Ocean Beach DOG: Racist, Property Rights Dogma

maybe someone from that IMC would care to come to this site and explain their association with and promotion of right-wing groups and why they hide the truth about it

maybe they can answer for us all why they think that their dogs are more important than affirmative action for minorities and women AND environmental protection. why is it that they are more concerned about their dog's "right" to run leash-free on the beach than racial and gender equality in this country? why would they use an IMC as a platform to promote a racist, property rights group, just so that their dogs can run leash-free on the beach. no one is even suggesting dogs can't go to the beach at all, just some think it should be leashed to protect a native species. and so SF-IMC aligns itself with a right-wing, racist, sexist, anti-environmental group and hide the comments of anyone who dares point that out that connection.

if anything is racist, that's clearly it - no ifs, ands, or buts... directly choosing the leisuretime pursuits of their dogs over the hopes and aspirations and progress of millions of minorities and women in this country, choosing to align with a group that fights against equal rights so that their dogs can run free, not to mention aligning with the property rights mentality that dangerously and harmfully favors personal property ownership OVER the well being of both people and our environment worldwide.


the hidden truth of SF-IMCs blatantly racist and anti-environmental associations: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719603
those who tell the truth there become the enemy: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719668

It's as simple as that.

And no, we dog lovers are not going to let you have your way. There are too many of us, we're too well organized and we represent too many different communities. Love of dogs transcends all political persuasions, left, right center and other. It transcends class, race, gender and orientation. It is more powerful than you and your sick, evil, little gang of miscreants. So do yourself a favor. Give up. You can't win. Dogs will play in the surf, law or no law. There is no way to to stop all of us from letting them play. Fines will unjustly impact low income dog lovers, but the the rest of us will thumb our nose. Law? Gimme a break. I break at least one law a day. I haven't been arrested in decades. The law is toothless and impotent. So you can take your law and shove it, you vile, despicable, dog hating scum.

And another thing:

Dogs were here before your immigrant ancestors ever set foot on a boat, you f*cking hypocrite. A case can be made that their ancestors actually evolved on this continent. But even if they didn't, they still got here millennia before you. That makes them more native than you are. And that makes you a hypocrite. Shame on you. What's the matter with you, anyway? Didn't your momma ever teach you right from wrong?

and thanks for bringing my mother into this

she taught me that many people in this country, women and minorities especially, are denied equal rights and so affirmative action was begun under Kennedy to attempt to remedy historical institutionalized injustices. she also taught me to love and respect animals.

did your mom teach you that your dog was more important than other races and genders of people?

and thanks for bringing my mother into this

she taught me that many people in this country, women and minorities especially, are denied equal rights and so affirmative action was begun under Kennedy to attempt to remedy historical institutionalized injustices. she also taught me to love and respect animals.

did your mom teach you that your dog was more important than other races and genders of people?

and thanks for bringing my mother into your emotional tirade

she taught me that many people in this country, women and minorities especially, are denied equal rights and so affirmative action was begun under Kennedy to attempt to remedy historical institutionalized injustices. she also taught me to love and respect animals.

did your mom teach you that your dog was more important than other races and genders of people?

That's what's called a "false dellema."

See:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

you big fat distractor

it is not at all a false dilemma

you ask people to support Ocean Beach DOG on at SF-IMC and provide a link to do so. ocean Beach DOG's entire legal strategy revolves around the PLF's work to dismantled the endangered species act. the PLF provides their legal resources.

SF-IMC has chosen to align with and encourage public support of Ocean Beach DOG and their crack legal team, the PLF. if the survival of affirmative action and the endangered species act meant more to you than your own dog, you too would find the PLF vile as so many others do and you would refuse to touch anything they do with a ten-foot pole. You could go out and start or find another leash-free group to support that believes as strongly as you do about surfing dogs, but you don't. You and SF-IMC make your beds with Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF. You choose to directly fit into their broader strategy to dismantle the endangered species act and other environmental regulations on the west coast and throughout the US. Once people start buying into that property rights crap, it's not a stretch to swallow the whole PLF mission which very heartily includes demolishing affirmative action. Affirmative action and the endangered species act are their two biggest boogeymen -- anyone who visits their site can see that.

if you chose to fight for your leash-free dog without such despicable allies, then it would be another story and you could talk about false dilemmas. but, as long as you align with ocean beach dog and the PLF, you clearly choose your dog over affirmative action and environmental protection

if you care to, you can find the gems below at the PLF Op-Eds page. these aren't necessarily the most choice quotes under the titles of each piece, but they are enough to give a good impression of what SF-IMC and Ocean Beach DOGs allies, the Pacific Legal Foundation, are up to in their thinking.


Originalism Above All Else
It is not surprising that liberals worship at the altar of Supreme Court precedent.... Give us an Ultra-Conservative Ideologue Originalist. Or give us an Extreme Judicial Activist Originalist. Just give us an originalist. In a debate that’s about to get noisy, it’s the only label that matters.

Setting the Record Straight
Here’s a Gallup poll I’d like to see: Who has higher name recognition today – Anita Hill, who backstabbed her former boss and mentor Clarence Thomas at his Supreme Court nomination hearings 14 years ago, or Peggy Hill, Hank Hill’s wife on the Fox Network animated comedy “King of the Hill”?

Race Discrimination Not a Solution
Ronald Cruz complains about decreased minority acceptance rates at UC Berkeley and other UC schools.... The proper solution is to reform K-12 by permitting private and charter schools to compete on an equal footing with public schools.... Vouchers for private schools... Cruz doesn’t stop there. He cites the fact that California is a “majority-minority” state as moral justification for race discrimination in higher education. That justification is nothing short of appalling in this day and age.... There is no justification for race discrimination—whether it is based on the desire for a more “diverse” campus (whatever that means)...

The Flouting of Prop. 209 – So What If It’s in the Constitution-San Francisco Officials Won’t Enforce It
Racial favoritism — forbidden by the California Constitution — is official policy in the City by the Bay. Consider public-works contracts. When San Francisco bureaucrats review a bid from a contractor who is black, Latino or a woman, they must pretend the bid is 10 percent below real cost. Meanwhile, proposals from white males are reviewed at full price.

On Earth Day, Don’t Forget the Victims of Environmentalism
To see the destructive effects of misguided environmentalism here at home, look at the 30-year-old Endangered Species Act.... On Earth Day, it’s worth remembering the costs and the victims of environmental extremism.

Respect for All: Court Punishes Institution of Scouting--A Group That Deserves Support
Jones raised eyebrows by invoking the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion in voiding the Scouts’ lease. Because Scouts pledge a belief in God, he said, San Diego breached separation of church and state by giving the Scouts a lease at the park without competitive bidding.... Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the ruling in Barnes-Wallace is its diatribe against Scout principles. The judge labels Scouting a “discriminatory” group that holds beliefs “at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm.” ... The effect of the Barnes-Wallace ruling is to single out the Scouts in retaliation for not bending the knee to modern elitist orthodoxies on sex or secularism

Why the Greens Hate Bush
Hardcore environmentalism’s efforts to demonize Bush’s more people-friendly policies and programs will become more shrill in the coming months. It would be unfortunate, however, if mainstream Americans allowed themselves to fall prey to this well-orchestrated campaign to have Bush’s environmental record measured by the excesses of his predecessor.

Hardcore Environmentalists a Menace to Conservation
President Bush is focusing on the Pacific Northwest to reinforce the importance of fire prevention in our national forests through his healthy forests initiative. In what is an all too familiar scene, environmental extremists have used this as yet another opportunity to attack the Bush administration and accuse it of “rolling back environmental protection.” In reality, the Bush Administration is seeking to return balance and common sense to federal forest management.

Salmon and Soldiers: An Unconscionable Imbalance
Where does our government place the higher priority—the welfare of the surviving dependents of our soldiers killed in military service or the welfare of fish? I hope the answer bothers you as much as it does me. Fish come first—people last. Two recent reports on the federal government’s spending of taxpayer-generated revenues offer an informative, though troubling, commentary on the government’s changing priorities between human value and that of fish, plants and wildlife species. Rush Limbaugh’s research pointed out...

The Military Faces Foes on a Second Front: The Shock Troops of Environmental Extremism
Will some soldiers and Marines die in the Persian Gulf so that some gnatcatchers and other federally protected birds and animals in the United States may live? Rigid application of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws—spurred on by lobbying and lawsuits from “green” groups that are stronger on zealotry than common sense—is undermining military readiness. It is not too strong to say that lives could be lost needlessly in Afghanistan and in a possible conflict in Iraq because of the extremism of species-protection shock troops here at home.

Move Over Saddam: Overzealous Regulators Also Threaten Freedom
Through laws such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Congress delegated to federal agencies authority to regulate land use on private property under specified and limited circumstances. Yet, although these agencies’ quest for “command and control” of private land use abrogates the rights of thousands of property owners daily...

