The Pacifica City council voted in their last meeting to put up fences and to hire police to arrest people on Pacifica State Beach.
They talk about "High profile arrests" and "Making examples". I want
to protest this in every way. Please come to the first Pacifica Dog
walk! If you have a distribution list please send this flyer to as
many people as you can. I have contacted the City of Pacifica Parks and Recreation
and the Pacifica police. They say that we will be doing nothing illegal
(yet). We will have to divide into groups if there are more than 50
there. You know that this is just a first step. If you don't want our
beaches to be like the ones in Half Moon Bay then it is time to protest!
KEEP THE BEACHES FREE !!
Join the First Pacifica Dog Walk, Sunday 12/19/10 at 1:00 PM! Protest the Pacifica City Council’s moves to ban dogs from our beaches!
Bring your dog (on leash) and a sign to the parking lot at Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Dr.
Walk your dog on the beach while it is still legal to do so!
We live by the California Coast because we love to go on the beaches. We feel a special connection with nature there. For generations we have walked our dogs there, our children have played there and we have socialized there. Now that way of life is threatened. Eco Extremists planted grass there then used it to claim control of the beaches. Now they want to put up fences and arrest people for walking dogs on the beach. The Pacifica City Council just voted to put up signs and fences and to hire guards. Next you will be banned from the beaches altogether. It happened in Half Moon Bay and it is happening here too. We must fight them on the beaches, we must fight them in the council and we must fight them in the elections!
3:00 Meet at the statue of Portola, Pacifica Community center
3:15 divide up in to groups of 50 if necessary.
3: 30 Cross the street, go to the beach, go to the parking lot, return by the sidewalk.
Bags will be provided, please pick up after and keep your dog on leash.
To see more, Google “Paul at Pacifica1” or go to
Email Paul_cowan@juno.com to RSVP Please pass this on!
Submitted by Paul Cowan
24 comments:
Right On Paul! Enjoyed the You Tube clip, anyone who is sick and tired of the complete lack of balance in this city should join you - do or no dog. I'll be real interested to see if some of the dog owning enviromentalists are there.
sheet. see what happens when you go to sleep, the rats come creepin in and snag what don't belong to them.
Paul is my new hero. I will be there Paul.
I hate eco-terrorists. I will be there with you Paul.
"Eco-terrorists?" Get real.
"We're going inside of 'em, we're going outside of 'em - inside of 'em outside of 'em -
and when we get 'em on the run once, we're going to keep 'em on the run.
And we're not going to pass unless their secondary comes up too close.
But, don't forget, men - when we get 'em on the run, we're going to go, go, go, go!
And we aren't going to stop until we go over that goal line!
And don't forget, men - today is the day, we're going to win.
They can't lick us, and the best time to go.
The first who's gonna, men, go in there and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
What do you say, men!
...oh, and don't forget your dog shit bags!
"....we must fight them in the council and we must fight them in the elections!" from your article. Paul, this part of your article is understandable in an attempt to fix this languishing, insufficient city.
PB&R recommendations and the Snowy Plover requirements ascribed by City Council (11/8/10) were for the most part seemingly reasonable: Signage, low impassible fence along the bicycle path, discourage feeding wildlife, provide predator-proof trash cans, encourage removal of invasive non-native plants (hum). Dogs on leash enforcement (no money for that one). City council added additional fencing around the plover roosting area, and review by Fish and Game-- that's about all as I recall.
Reference: City Agenda from 11/8/10, Consideration, page 3, item 8, Summary detail pages 14-52. http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4038
I am somewhat confused about the grass planted, which you mentioned. Planted grass vs. the ice plant that is pervasive along the coast. Was the grass planted because it is allegedly native, whereas ice plant which existed is not?
This city thinks Linda Mar Beach brings-in some major sources of revenues (such as it is) for this city, so city council seems disinclined to close our urban beach in favor of a "take" by the visiting Snowy Plovers (if for no other reason).
