seal removal in la jolla - Page 2 - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

GregAndrew · 07-23-2009, 07:51 PM

CurtyL:
I am not against providing a sanctuary to an endangered species or even one that is threatened. But, that is not the case here. There are miles and miles of shoreline that humans do not control and that seals can and do inhabit. Most of the rocky shoreline like Sunset Cliffs and much of the La Jolla area. Many of the breakwalls, and for that matter much of the harbor areas like Mission Bay and San Diego Bay. Sure boats are able to fish there, but few pedestrians ever step foot on these areas.
Also, by increasing the seal population there is a direct impact on the fish population in the area. Seals and Sea Lions eat a large proportion of their body weight in fish on a daily basis.
The only reason that the city is all in favor of making it a seal sanctuary is that they don't want to pay to clean it up. They even made the situation worse by posting the contaminated signs which kept people away from the water and encouraged more seals to polute it. If the water is unhealty for people it is unhealthy for all the other life there.
If a whale swims into San Francisco Bay, should we close the bay and make it a Whale sanctuary? No, we encourage it to go back to its own environment.

Just my .02

Afran · 07-23-2009, 10:04 PM

I don't like the seals.

Humans before seals.

It's the food chain, we win.

Unless...

dsafety · 07-24-2009, 09:49 PM

I had not seen that shark sign before. I am curious, did the shark union and the folks responsible for posting that sign get together and decide that after a month or so had passed following the shark attack, everything would be back to normal? I wonder what time on that specific day the threat of shark attacks officially ended.

This photo has to be saved in the Stupid Sign Library for generations to come.

Bob

T12 · 07-25-2009, 08:31 PM

Thanks for nothin Arnold!

Siebler · 07-26-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsafety

I had not seen that shark sign before. I am curious, did the shark union and the folks responsible for posting that sign get together and decide that after a month or so had passed following the shark attack, everything would be back to normal? I wonder what time on that specific day the threat of shark attacks officially ended.

This photo has to be saved in the Stupid Sign Library for generations to come.

Bob

I think that the theory was that the white shark generally does not hang out in these areas and given a 3 day observation time the waters were probably more safe as most whites would move on by then.

beardedguy · 07-27-2009, 12:49 AM

I'm curious about the high contaminent levels of the area. If the seals remain
I don't think the contaminent levels are going to go down by themselves.
Won't this spread to the swimming area beside the launch zone. What effect
will the high bacteria counts have on the kelp and other natural flora in the area.
By allowing the seals to stay it would seem that they could be risking
a higher ecological problem down the road.

805gregg · 07-29-2009, 06:58 AM

Catch them and relocate them to San Miguel Island, where they won't bother anyone and they can join the GWS's buffet.

07-23-2009, 10:04 PM	#22
Afran fishy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 219	I don't like the seals. Humans before seals. It's the food chain, we win. Unless... __________________ warbaits.com Instagram @warbaits

07-23-2009, 07:51 PM	#21
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	CurtyL: I am not against providing a sanctuary to an endangered species or even one that is threatened. But, that is not the case here. There are miles and miles of shoreline that humans do not control and that seals can and do inhabit. Most of the rocky shoreline like Sunset Cliffs and much of the La Jolla area. Many of the breakwalls, and for that matter much of the harbor areas like Mission Bay and San Diego Bay. Sure boats are able to fish there, but few pedestrians ever step foot on these areas. Also, by increasing the seal population there is a direct impact on the fish population in the area. Seals and Sea Lions eat a large proportion of their body weight in fish on a daily basis. The only reason that the city is all in favor of making it a seal sanctuary is that they don't want to pay to clean it up. They even made the situation worse by posting the contaminated signs which kept people away from the water and encouraged more seals to polute it. If the water is unhealty for people it is unhealthy for all the other life there. If a whale swims into San Francisco Bay, should we close the bay and make it a Whale sanctuary? No, we encourage it to go back to its own environment. Just my .02

07-24-2009, 09:49 PM	#23
dsafety Olivenhain Bob Join Date: May 2008 Location: Olivenhain, CA Posts: 1,121	I had not seen that shark sign before. I am curious, did the shark union and the folks responsible for posting that sign get together and decide that after a month or so had passed following the shark attack, everything would be back to normal? I wonder what time on that specific day the threat of shark attacks officially ended. This photo has to be saved in the Stupid Sign Library for generations to come. Bob

07-25-2009, 08:31 PM	#24
T12 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: vista Posts: 36	Thanks for nothin Arnold!

07-27-2009, 12:49 AM	#26
beardedguy gurmpy old one Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: El Cajon Posts: 80	I'm curious about the high contaminent levels of the area. If the seals remain I don't think the contaminent levels are going to go down by themselves. Won't this spread to the swimming area beside the launch zone. What effect will the high bacteria counts have on the kelp and other natural flora in the area. By allowing the seals to stay it would seem that they could be risking a higher ecological problem down the road.

07-29-2009, 06:58 AM	#27
805gregg Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Ojai, Ca Posts: 43	Catch them and relocate them to San Miguel Island, where they won't bother anyone and they can join the GWS's buffet.