The Boy Scouts on the Front Lines
The proceedings, at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, dealt with a government rebuke of the Boy Scouts of America last year for dismissing two Washington-area Scout leaders because they’re gay.... Most of all, perhaps, the Scouts are hated simply as an obstacle to the Left’s Taliban-like project of imposing a general conformity of thought on the country. Lovers of liberty—even those who might disagree with Scouting’s membership policies—should toast the Scouts’ tenacious stand for the First Amendment and the right not to be PC

Or sometimes, with puppies,a curry lime satay.

(1.) Who sticks up for dogs is not the issue here. What else they do is not the issue here. The issue is beach access.

(2.) The presence of otherwise unsavory people in the dogs' rights movement is no more valid a reason to abandon the movement than is the presence of Pat Buchanan and David Duke in the anti-war movement a valid reason to support war.

"the issue is beach access"

to you maybe. to those interested in protecting affirmative action and the endangered species act, it's your support of the work of the Pacific Legal Foundation. and the topic of this very thread is Ocean Beach DOG's "Racist, Property Rights Dogma"

"presence of otherwise unsavory people in the dogs' rights movement"

this is a ruse. it is not merely the vague "presence" of right-wingers in the broadscale "movement" that is being objected to in this thread. it is the DIRECT WORKING RELATIONSHIP between Ocean Beach Dog and the Pacific Legal Foundation. and SF-IMCs decision to ACTIVELY support both groups and hide contrary information is the issue in this comment thread.

>is the DIRECT WORKING RELATIONSHIP between Ocean Beach Dog and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

There is also a direct working relationship between the murderous, oppressive, war mongering government, and those park rangers that you would have prevent dogs from playing in the surf. It is such an extremely close working relationship. One is in the actual employ of the other.

You and the Butchers of Iraq are on one side. I and the other people who f dogs are on the other. It's a quintessential no brainer.



>and SF-IMCs decision to ACTIVELY support both groups

That's a lie. You're re also begging the question. It was my personal decision, not to actively support both groups, but to support the right of dogs to play in the surf. Anybody who care to to join me is welcome. I don't care who they are or what else they do. In this context it is not relevant


>and hide contrary information is the issue in this comment thread.

What I hid was not "contrary information." It was disinformation. SF-IMC does not publish disinformation, even if it's something we'd prefer was true. We publish only verifiable facts. Verify that anything on the site is factually incorrect, and we'll remove it immediately.


Oh, and by the way, have you stopped supporting the anti-war movement because it contains guys like Pat Buchanan and David Duke? I didn't think so.

So STFU, you despicable hypocrite.

"You and the Butchers of Iraq are on one side."

that is clearly a lie, you you can curse, spit, and lie yourself, but the fact of the matter remains that you call on your site for support of a group that is ACTIVELY working with the PLF to undermine the endangered species act. PLF's other primary cause is to kill affirmative action in this country, but dogs on leashes upsets you more than that. it might not be relevent to you, but it certainly would be to historically disadvantaged women and people of color

you did indeed hide contrary information. it was not disinformation. Ocean Beach Dog and the PLF are working together and the PLF and Ocean Beach Dog's legal strategy is anti-environmental. what you hid is honest information that didn't suit your tastes. if your post calling for their support is honest or not, regardless if it masks the right-wing working relationship, is not the issue

your david duke comparison is weak and already has been debunked repeatedly here. you are comparing an idea with actions, two very different things.

lastly, mr. ad-hominem, go hang your head in shame for being such a hypocrite with all of the emotional name-calling here while you protest against it elsewhere

pray tell, what would you have typed had you finished the "f" word here?

"There is also a direct working relationship between the murderous, oppressive, war mongering government, and those park rangers that you would have prevent dogs from playing in the surf. It is such an extremely close working relationship."

yes, there is a working relationship there, too

you wanna know the difference, though, and why again you draw a cmparison that is not apt? the park rangers do not necessarily share the same actual mission as the "war mongering government" (i.e. making war on Iraq) while ocean beach dog/PLF are working directly together ON THE SAME EXACT MISSION. OBD/PLF are not merely sharing the same building or employeed by the same people, they have actually sought eachother out to accomplish their goal of chipping away at the endangered species act, with PLF's ultimate goal being the destruction of it.

why help the enemy destroy the endangered species act and affirmative action by encouraging support of them? why?!? oh, yeah, so that your dog can run leash-free

One of the key reasons that Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, PETA, the American Kennel Club, the ASPCA, the American Humane Association, Dogs Deserve Better, and hundreds of dog trainers around the country support leash laws at the GGNRA is because dogs are being lost, injured, and killed there at unconscionable rates.

These incidents will continue because running dogs off-leash at the GGNRA is a dangerous activity for dogs. Responsible dog owners know that if you want to let your dog off-leash, you must insure that your dog will be safe while doing so. The first rule of safe off-leash play areas is that they be fenced or otherwise enclosed. Without a fence, dogs can run into the street and get hit by automobiles; fall of of cliffs; get lost; and attack service animals. All of these things are happening at the GGNRA; this not only harms dogs but also sets such a poor example that getting reasonable dog access in other national parks is becoming more difficult.

Letting a dog roam free without safegurds in place does not respect a dog's life, it degrades it, and it disrespects the freedom of others who cannot or do not want to have off-leash dogs part of their park experience. Yet this is precisely the position advocated by irresponsble dog owner groups such as Ocean Beach DOG and the fascist editors at Indymedia, who want to retain the opportunity to have their dogs die preventable deaths under the banner of "freedom" and "access." It is a position rejected by responsbile animal welfare organizations decades ago, and it is a great shame that this discredited position has gained a foothold in the city named after St. Francis, the patron saint of animals.

There are 27 legal, safe places to run your dog off-leash in San Francisco, and holding hands with the PLF to try and get one more is not only anathama to everything San Francisco stands for, but actively promotes the demise of dogs in this great city.

. . . that if the PLF got their way, there would be no GGNRA, just private property, owned by someone like Larry Ellison and his friends, and anyone who tried to go to the beach so that their dog could run in the surf would be lucky if they escaped without being tasered by private security guards

--Richard

>no GGNRA

If there were no GGNRA, Ocean Beach would still belong to the City of San Francisco, and the federal government wouldn't be trying to to tell San Franciscans what to do on our own beach.


> why help the enemy destroy the endangered species act and affirmative action by encouraging support of them?

(1.) We aren't helping them. They're helping us.

(2.) Who believe something has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. But since you insist on a making a totally puerile us vs them analysis, let's take a look at who's on whose side. On my side are, among others, some folks who question the wisdom of race based legislation. On your side are people who burn babies alive. And you *dare* criticize my side for accepting all the help we can get?

Have you stopped supporting the anti-war movement because Pat Buchanan and David Duke are not just active members, but well recognized spokesmen, widely thought of as leaders? No? Then you're a frikkin hypocrite. Shame on you. Go hang your head.

See also:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1770114_comment.php#1771275

gotta say it's nice to see you being so honest for once

after denying your sympathy for and collaboration with the PLFs war on affirmative action, you now admit: "On my side are... some folks who question the wisdom of race based legislation"

sweet. another white man against affirmative action. you're more in line with the PLF than I dared suspect. you agree with them on BOTH of their main missions, destroying the endangered species act AND destroying affirmative action. and you're deluding yourself if you think "We aren't helping them" -- clearly you are linking to them at your IMC and encouraging people to support their efforts with Ocean Beach Dog to destroy the endangered species act. that's about as much help as you can give them at SF-IMC besides maybe throwing a benefit party for them

you're 100% in line on all counts with one of the biggest right-wing groups in this country and you have the nerve to say anyone else is down with burning babies. who are the biggest baby-burners around? hmmm. I'll give you a second to think about it. answer: the right-wing in this country. they hate domestic minorities and any support for the less well-to-do. they love private property and imperial war on countries with darker populations

and you proudly march along side them.

it's quite stunning really, to realize how right-wing you and SF-IMC really are

I'm not against affirmative action, even though it's only a bandaid on a tumor. I have no "sympathy" for people who. To say that I am, or I do, is a bald faced lie. But hey, what else can we expect from people who side with Pat Buchanan, David Duke and a government that burns babies alive. People like that have no moral compass. Lies are just something else that they do. Right and wrong have no meaning to them. Who else would support baby killers, Buchanan and Duke, just to acquire the muscle they need to force their selfish, oppressive agenda on the pet loving folks of SF?

Well it's not going to work. There are too many pet lovers, and too many different kinds of pet lovers, in this town to let a ruthless, amoral, self-centered, special interest group of fringe, whacko extremists push San Francisco around. An make no mistake, that's exactly what they're trying to do. Remember, this is the same crowd of militant loonies whose hidden agenda is to do away with the keeping of pets altogether.

So say their leaders:

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug.
1986)

"In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole
notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988)

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals
[Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild" (Ingrid
Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990)

"Eventually companion animals will be phased out...." (Ingrid
Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right"
(symposium), Harper's, August 1988)

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic_ (Washington D C, PeTA, 1982).
p. 15)

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a
Changing Ethic_ (Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15)

They *say* all they want is to stop dogs from playing in the surf. And Hitler said all he wanted was the Sudatenland. Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us.