The city council appointed "open space" committee majority generally seems to express an extreme environmentalist view and has been menacing to balanced city development. Since "open space" is a committee (not a commission), why was it formed, and has its function passed? Is it time to close the "open space" committee? Sounds like some good research project and pursuit for someone.
Actually Ice Plant was used by the coastal railroad to keep the sand from blowing on the tracks. Then cities started planting it to keep the sand from blowing. Great Highway.
It is great low cover to keep the sand from blowing. Also it is pretty easy to plant and get growing.
The enviro-nazi's in all the high and mighty knowledge want to pull it from Linda Mar Beach and they wonder why the highway gets more and more blown sand on it. That is OK the taxpayer pay for the city crew to come out and move the sand back out on the beach.
Better late than never...wake-up people. It is no accident that iceplant removal and the planting of plover-preferred 'native grasses' has been underway and probably city funded for years. How convenient. Now we have plans for fencing on the sand to protect the plovers. Extreme-enviros are using bogus science and self-serving legal interpretations to bully council. For council to put fences anywhere on the sandy part of the beach is extremely naive and ill-advised. It's a trap. When the enviro-extremists suddenly remember the plovers on other parts of the beach (and they will remember) our clueless council will have no choice but to extend the fencing and anti-people, anti-community restrictions to the other plovers. No choice. The enviro-extremists behind these restrictions are not content with protecting a species, they want to re-create an environment that hasn't existed for decades, if ever, and may not be beneficial to any species, people and plovers included. These restrictions exceed the legal requirements. The real shame is that council could have avoided this by showing due diligence and putting up signs--something that has been mysteriously stalled for years. Why?
Ask yourself what the real agenda is and whose interests are being served by discouraging people from Linda Mar Beach. What are we creating on this section of the coast and why? Where does LMB fit into the enviros overall plan? The enviros are willing to nibble away in small, slow bites using anyone and anything to advance their elitist, arrogant cause. Wake up people, you're about to be robbed.
Until someone shows me the birth certificate for Linda Mar beach, I refuse to believe it exists.
"Better late than never...wake-up people. It is no accident that iceplant removal and the planting of plover-preferred 'native grasses' has been underway and probably city funded for years. How convenient."
Is there anything that's NOT a conspiracy? Sheesh.
Moose @ 630 Well, at a city council meeting the plover uber alles fanatics did publicly thank the people who take out the ice plant and replant with 'native' plants for re-creating the plover habitat. Some award was being given by the city, I think. The city didn't mention plovers just native v. non-native plants. Open Space brought up plovers in their remarks about the award. Never said it was a conspiracy but you can't deny it's mighty convenient.
Y'all show an astonishing lack of knowledge. Just for starters, the native plants provide food for wildlife - that's birds, bees, insects and others. Not having these plants-- which used to be there -- is like emptying out the refrigerator: the food is gone.
Anon 6:00pm, does that mean that without the NEWER "native plants" that didn't exist there prior, the plovers would naturally roost elsewhere? And the flowering ice plant did not attract bees and insects, and was not food?
How do you reconcile that with the fact that the plovers did exist there prior, and they did co-exist along with the ice plant, humans and dogs? Because ice plant flowers, bees probably did fly in; and, I'm convinced insects will exist no matter what ground cover exists naturally or is planted.
Has planting these NEWER "native plants" advanced a plover "take"? With a seeming desire to exclude humans and dogs "Y'all show an astonishing lack of"...say, humanity. And, did I of "Y'all" miss something?
My intent is to understand the issue, cutting through the nonsense, and void of ideology. So if you have information please advise, or even submit an article. Life is learning, not static or polarized except by lack of understanding, exclusion, or design. Admittedly "emptying out the refrigerator" analogy doesn't follow from my view. And, if you're looking for more respect and credibility, maybe consider using your own name-- although I agree for you that may, would or will take courage.
