted (not by seals -- by humans.) "Shared use" is irresponsible and probably leaves the city open to lawsuits if a human becomes ill after swimming there under "shared use" conditions. The place should be posted for seals and left alone, until the day the seals up and leave, inscrutably, just as they came."

40. Echo5Juliet wrote on May 28, 2008 9:31 AM:
"The eco-minded activists on this planet assert that every action has a systemic reaction. Carbon emissions cause global warming, runoff pollution causes ocean dead-zones. It is all cause and effect. Well the same applies here as well. Seals are the main and preferred food source for SHARKS. Ecology will balance, more seals will bring more sharks. It is how the earth and nature regulates itself. The sharks smell the seal waste from miles and miles away and their numbers have increased. Just ask the avid surfers and kayakers in the San Diego area and they'll tell you that sightings and near misses with great whites, makos and even hammerheads are up by a lot. Get the seals out of Childrens Pool and away from the heavily used human beaches (La Jolla Shores, La Jolla Cove, Windansea, etc) before the next swimmer, diver or even a helpless little snowflake is eaten."

41. Christine Rogers wrote on May 28, 2008 3:02 PM:
"First of all, why is it people can state their opinions so strongly while they use a FAKE NAME online? Post your real name why don't ya? To say a beach was "made for swimming" is absurd. Human beings do not make beaches, to say the beach was altered by humans for human use is fine. The fact of the matter is that before it was "Children's Pool" it was "Seal Rock". If the Mammal Protection Act was in place when Mrs. Scripps set up the trust she would never have been able to do so. The TRUTH of the matter is that the seals bring a lot of tourists, and the rich and influential residents of La Jolla don't want these tourists clogging up THEIR beaches, and parking out on THEIR streets. It really has nothing to do with seals or children!"