We know what they *really* want for dogs. They want dogs to "disappear." They've even admitted it in public. If we don't believe them, and stop their evil schemes here, today, on the beach, it's only a matter of time till they send jackbooted thugs from the state to rip your beloved pet from your arms.

attacking the AR movement to try and dodge a bullet you shot yourself with? talk about a straw man. the issue right here and now today is about the endangered species act, and I think you'll find pretty broad support for the act in SF and elsewhere, even if you think it's bogus when it crosses your selfish little world

funny that you also provided not one piece of evidence for your attack on "people who side with Pat Buchanan, David Duke". that makes it a spurious and unjustified personal attack. I said that I would never shake the devil's hand regarding those two, even if they are anti-war, and I said you are quite okay doing it with the PLF. I backed that up and then you just volunteered that your support of the PLF goes deeper than I had previously suspected as you "question" affirmative action, proving my point even more

as for affirmative action, you can't take back what you already said: "On my side are... some folks who question the wisdom of race based legislation". now you're gonna try to weasel away from that and claim that you're not against affirmative action. how pathetic. sure, you're not against it, you just "question" it and align with groups fighting tooth and nail to destroy it

"self-centered, special interest group of fringe, whacko extremists"

oh, you mean you, SF-IMC, Ocean Beach Dog, and the PLF? you allie yourself with other selfish people who want to destroy the endangered species act and affirmative action because you are worried about yourself and your dog and then you have the nerve to call someone else self-centered?!?

the astounding thing is that you would align yourself and your IMC with the PLF and its evil missions to hurt minorities and the environment across this entire country all because of your desire to let your own dog run leash-free on the beach. now that's selfish by any definition

[>no GGNRA

If there were no GGNRA, Ocean Beach would still belong to the City of San Francisco, and the federal government wouldn't be trying to to tell San Franciscans what to do on our own beach.]

if amazing what you can learn

California Republican Congressperson Richard Pombo proposes selling the national parks:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/24/MNG2HETE8D1.DTL

people like Pombo and the PLF could care less about people and their dogs, but they do care about exploiting relationships with groups like Ocean Beach DOG to further their long term property rights agenda, which happens to include divesting the government of much of its property, including parks

(I agree with the arguments about PLF and the endangered species act and affirmative action, but have nothing to add)

but, the "on our own beach" remark is revealing (I thought it was a public beach for everyone, including many people who don't want dogs despoiling the environment there), maybe you fit right in with them, but, if Pombo and PLF ultimately get their way, I hope that Ocean Beach DOG can raise about 250M for a non-profit to buy access, because otherwise, someone with a lot more money is going to end up with it, with your dogs staring sadly through a security fence

but, of course, GGNRA could never be privatized, right? I mean, just look at the Presidio

"what else can we expect from people who side with Pat Buchanan, David Duke and a government that burns babies alive."

You make a good point but how can anyone believe you when you so obviously side with hurricanes, plagues and earthquakes. I mean what can one say in reposnse to someone who so openly supports hunting people down for sport and cutting off their bodyparts for souveners? Come on. Your either with me and agree with everything I say or your with the Ebola virus.

Don't believe anybody. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/politics/animal-rights/myths/part2/

(snip)

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug.
1986)

"In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole
notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988)

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals
[Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild" (Ingrid
Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990)

"Eventually companion animals will be phased out...." (Ingrid
Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right"
(symposium), Harper's, August 1988)

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic_ (Washington D C, PeTA, 1982).
p. 15)

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a
Changing Ethic_ (Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15)

(snip)

These people are not only willing, even eager, to lie through their teeth and put words into my mouth that i never said, but they also employ the crudest and least convincing of logical fallacies when at loss for a genuine rebuttal:

See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

instead he attacks AR activists who are not the ones he and his PLF buddies are suing -- that would be the GGNRA and the National Park service, the federal government, i.e. baby killers

but what else *can* he do? he has aligned himself with racist anti-environmentalist property rights nuts and so he has to up the ante and make the pro-endangered species act people seem even more evil than himself and the PLF. hmmm. okay, baby killers, that's the angle to make them look worse than racist anti-envirionmentalist property rights nuts. or as "hehe" pointed out, the ebola virus could have worked as an opposition boogeyman

then he points to his supposed debating rule book, after making numerous unfounded ad hominem and appeal-to-ridicule attacks himself (this thread is filled with them if you care to scroll back). what hypocrisy

any word on RWF's comments or anything of substance that has to do with the issues here? naw, didn't think so

They are the ones attacking honest dog lovers of every political stripe, and the active defenders of San Franciscans' right to decide what happens on our own beaches. They are also the ones who take the side of the federal government, a criminal gang of known baby killers. People who side with baby killers against dog lovers *should* be attacked. Fortunately, it's easy to do because these people tend to be not very bright. Hence they are forced to resort to crude and ineffective logical fallacies and out right falsehoods. Neither are they honest. Hence they are *willing* to resort to crude and ineffective logical fallacies and out right falsehoods. Ergo, they are easy targets. Have at them, San franciscans. Defend our city from the baby killers and their supporters.

I like dogs. Can I have your dog? Is it a big dog? I have alot of people coming over this weekend.

"defenders of San Franciscans' right to decide what happens on our own beaches"

and you alone speak for SFers? you and ocean beach dog and the PLF? you seem to think so. you think SF is as hostile towards the endangered species act as you are? you think most of SF "questions" affirmative action? you think a majority in SF would side with the PLF on those two counts or anything else for that matter? you are quite simply deluded if you do

as for lies, it's funny that you keep coming back to your baby killers point -- the endangered species act (what is actually coming between your dog and the waves at ocean beach) is tied to the federal government and hence those who support the act are in lockstep with baby killers, but when I point that out you say I am lying, and yet you keep drawing the connection between the endangered species act and baby killing, over and over and over again

bottomline, you are one of THE most selfish people on these comment threads, putting yourself and your dog ahead of the interests of countless minorities and endangered species. it's a crying shame you control an IMC and use it to promote the hateful racist anti-environmental property rights nuts, the Pacific Legal Foundation

[notice how he did not deal with any of the issues here
by surprising? Thursday, Sep. 29, 2005 at 9:27 AM

instead he attacks AR activists who are not the ones he and his PLF buddies are suing -- that would be the GGNRA and the National Park service, the federal government, i.e. baby killers]

. . . attacking AR activists, like those being dragged in front of grand juries by the the same federal government that is being sued by Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF?

adopting the same "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach, shouldn't there be some way for these AR activists, Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF to form a broader coalition?

after all, the AR activists object to the concept of pet ownership, while Ocean Beach DOG wants their dogs to be able to run leash free, with the PLF ultimately wanting GGNRA in private hands

got it: the Golden Gate National Dog Refuge, dogs running freely, with their former "owners" allowed to visit on weekends, for a fee, of course, with the refuge owned by a non-profit financed by the friends and supporters of Brigitte Bardot

--Richard

Q: What kind of people side with baby killers against people who love dogs.

A: Moralless miscreants

endangered species act = park rangers = federal government = baby killers

yes, we know that's what you think. alright already. do you believe that the more times you say the same thing, the more people will listen to your ravings?

hysterically screaming baby killers over and over does not make your case one iota stronger for dogs on the beach without leashes nor does it justify your alliance and sympathies with the PLF's two-pronged mission of destroying the endangered species act and affirmative action


Q: What kind of people not only agree with but actively support racist anti-environmentalists because of their own self-interest?

A: Very selfish, self-centered ones

"A: Very selfish, self-centered ones"

That's nessie all over. Willing to go through the most hysterically funny escalations of empty rhetoric (environmental protection act --> "baby killers"), and then pulling out the rulebook to netcop his opponents for doing exactly what he does all the time -- and all to defend what turns out, once you strip away all of nessie's duplicitous appeals to ideals he does not at root really believe in, nothing more than the one cause nessie relentlessly and exclusively pursues, which is to say nessie himself.

@%<

That's a lie. I never said that. I said the federal government are baby killers. You made up the rest. You know it, I know it and anybody who knows how a scroll bar works knows it too.

Stop putting words into my mouth. It';s rude. It's dishonest. it's very bad form.

The federal government *are* baby killers. I challenge any and all to refute it. For you to criticize me for accepting help from people who dare question the wisdom of race based legislation, while you simultaneously run to a bunch of baby killers to back up your own selfish agenda for you, is the height of hypocrisy, not mention abject cowardice.

Hypocrisy is not my main problem with you. Neither is the endless stream of lies and spam. My main problem with you is that I find your cowardice beneath contempt. People like you make people like me want to puke. If you have a problem with us running our dogs on the beach, why don't you come down to the beach and tell us to our faces instead of running to daddy like the chickensh*t *ssholes you are?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know. You not only disgust me, you baffle me. I cannot for the life of me grasp how someone can even *be* so cowardly, let alone admit it in public. What's wrong with you people? Have you no spines?

narcissie: "anybody who knows how a scroll bar works"

Anyone who knows how a scroll bar works can see narcissie trying to lie his way out of a corner. That he's doing so using the nym "lies and the liars who tell them" is just another indication of how fucked up the little man's mind is.