"Y'all show an astonishing lack of knowledge'" Oh really? The only astonishing thing about this subject is the complaceny of the public as they are about to be fleeced once again by local so-called leaders and the extreme enviros who want people off the beach. Only in Pathetica could such a disaster be allowed to happen. Hey, who needs those nasty tourist and recreation dollars, right? Pathetica will survive on the lavish expenditures of a few old birdwatchers, right? Every beach should have fences on it,right? Oops, there's another bird, move that fence over. Uh oh, more birds, get some more fence over there. Uh, we need more fence over here 'cause somebody says they saw a birdie over here. Damn, no room to build a sandcastle anymore but we got lots of fences and uh yeah, we got birds. Don't worry folks there are lots of nice beaches just down the road thru that nice new tunnel. Those folks will take your dollars with a smile. You are now leaving Pathetica where they turned their prize municipal asset into a bird sanctuary.
Let me see your biology degrees. Animals are much smarter then we give them credit for. Take deer they eat pretty much any plant. Even the so called deer proof plants are being eaten when they don't have enough food.
Btw the article above went a little beyond what happened at the meeting they never threatened to arrest people for walking dogs on the beach.
If 20 30 40 50 100 dog owners showed up at meetings don't you think council would cave?
Btw Sneaky Pete, where is the dog park you promissed over 2 years ago??
Yall 8:01am, regarding that dog park, make a contribution to Pacifica Pooch. They continue to fund raise to make 1 dog park a reality. Find them through google.
Sneaky Pete was probably giving his "political blessing" while doing the usual. I think city council generally knows what they were doing before anyone shows-up at city council, and in this instance their actions were guided primarily by our reasonable Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.
You're right, at this time people can walk on-leash dogs at Linda Mar Beach. My understanding is that eventually those who don't comply with this requirement might be more subject to receiving a ticket. And, the issue in that not happening now is inadequate city/ranger staffing to enforce.
However, I think Paul may be more concerned about the potential long range extreme environmentalist agenda. Linda Mar is an urban beach, and should remain as such; and in this city the recreation and economic components are important.
Pathetica - Home of Bird Beaches and Frog Parks - I think we have a new marketing slogan! I hope our chamber runs with it, all the way to the their piggy bank.
Meeh sez: "So if you have information please advise, or even submit an article. Life is learning, not static or polarized except by lack of understanding, exclusion, or design."
Here you go, have a nice lunch.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/archive/exotics.php
"Native plant Anon", thank you for the link to the Native Plant organization. Still I don't get it.
Ice plant (although, originally from South Africa), is full of water, and must have nutrition-- as well as keeps down the sand blowing onto the highway (as mentioned by "ice plant 12/12/10", 8:23am). Weeds exist either way. So, what the problem?
Do the plovers care? They existed and roosted on that beach either way-- with ice plant, cleaning and other equipment, celebrations, people, and free-running dogs. Without the ice plant, are we forcing plovers to travel to reach fresh water and nutrition? Of course, Taco Bell is nearby.
Which is more beneficial for the plover habitat? There is nothing to prove the plovers didn't exist at Linda Mar Beach prior. And, was there an advantage in replacing ice plant in this beach location?
Is replacing ice plant a State mandate? If its just PC, is it really BS?
Did you read the link to the California Native Plant Society page? It says, "Vast areas of coastal dunes are occupied by iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis ) and European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria ), usually to the exclusion of any other kind of plant. They deprive other plants of moisture and nutrients scarce in this environment. "
And......? Is your concern other beach plants or plovers?
Why does it matter specific to that area?
good grief, you're dense.
Anon, 8:42pm, since I'm "dense" really I'm looking to you for answers. No answer from you-- just the weight of A-Z CA Native Plant society, nothing specific.
Is your concern beach plants or plovers--or both, or both and the humans and dogs, including the commercial component (a few tax dollars for the city)? Why does it (your view) matter specific to that area?
And, yes I did look at your reference link and more. The native plant website looks great BTW. Your view is of interest, and hopefully you will continue.
Post a Comment