Here is the quote from above that narcissie would rather you not see, seeing how it catches him again -- not that this is difficult, of course -- in a full-bore bald-faced lie: "But hey, what else can we expect from people who side with Pat Buchanan, David Duke and a government that burns babies alive."

The thought couldn't be clearer. But nessie is now embarrassed at that thought, seeing how stupid it turns out to be on examination, so now he's going to try the "well, I didn't put it exactly the way you said I did" dodge.

That dodge, of course, is the same one he uses whenever it's pointed out to him that it's a clear and direct conclusion from his posts that he's calling for IMC readers to hate 99.5% of American Jews -- a call to bigotry he no longer even tries to deny or explain away.

@%<

endangered species act = park rangers = federal government = baby killers

here's how the equation breaks down:

you, SF-IMC, Ocean Beach Dog, and the PLF are aligned to fight the endangered species act, to weaken it and/or to destroy it altogether (there's also more than a little agreement over affirmative action between you, SF-IMC, and the PLF as well)

check one

you are the one who first brought up the park rangers as evil ESA enforcers of the federal government

checks two and three

the way you scream manically "baby killers" over and over makes you sound like an anti-abortion nutjob... the way you detest the endangered species act, "question" affirmative action and align with its most vocal enemies, and equate every last function of the federal government, which is a very large thing, with baby killing, maybe you are down with the abortion nuts as well. little would surprise me about you at this point.

check four

you start in your battle with the PLF against the endangered species act and end up calling everyone who disagrees "baby killers". you just reiterated that the federal government = baby killers right here. the federal government is a very big thing and includes the endangered species act and other functions. do you not read or think about what you yourself write? so if anyone supports something like the endangered species act, they are therefore baby killers or in league with baby killers. park rangers who don't get paid a ton of money to help protect our public parks are in league with baby killers. those who support the preservation of our limited national public lands are baby killers. with your loose definition, everyone who disagrees with you is a baby killer somehow. nevermind that the PLF, your friends to the end, are far more in league with the republican warmongering fucks that run the federal government today than the average park ranger or pro-ESA environmentalist

endangered species act = park rangers = federal government = baby killers

you can't run from what you have said. and you can't run from the things you've written about affirmative action nor your support for a group fighting hard against "race-based legislation" as you so right-wingedly put it. the truth is out there and no amount of temper tantrums can take it back. this is all going on your permanent record.


"People like you make people like me want to puke" + "chickensh*t *ssholes" = no one cares about your emotional outbursts. go cry to someone who cares about you

after reading comments like that last one of yours, if I were foolish, I would hope to never see you point to your little debate rulebook and scold others for ad hominems and so forth ever again the way your froth and spit here. but I have already learned well that you have no shame in your glaring hypocrisies, so I expect you will name-call and cry about ad hominems, probably even in the same sentence, at some point in the near future. maybe your very next comment here

"This is about who decides what happens in San Francisco, the people who live here or the federal government. "

The argument that the federal government shouldn't be able to impose its will on local areas isn't a left or right argument and there are casses where its clearly unjust and cases where it's clearly needed. Anti-descrimination laws, environmental protection laws and other laws protecting common goods and oppressed minorities tend to be good things and many pepple see those as leftwing. Laws that deny people rights locally (laws against undocumented immigrants getting drivers licenses), restrict freedoms (like the federal drug laws that override state medical pot laws) and the like seem rightwing.

Federal laws that protect endangered species seem like a good thing and thats part of this case. I can see how someone who doesnt care about species protection could be radical on other issues so its not as clearly a right or left issue as ant-discrimination laws or regulations on pollution and its probably not fair to do a guilt by association thing either way. Someone who opposes federal laws that prevent public use of certain spaces because there are rare endangered species in those spaces may be allied with peopel who support a lot of other propertry rights based causes that are oppressive to workers etc... but that doesnt implay guilt by association. Likewise someone who supports the idea of federally imposed enviornmental regulations isnt guilty of supporting all such regulations or even supporting the existance of the current style of government (since most Anarchists who oppose state out of principal still would still want some mechanism for protecting minorities against discrimination and the environment against those who dont care about its fate)

To be grounded in reality, we must concern ourselves not with what seems, but with what is.


>thats part of this case.

No it's not. Those plovers are not endangered, least of all by dogs. When dogs and plovers are on the beach together, the only creatures that are alt all endangered are millions of innocent crustaceans that are being slaughtered by the marauding plovers.


>since most Anarchists who oppose state out of principal still would still want some mechanism for protecting minorities against discrimination and the environment against those who dont care about its fate)

Indeed we do. However, that mechanism is not the state. Strengthening the state by giving it more power weakens the people by taking away ours. It wouldn't be worth it even if it did work, which it most decidedly does not. Species disappear every day, laws or no laws. Discrimination has not gone away just because it ha been given a legal whitewash. That white wash coms off in the rain.

The state cannot, will not and would not protect us or our environment. It will go through the motions, but that is quite a different thing. It's symbolic tokenism, that's all. If we want the real thing, we are going to have to do it ourselves.

[This is about who decides what happens in San Francisco, the people who live here or the federal government. You don't want to talk about that.]

. . . but absent succession, or the creation of some kind of city state or Soviet, it's really a non-issue

the federal government plays a prominent role, if not a decisive role, in every aspect of governmental and regulatory life in SF, as it does throughout the US

it's sort of the equivalent of saying that the question is whether the people of the city of San Francisco decide when the surf comes in for the dogs or the ocean does

and the idea of highlighting it through Ocean Beach DOG, as opposed to alternatives like, having the schools of SF refuse to comply with the provisions of the "No Child Left Behind" law that gives military recruiters access to private information about students, or continuing to perform gay marriages and acknowledging them within the city limits, or allowing numerous micropower radio stations regardless of what the FCC says, or suspending enforcement of the drug laws that put some many people in prison, especially people of color . . . .

well, it strikes me as a little odd, and frankly, I doubt that very many people of Ocean Beach DOG see it the way you do, in other words, they just care about their dogs (obviously, if they are willing to work with the PLF), and once they get what they want, they will have no problem having the federal government continue to control most aspects of their lives and the lives of others



--Richard

narcissie: "This is not about me. This is not about who is aligned with whom. This is not about style, either. "

The usual narcissie backpedal. To narcissie "freedom" and "justice" are empty terms he waves around whenever he's looking for an excuse to justify his fundamentally solipsistic worldview. To him, "freedom" means "agree with nessie on everything." "Justice" means "agree with nessie on everything." "Baby killers" means "disagree with nessie about dogs."

What a fucking riot.

And when we don't take the bait, because we've seen him pull the same sorry-ass trick hundreds of times, then he goes for the next rote bit of rhetorical mendacity, the "This is not about me" lecture. Where "this is not about me" means "you're supposed to take my bait, and accept my rationalizations, even when they're for something as ridiculously non-progressive as by aligning myself with the PLF."

This thread and its counterpart on SF-IMC -- heavily eviscerated there, of course, because you cannot tell the truth about nessie in nessie's sandbox -- has been fascinating to watch, because it just lays wide open the tactics of an authoritarian who poses as an anarchist.

We've seen your bag of stupid rhetoric tricks, nessie. You ran through them all years ago. As you link arms with the racists of PLF, you demonstrate that "racism" is, to you, only a word you throw around when convenient.

@%<

narcissie: "But never once in this entire conversation, have i used an insult in place of a rebuttal. Ergo, my insults are not ad hominems. By definition, an insult is only an ad hominem when it is used instead of a rebuttal."

The funniest damned thing I've read all week. How many times in a given week has narcissie responded to a post containing paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of refutation by seizing on an insult and dismissing the entire post with his rote "An ad hominem is not a rebuttal"?

Pathetic.

@%<

They are not mutually preclusive. Personally, advocate, and practice, total resistance at every level, primarily by scoffing the law. It's passive resistance, but it's very effective and relatively safe. I've broken at least a law a day, usually more, for half a century. Every once in a long while, I pay a fine. It's worth it. Life is struggle. There is no way to avoid it. But it is better to struggle smart than it is to struggle hard. To struggle smart sure beats sweating and bleeding. To pay an occasional fine sure beats a life time of slavery. To scoff the law is far more effective a form of resistance than the full frontal assault. The state can deal with a full frontal assault. It can't deal with scofflaws. There are too many of us, we're too hard to catch and there's not enough jail space to house us if we did get caught.

The life of a scofflaw is deeply satisfying. I recommend it highly. Not only am I winning the game, I'm *way* ahead. Way. It's also easy. All it takes is a little common sense. If you're going to smoke weed, don't blow it in a cops face. If you're going to commit sodomy in Alabama, pull the blinds down first. It ain't rocket science. It ain't no big deal, either. Just live your d*mn life and f*ck the police.

It even makes economic sense. Allow me to illustrate. For most of my life I rode motorcycles. Unless there was designated motorcycle parking, I always parked on the side walk, About twice a year I got a twenty dollar ticket. For a while I tried parking legally, in a legal space. The problem with that is that at least once a year, a car would back into my bike and knock it over. This cost me a bare minimum sixty bucks to replace the mirror which broke, and that was if only the mirror broke. So I got out a stub of a pencil and piece of a brown paper bag one day, and concluded that the math of the thing said to hell with the law. So I parked on the side walk, It was, bare minimum, twenty bucks a year cheaper to scoff the law.

Another thing I discovered was that as long as I didn't block the sidewalk or drip oil, nobody complained. Only the state gives a sh*t, and all they care about is making money. Same with the dogs on the beach. We go out there when it's chilly and overcast. Not only are there never any cops then, but there's hardly any people. This makes it *much* more fun for the dogs. We don't annoy people. We don't pay a fine. No problem.

When there's plovers there, I keep the dogs away from them because if they get too close, the plovers will up and fly a hundred yards and then I can't see them so well. I like watching plovers. They're soooo cute. They look like Busby Berkeley. When I'm in woods, I keep the dogs away from where ground nesting birds nest. We need birds. Without them we'd be fast overrun with insects and vermin. Besides, they look cool. I don't need the state to tell me this. Neither do you. There are people who do need to be told. So tell them yourself. Don't feed more power to a that ravenous monster the state. Do it yourself. Feeding power to the state, even for a short term gain in a righteous cause will *always* come back to bite us on the *ss sooner or later.



>I doubt that very many people of Ocean Beach DOG see it the way you do, in other words, they just care about their dogs (obviously, if they are willing to work with the PLF), and once they get what they want, they will have no problem having the federal government continue to control most aspects of their lives and the lives of others

This is true, at least for the most part, and not just because they are willing to work with the PLF, but because they are willing to work with the courts to settle this issue. It's also irrelevant. It is better that people oppose the government in even a legal way, than not to oppose at all. It raises people's consciousness to realize that they, too, are persecuted by this hideous monster that has grown up in our midst and that they, too, can successfully resist.

For the world to shed the shackles of government, there must be a mass revolution in consciousness. By necessity, this is a painstakingly slow, incremental and , above all, personal process. Most people can't see beyond their own life and the lives of their family. To transcend the brainwashing that makes us compliant to the whims of the powers that be, we must first come to realize that we, ourselves, are victims. Then we must at some point come to conclude that even if resistance should prove to be futile, it is still worth a try. Then we must experience a success, however minor. Then we realize that, no, resistance is *not* always futile. The brainwashers lied. Then we begin to question our own compliance, even if only a little, even if only subconsciously.

Multiply that by six, or by now probably seven, billion and you see what real revolution entails. It's a painstakingly slow process. The industrial revolution has been going on for centuries, and hasn't really even really hit it's stride yet. The agricultural revolution began twelve thousand years ago, and still hasn't penetrated some corners of the globe. We clearly have a lot of work to do. We must be patient, and we must be tenacious. Do those two things, and sooner or later we will win. We can't topple the state by full frontal assault. (Alas.) But we can, like the relentless wind, erode it to dust to dust over time.

But all politics is personal. Everything begins with the individual. Your own personal revolution begins with a single act of defiance. I was eleven when I first spit in the face of the state, though frankly, I had been thinking about it since I was eight. I got away with it, too. This didn't just make me *feel* empowered. It actually empowered me. In fact, it shaped my life forever after. Once I realized I could get away with it, I never once looked back. Au contrair. The older I got, the more times I spit. The more times I spit, the more confident I became. Yeah, you really can defy authority.

You really can walk through this life with chin up. The state is a stupid, blind, lumbering behemoth. If you're even minimally clever, you can get away with anything. That is the single most empowering concept you will ever encounter.

Once you've tasted liberty, to bend your neck is bitter. There are few things on earth as deeply satisfying as successfully scoffing authority. Being of anarchist temperament I always prefer direct action. I do not, for example, wait for the courts to finally permit me to let me remove my dog's leash, or to smoke weed, or to commit sodomy, or to do any of the other myriad things that I do in defiance on a more or less regular basis. I just do it. That's what I recommend to all of you out there. Just do it.

But if you are too brainwashed and/or spineless to stand up for yourself with your head held high, at least do something, anything. Carry a sign in a demo, write letters to the editor, hire a lawyer, or something, anything, anything at all. Just don't do nothing. Doing anything is better than doing nothing. Do whatever, and as much of, what you feel comfortable with. But do something. Resist on every level, by every means, be they legal, illegal or somewhere in between. Resist, resist, resist. Never let up. Never surrender.

Never, ever, ever let the the state intimidate you into compliance. And don't let it trick you, either. No, it is not "for your own good." It's not for "the good of the planet," either. It's for power for power's sake. The state takes whatever power you give it, not because it gives a sh*t about you or our environment, but because power is its life's blood. Power feeds on power. The more power you give it, the more power it has. The more power it has, the more power it can take. Feeding it power is not in our interest, no matter how smooth a con job it's salesmen use to convince you to do it. It's a trick. Don't fall for it. The government doesn't want to protect you or your environment. It wants to eat your soul. If you let it, it will. Don't let it.

House guts Endangered Species Act, cutting species protections, big $$ for property owners

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1771619.php

two cheers for personal (and corporate) freedom!!

horah!

horah!

Keep typing, narcissie! There are still some vapid clichés you've missed in your attempt to explain away your happy happy association with the right-wingers of PLF.

@%<

narcissie: "I'm not the issue here."

Your new best friends at the PLF are the issue. And that makes your willingness to, as the proverb puts it, lie down with dogs the issue as well.

@%<

"I'm not the issue. Neither is my style."

"I am not the topic. Please show some common courtesy and stay on the topic."


"Allow me to illustrate. For most of my life I rode motorcycles."

"Another thing I discovered...

"I was eleven when I first... I had been thinking about it since I was eight."

"I always prefer... I do not, for example..."

"I didn't think so."

"I always have a plan."


"I align with dogs"

"I can tell one dog from another"

"That's speciesist. You're sticking up for one species but not another. If you also claim to love animals that's hypocritical."

"They are the ones attacking honest dog lovers"

"People who side with baby killers against dog lovers *should* be attacked."

"Look, this is not about *my* dog."

"snowy plover vs, dogs... dogs would win hands down... snowy plover... not even good to eat. They're too small to be worth the effort. Dogs, on the other hand, are magnificent creatures..."

"Native species fanatics ... are ... bigots."

"Who sticks up for dogs is not the issue here."

"This is not about who is aligned with whom."

"You cannot post anti-dog propaganda here, no matter what terms it is couched in, politically correct or otherwise. If it's anti-dog, you can't post it here. Period."

"What I hid was not "contrary information." It was disinformation."

"I don't care who they are or what else they do."

"ruthless, amoral, self-centered, special interest group of fringe, whacko extremists"

"people who side with Pat Buchanan, David Duke and a government that burns babies alive"

"On my side are... some folks who question the wisdom of race based legislation"

"I'm not against affirmative action"

"people who burn babies alive are worse than people who question the wisdom of race based legislation"

"I support people"


"This is not about me."

"I advocate total resistance"

"I've broken at least a law a day"

"Not only am I winning the game, I'm *way* ahead."

"I have also given a nod to the undereducated and cognitively challenged among our readers"


"By definition, an insult is only an ad hominem when it is used instead of a rebuttal. This is clearly not the case."

"But if you are too brainwashed and/or spineless..."

"Shame on you. What's the matter with you, anyway? Didn't your momma ever teach you right from wrong?

"you vile, despicable, dog hating scum"

"STFU, you despicable hypocrite"

"you're a frikkin hypocrite. Shame on you. Go hang your head"

"You not only disgust me, you baffle me.... What's wrong with you people?"

"People like you make people like me want to puke."

"chickensh*t *ssholes"

"I call you malignant fools, chickensh*t *assholes, etc... because it is true."

"Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame."

"You and the Butchers of Iraq are on one side. I and the other people who f dogs are on the other."


"Stop putting words into my mouth. It';s rude. It's dishonest. it's very bad form."


ah, yes, good times~

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."

2. Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

3. Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

this is too rich

in an effort to show that your claims are not necessarily false (and neither did you show that they are actually accurate with your debate rulebook), you roll this out:

>The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

if you think about it and just read ever so slightly between the lines here, what you get is that at least half of your contradictory statements are false and they indicate that you are likely a hypocrite

so, you're own rulebook says at least half of what you say is crap and you're a hypocrite to boot.

I'd add the other half is crap, too, but your rulebook doesn't go that far

It's off topic. Why not talk about the topic itself? Either the federal government should be able to dictate to San Franciscans what we can do in our own city or not. What a great subject to debate. Why change the subject? Am I really more important to you people than the right of San Franciscans to decide what happens in our own city? Is that it? Is that what you're trying to say here?

what this thread is about is Ocean Beach DOG aligning with the quite evil PLF who seek to destroy both affirmative action and the endangered species act.

in the comments here, your and SF-IMCs support for and encouragement of the wicked PLF actions came into play.

what I am most recently saying is that all of your rationalizations for your indefensible alliance with the PLF are a house of cards built on BS and hypocrisy. you have helped me to prove that, and I should thank you, but you've name-called a bit to much for that sort of congeniality.

you might see the world as a simplistic battle between you and the feds, or SF vs. the feds, but others see a much bigger, more nuanced picture. and, again, you assume far too much if you think the majority of SFers are as ready as you are to trash the endangered species act and affirmative action. your allies in those types of missions are the PLF and fuckwads like Pombo in Congress. if anyone should be ashamed, it should be you making your bed with some of the most evil right-wing fucks around. but, you don't care, as it truely and quite selfishly just about you and your dog. the rest is just a bunch of contradictory, hypocritical crap designed to make your cause for your dog seem like the ultimate fight of the century for all mankind.

as long as you insist on defending your alliance with these evil fucks here, I will be there to knock down all of the wack rationalizations you make for it. if you were an honest person, you would just admit that it's all about you and your dog, and you are indeed cool with joining forces with right-wingers with whom you largely agree, but instead you keep throwing out fake issue after fake issue to make it seem like it is something it is not

Who is on which side is not the issue. If it was, you'd lose because you side with baby killers.

The issue is who should decide what happens in San Francisco, the people who live here or the federal government. Speak to that. Tell us why you think it is better that decisions about San Francisco be made by bureaucrats three thousand miles away, and not the people whom they actually effect personally. Can you do that? Or are you you going to blow some more smoke to cover up that you can't?

. . . . . in the Arts and Action section


untitled for now, but I kinda like:
"Anarchist Property Rights Canine Beatnik"

["I'm not the issue here"
by here goes Friday, Sep. 30, 2005 at 4:33 PM

"I'm not the issue. Neither is my style."

"I am not the topic. Please show some common courtesy and stay on the topic."

"Allow me to illustrate. For most of my life I rode motorcycles."

"Another thing I discovered...

"I was eleven when I first... I had been thinking about it since I was eight."

"I always prefer... I do not, for example..."

"I didn't think so."

"I always have a plan."

"I align with dogs"

"I can tell one dog from another"

"That's speciesist. You're sticking up for one species but not another. If you also claim to love animals that's hypocritical."

"They are the ones attacking honest dog lovers"

"People who side with baby killers against dog lovers *should* be attacked."

"Look, this is not about *my* dog."

"snowy plover vs, dogs... dogs would win hands down... snowy plover... not even good to eat. They're too small to be worth the effort. Dogs, on the other hand, are magnificent creatures..."

"Native species fanatics ... are ... bigots."

"Who sticks up for dogs is not the issue here."

"This is not about who is aligned with whom."

"You cannot post anti-dog propaganda here, no matter what terms it is couched in, politically correct or otherwise. If it's anti-dog, you can't post it here. Period."

"What I hid was not "contrary information." It was disinformation."

"I don't care who they are or what else they do."

"ruthless, amoral, self-centered, special interest group of fringe, whacko extremists"

"people who side with Pat Buchanan, David Duke and a government that burns babies alive"

"On my side are... some folks who question the wisdom of race based legislation"

"I'm not against affirmative action"

"people who burn babies alive are worse than people who question the wisdom of race based legislation"

"I support people"

"This is not about me."

"I advocate total resistance"

"I've broken at least a law a day"

"Not only am I winning the game, I'm *way* ahead."

"I have also given a nod to the undereducated and cognitively challenged among our readers"


"By definition, an insult is only an ad hominem when it is used instead of a rebuttal. This is clearly not the case."

"But if you are too brainwashed and/or spineless..."

"Shame on you. What's the matter with you, anyway? Didn't your momma ever teach you right from wrong?

"you vile, despicable, dog hating scum"

"STFU, you despicable hypocrite"

"you're a frikkin hypocrite. Shame on you. Go hang your head"

"You not only disgust me, you baffle me.... What's wrong with you people?"

"People like you make people like me want to puke."

"chickensh*t *ssholes"

"I call you malignant fools, chickensh*t *assholes, etc... because it is true."

"Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame."

"You and the Butchers of Iraq are on one side. I and the other people who f dogs are on the other."

"Stop putting words into my mouth. It';s rude. It's dishonest. it's very bad form."

ah, yes, good times~]

I'm flattered that y'all think I'm so important. But I'm not. I'm not even the issue here. So tell us, please, why do you think it would be better if what happens in San Francisco be decided by bureaucrats in Washington and not the people who live her whom those decisions actually effect? Why wont you tell us? Please tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

narcissie: "I'm flattered that y'all think I'm so important. But I'm not."

Oh, no, narcissie, you completely misunderstand. We don't think you're important. We think you're very funny in an emperor's-new-clothes kind of way.

@%<

If this were true, gehrig and his gang of racist colonialists wouldn't be putting so much efforts into their smear campaign against me. How much effort are they putting in? Google "nessie indymedia" and see for yourself.

Why is it that some people believe that decisions about San francisco should be made by bureaucrats in Washington, and not by San Franciscans? Why wont they tell us?

"decisions about San francisco should be made by bureaucrats in Washington"

I dont think anyone wold say yes to this but I also dont think you would find too many progressives or radicals who think that local communities can decide 100% of what goes omn in their area if it has outside effects (like the endagered species act). The argument that one never wants a bunch of "bureaucrats in Washington" telling local communities what to do was used as an argument for segregation and is used all the time by anti-environmental groups. If a local community near one of the last stands of old growth redwoods decides to chop the treets down is any effor to prevent this from happening problematic if its by a government agency because its then "bureaucrats in Washington" telling local communities what to do? At the same time there are many bad things the federal government forces on local communities like strict anti-drug laws, laws against undocumented immigrants etc... While its common to see ideologues try to tar anyone for any specific federal regulation as being for all regulation and those against a specific regulation as being against all regulation. But how many people do you know who really are against all federal regulations (without somehow arguing that at some distant point it can be dealt with locally after a revolution changes society or whatever)?
Things arent as simple as these fflamewar discussions suggest and while nessie may be using the rhetoric of the anti-environmental probusiness right in this one case you probably all know its more of his finding such rhetoric useful (with his desire being more personal) rather than this reflecting on his overall ideology (although such simplistic arguments do reflect on him personally)

We've been over this ground, yet you act like you missed it.

Personally, I have said I support the endangered species act. I think it is one of the few good things that our national government has done. Myself and others have commented that it would be the wealthy and large property owners who have the most to gain by its demise, hence the PLFs dogged fight to destroy it. People have noted here that this is an odd and very selfish battle to hold up as the model for local vs. national issues when there are others that effect a much larger number of people in this area.

It has been made clear that you assume far too much if you think that the people of SF are as ready as you to trash the ESA as you are. It has also been pointed out that you alone do not speak for "dog lovers," that many hundreds of thousands of others who would identify as such support the GGNRA, the ESA, affirmative action, and would never ever align with the quite evil PLF. A great many of them live in SF.

Got it? Okay, now back to calls of "baby killers."

>was used as an argument for segregation and is used all the time by anti-environmental groups.

(1.) This is completely and totally irrelevant. In fact, it's a downright dangerous course of reasoning. By this logic, America should never have fought the Third Reich because Joe Stalin, a know Stalinist, spoke out against Hitler.

(2.) There is no evidence whatsoever that segregation could not have been done away with without federal intervention. In fact, a solid case can be made that without federal intervention, slavery itself would have been done away with by armed, integrated Abolitionist militia. They were certainly on the way to that goal when the federals stepped in to stop them.

An even more solid case can be made that by empowering the federal government to to good deeds that we could and should have done ourselves, we have a created a ravenous monster that does far, far more evil than good.

(3.) Plovers aren't endangered, least of all by dogs. But even if they were, would we really want to further empower a ravenous monster to deal with the problem? Why don't those people who mistakenly think the plovers are endangered by dogs come down to the beach and talk to the human companions face to face, instead of running to daddy like chickensh*t *ssholes? Have they no spines?

I thought you'd come back with your "baby killers" retort against those who disagree with you after your false plea for serious debate.

how wrong I was.

narcissie: "If this were true, gehrig and his gang of racist colonialists wouldn't be putting so much efforts into their smear campaign against me."

Again, narcissie, you misunderstand. You're a riot, but not for the reason you think you are. You're like this broken rhetoric machine. Drop in a penny, turn the crank, and it tells you that siding with racists is perfectly okay -- meritorious, even -- as long as there are dogs involved. And then it will insist that only it has the right to define "justice," and anyone who disagrees sides with baby killers.

You're entertainment, nessie. You're a real-life Charles X. Kinbote.

@%<

The crux of the issue here is that certain people are such chickensh*t *ssholes that they will run to baby killers for help rather than speak face to face to human companions who bring dogs to the beach.

That *is* the problem here. It's not dogs. It's not plovers. It's not fraudulent claims that plovers are endangered. It's the sad fact that this town, this country, is infested with spineless cowards who would rather seek help from baby killers than stand up themselves for what they believe in.

And then they have the unmitigated gall to accuse us of racism because some, though certainly not all, of us dare to question the wisdom of race based legislation, while they themselves actively solicit the help of, and hide under the skirts, of the United States government, arguably the greatest threat to peace and justice on the planet today. Next to such hypocrisy, even their cowardice pales.

They are the problem. It is by way of the Quisling, Vichy, Judenrat collaboration people like this that enable evil is able to triumph. So, no, I will not fail in my basic duty as decent, honest human being to point out this truth to the world. That I put it bluntly proves only that there is no polite way to put it. An *sshole is an *sshole is an *sshole. Only an *sshole would try to stop dogs from playing in the surf. Only a bigger *sshole would actively seek the aid of knows baby killers to do it. This is the plain truth of the matter. Not only is there no way to put it politely, there is no reason. People who are polite to *ssholes like this are *ssholes themselves.

Dogs are not the problem here. Plovers are not the problem, either. The problem is *ssholes, cowardly, hypocritical, collaborationist *ssholes, who come to us with honey in their mouths and daggers behind their backs. They are the Judas goats of fascism. The sooner we face up to this plain truth of life, the sooner we will be able to rid ourselves of their malignant influence.

What'd I tell you? Just turn the crank, and hold your sides.

@%<

Not a rebuttal, either. But speaking of cranks, has anyone noticed that the Zionist propaganda mill which has no stake in what happens on Ocean beach one way or another, see fit to chime in whenever and wherever one of their critics speaks out about anything?

And talk about racists! Whether people who question the wisdom of race based legislation are racist or not is open to interpretation. But people who raise an army to seize land for their ethnic group? No question there. These people are virulent racists of the first order and the highest degree. They're worse than Nazis. Nazis don't have nukes.

Of course to imagine that who believes something has a bearing on whether or not it is true is, at best, kindergarten logic. But for all you kindergartners out there who believe it, I'll try to dumb this down far enough that even you can understand. On one side are the valiant defenders of San Franciscans' right to decide what happens in our own city, some of whom dare to question the wisdom of race based legislation. On the other side are shameless liars and sniveling cowards who actively support known baby killers and are in turn supported by the best armed, and most dangerous gang of racist oppressors alive on the planet today. A more quintessential no brainer is hard to imagine.

But enough about them. Let's get back to the topic. Why should San Franciscans stand idly by while bureaucrats on the other side of the continent tell us what we can do in our own city? Be specific.

"Why should San Franciscans stand idly by while bureaucrats on the other side of the continent tell us what we can do in our own city?"

Because as long as we have to live with a federal government having the federal government enforce things like environmental protection laws is better than leaving it to localities where the local actions have nonlocal effects. Shuld lumber companies that ghave mills in areas with few other locals be able to choose for themseleves if its worth preserving old growth trees? As with that case, talk of scary federal beurocrats doesnt really add much to the discussion.

to preserve our environment onto the feds is twofold. First and foremost, it's not working. The corporations run the government, not us. The government sometimes goes through the motions of opposing some policies of a few corporations, but it's just a show they put on to placate us. In the vast, overwhelming majority of cases, the government sides against us and with the corporations which own it.

Secondly, even if it did work, which it doesn't, it's wouldn't be worth it. We are feeding power to a ravenous monster. When you arm your enemies, it *always* comes back to bite you on the *ss.

The way to combat the depredations of corporate rule without empowering their puppet the state, is by direct action. If you want to stop clear cutting, for example, wage economic warfare against the perps by direct action. If a corporation clear cuts, make it cost them more more than they make. They will stop clear cutting because clear cutting is not their goal. Profit is their goal. Clear cutting is only a means. If it costs them more money to clear cut than it makes them, they have a direct financial incentive not to clear cut.

I'm not talking about tree spiking. I'm talking about total war. If they own it, whatever it is, wherever it is, destroy it. Burn it down, blow it up, put aluminum oxide in its lubricants, put virii in its software, and so forth. If the men who own that corporation refuse to take the hint, take the war to them. The have addresses. Go there. Kill them. Mount their heads on stakes in the front yard of their smoldering mansions with signs where their necks used to be saying, "He clear cut." When these guys start seeing the heads of their fellow capitalists turning up on stakes, they *will* back down. Promise.

If you are serious about protecting the environment, protect the environment. Do it yourself. Don't expect the federal government to do it for you. It ain't gonna happen, at least not on the scale that is necessary. The federal government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ruling class. It will never act against the interests of the ruling class in more than a minor, token and inconsequential way.

and that's exactly where you lie once again

you are not talking about "total war", as heroic as that sounds to a Charles Manson-type I'm-gonna-start-a-revolutionary-race-war-and-be-the-king-of-the-survivors kinda guy like you.

"The have addresses. Go there. Kill them."

well then, why you haven't you led by example in your many soooo-successful revolutionary years? are you a coward as you love to scream at others? is it because you, our most-cherished Bay Area Charles Manson for the 21st century, dream of being home safe while your quixotic minions are hacking apart pregnant women? let's all hope not, that no one here buys your BS and does anything dangerous or stupid.

what you are really talking about, in fact, right here, is a LAWSUIT filed by evil republican fucks that aims to weaken and destroy what's left of the endangered species act while this groups also files other lawsuits to weaken and destroy what's left of affirmative action. and your whole entire fight here is a defense of that first lawsuit. no two ways about it. you and the crazy Ocean Beach Dog lady are one in your support of it

"If you are serious about protecting the environment, protect the environment. Do it yourself."

as if everyone who cares about the environment and its creatures should stand watchguard over the snowy plovers 24-7. send a collective to watch and actually militarily defend the redwoods from raiders? wild wild west whereby those with the most weapons decide if the trees fall or not, or if the local birds survive? perhaps you'll be down at the beach with your dog and shotgun to lay to waste those wacky bird defense people?

and here's one that will blow your tiny little literal-minded hypocritical mind

"America should never have fought the Third Reich because Joe Stalin, a know Stalinist, spoke out against Hitler"

your point here was largely that it was a given that America did the right thing in defeating Hitler and most definitely should have done it, simple as that. yet at the same time you have made it abundantly clear that you think that everything that has to do with the federal government equates with baby killing. in case you forgot, plenty of babies were killed by the US in WWII. still, it just doesn't connect in your limited world view that in order to fight Hitler, as you seem to agree was the right thing to do, babies were killed and it took a serious national effort, a federal government, a national military, and the for-profit cooperation of many corporations. while there are indeed serious problems with much of what the federal government and large corporations do, and today it includes actual baby killing, look no further than this foul war we are in now for proof of that, you can't completely destroy this system by which people organize today until something exists to, by the will of the people, replace it simultaneously, something that assures people more safety and happiness than they currently know. there wasn't really time then to wait for your hypothetical utopian dream to pass or we would have lost WWII. you seem like the last person who would encourage waiting to fight a modern Hitler ("all they want is to stop dogs from playing in the surf. And Hitler said all he wanted was the Sudatenland. Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us."). people of SF banding together talking about offing park rangers and other baby-killer types maybe just wouldn't have been able to pull it off, doing it for themselves, defeating Hitler and all. likewise, when people are historically oppressed and need help now, they don't need yet another whitey tellin' them they've gotta wait longer until Charles Manson comes to save them on his terms. and "endangered species" means that they are endangered, hello. putting the cart before the horse on this also means that even more species will disappear as a result of human activity, while you organize the revolution. I know that you think dogs matter more than wild animals and those who care about protecting native species are species bigots (even though a good number of them have dogs themselves). that's pretty funny to hear from someone who thinks that it's okay to do home vivisection on dogs AND will justify dogs over native species at the same time.

your BS seems at first almost too thick to cut, but then when you think about it for just a tiny moment, it cuts like butter with a hot knife and always does

lastly, your rhetorical tricks are wearing really thin. just because you call yourself a pragmatist, or a valiant dog hero, whatever, and those who disagree with you you call whatever foul remark you have handy in your emotionally flabergasted mind, that does not make it so. never forget that your own debate rulebook has shown you to be at least one half full of shit and in all likelihood a hypocrite to boot, in this very thread in fact. we won't forget. anyone who knows how to scroll can see that for themselves.

yet still you persist, contorting your arguements in ungodly ways to justify the unjustifiable...

narcissie: "Not a rebuttal, either. But speaking of cranks, has anyone noticed that the Zionist propaganda mill which has no stake in what happens on Ocean beach one way or another, see fit to chime in whenever and wherever one of their critics speaks out about anything?"

Just noting that it's not only your -- by now well-established -- antisemitism that gets you into trouble. The same intellectual failings which make you so riotously funny when you share your "wisdom" about The Jew ring out loud and clear here, and you've taken it on the chin so hard that you're now trying to change the subject.

But, no, the subject is still your gleeful willingness to ally with racists of any sorts as long as you get to run your doggy on the beach without a leash.

@%<

Arguing for dogs on Ocean beach because the federal government is evil make as much sense as arguments against having dogs on the beach based off the evils of groups that support private property over federal regulation.

I would be interested in hearing real arguments from either side of this but so far all Ive heard is hyperbole about unrelated issues with guilt by association used to demonize both sides.

Fighting against federal regulation protecting endangered species on the grounds that federal regulations are less effective than local regulations is a real argument, although one I dont agree with. But arguing against the protection itself (using right-wing "proof" that plovers are not endangered) and then making a seperate argument that regulation should be local is using an unrelated issue to try to get around the actual environmental protection. Its akin to a company arguing for release of pollution by ignoring the arguments about pollution itself and trying to get the discussion focused around federal rights and effectiveness in enforcement.

Dogs on Ocean beach is not the issue. Who decides is the issue.

I'm not the issue, eiither. Focus, please.

Get those dog eating Zionists off the Indybay! THEY'RE BEHIND everything!

I said no such thing. He knows it. I know it. You know it. Anyone who knows how a scroll bar works knows it.

"Dogs on Ocean beach is not the issue. Who decides is the issue.
I'm not the issue, eiither."

And you think you just added something to the discussion here?

Dogs on the beach are very much the issue here. Your dog is one of them. Ocean. Beach. DOG. Hello! Their lawsuit filed with the PLF to chip away at the endangered species act, which you very much support, is key to this entire thread.

Very funny how you think you can just drop back in here and completely ignore some very thoughtful comments made that directly deal with things you have said that counter your BS justification for this lawsuit, especially regarding the ESA, affirmative action, and the role of the feds.

Are you trying to restart this whole conversation from scratch, ignoring your own wacky arguements and the direct blows by others to your rationalizations thus far, and then hope everyone forgets points already made? Anyone who knows how to scroll can see the serious discussion points you are averting.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1772121
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1772197

"With an iron first we shall remove the infidel cocker spaniels from the Holy Land"

Valdamir Jabotinsky
speech to the ZOA , 1929

"First we will rid the land of the Palestinians, then we will turn our attention to their pets"

David Ben Gurion, 1964
Autobiography

# of Palestinian Pets in 1948 346,983
# of Palestinain Pets in 2005 126,849

Proof positive of the trans- specices cleansing policies of the Israeli government. End this travesty. Send money to
Allison Weir
http://www.if americans knew.com

>Their lawsuit filed with the PLF to chip away at the endangered species act, which you very much support, is key to this entire thread.

That lawsuit is not the issue. The thread is not the issue. The issue is the issue.

The issue is a petition with the National Park Service requesting action within 60 days to ban off-leash recreation in all the GGNRA that was filed by the Center for Biologic Diversity, with Brent Plater as their chief spokesperson.

The legitimacy of off-leash recreation in the GGNRA as described in the 1979 Pet Policy was affirmed by Magistrate La Porte last fall, and re-affirmed by Judge Alsup more recently when the GGNRA lost their appeal. Despite the government attorney's denying that an "emergency" existed at the time of the appeal, those organizations who signed on to an amicus brief authored by Brent Plater of the Center for Biologic Diversity, have signed a petition again authored by Brent Plater of the CBD.

It's the petition, not the lawsuit we're talking about here. We're not talking about me, either. Focus, please. Defend the petition. Everything else is off topic, red herrings intended to divert our readers' attention for you apparent inability, or at the very least unwillingness, to defend the petition.

narcissie: "That lawsuit is not the issue. The thread is not the issue. The issue is the issue."

The issus is that your fundamental hypocrisy was exposed and you turned into a babbling fool. And you're now fighting with everything you've got to keep your hypocrisy out of the spotlight.

You blew it on this one, nessie, you blew it big time, and I'm chortling watching you toss out every last tool of distraction in your rhetoric bag, only to have them all fail.

@%<

That lawsuit is not the issue, you say. The comment thread and the orginal post we are commenting on is not the issue, you say. The issue is the issue, you say, as if that clarifies a single thing.

What IS absolutely predictable is for you to completely ignore all of the fed/local issues that you were having such an enormous cow about as soon as you got hysterical talking about "total war" and were rightfully shown to be the hypocritical baffoon you are through thoughtful comments debunking your histrionics. Now, it's not the feds, YOU say, but the petition that matters? Diverting attention from your thorough whooping just a few comments back?

Apparently, you are admitting defeat on your other defenses for Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF's actions, and your and SF-IMCs support of them, if you are choosing to ignore the debunkings of you ill-thought-out fed/local rants.

As for the petition, it is an emergency petition filed by an environmental group to finally get the GGNRA to abide by its own policies as set forth in 1996 and reiterated in 200, the filing intended to stop groups like Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF in their legal maneuvers to prevent the leash policy from every being realized.

Ocean Beach DOG themselves spell it all out:

"Ocean Beach DOG is not confident we will prevail in our quest for the reinstatement of off-leash recreation at Ocean Beach merely through negotiation."

Hence, the lawsuit(s) by them and the PLF and hence the emergency petition to finally enact the almost ten year old decision not to allow off-leash dogs on Ocean Beach while Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF continue to drag things out with their legal assaults on the endangered species act.

here's a guy who would title a comment

"another lie to divert your attention"

then claim his opponents here are trying

"to divert our readers' attention for you apparent inability, or at the very least unwillingness, to defend the petition"

what unwillingness? what inability? that was THE very first time Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF's defender here even mentioned the word "petition" in these comments. the only other mention of it was the original repost of Ocean Beach DOG's "Legal" page in the post itself at the very top of this page

so here we have a guy talking about lies and diverting attention who has the nerve to accuse others of being unwilling or unable to defend a point he hasn't even made until right then

astounding really

get over yourself. and stop pretending you are a mod here. no one wants to go to your sorry site. that's why we are all over herer.

petition:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1772366

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1772369

"blatant, naked, ruthless attempt to employ federal might to countermand the will of the people"

you've got it backwards, the petition was filed to put an end to the almost 10-year legal shenanigans of Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF, neither of which represent the "will of the people" by any stretch of the imagination

now are you suggesting that you want to get back to talking about the federal issues you were thoroughly clobbered on and how thin support for your position is here in SF again??

I think that all dogs found off leash be baked to feed the homeless. Its better than cow!

narcissie: "It's not about me. It's about the petition, a blatant, naked, ruthless attempt to employ federal might to countermand the will of the people. Defend the petition."

So -- as always when he's pinned down by his own idiocy, such as his easily disproven declaration that "the petition" had been the subject of this thread all along -- he keeps ratcheting up the rhetoric, hoping to scream his way free on pure decibels alone, even after that "baby killer" thing blew up in his face.

Not particularly smart, is he.

@%<

What are you saying here, that you *can't* defend the petition or that you wont?

there have already been two or three comments on the petition and you have yet to respond to one of them

take a minute or two to read them, think about them, then get back to us, asshole

what are you stoopid or sumthin?

>that was THE very first time Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF's defender here even mentioned the word "petition" in these comments. the only other mention of it was the original repost of Ocean Beach DOG's "Legal" page in the post itself at the very top of this page

This is a lie. The very first post on the subject specifically concerned the petition. These treacherous miscreants insisted on flooding the the tread, with spammed lies, which I hid. They couldn't abide with SF-IMC's no disinfo policy, so they moved the discussion over here, because they can get away with disinfo here, because the editors Indybay don't care whether what you read here is true or not. That's the actual history of the discussion. See for yourselves:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/1718736_comment.php


>>As for the petition, it is an emergency petition filed by an environmental group to finally get the GGNRA to abide by its own policies as set forth in 1996 and reiterated in 200, the filing intended to stop groups like Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF in their legal maneuvers to prevent the leash policy from every being realized.

GGNRA policy is not the will of the people of San Francisco, but the will of a handful of bureaucrats in Washington who are trying to regularize the rules in all national parks, no matter what the local conditions or the will of the local people. This is what the Nazis called "Gleischaltung." It is anti-democratic at best. At worst, it is tyranny. Either way, it should be opposed.



>>the petition was filed to put an end to the almost 10-year legal shenanigans of Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF, neither of which represent the "will of the people" by any stretch of the imagination


(1.) The will of San Franciscans when Ocean Beach was transferred to the GGNRA was that if the GGNRA tried to change the rules, OCEAN Beach would revert to San Francisco.

(2.) This is not a defense of the petition. It speaks only the motives of those who support it. The petition itself is predicated on the alleged "emergency" nature of the alleged "endangerment" of the plovers. Defend that, if you can. If you can't, then admit that the self-stated rational for the petition is bogus.

Remember, as you attempt to defend this bogus argument, that there have been dogs here for at least twelve, some say forty, thousand years. If they were a threat to ploverdom, it would have showed up by now. It hasn't. So where's this alleged endangerment?

* * * * *

PS

It's still not about me, no matter how elaborate the deceptions, no matter how prolific the forgeries, no matter how acerbic the ad hominems. I'm not the issue. The issue the use of bogus claims by treacherous miscreants to invoke federal tyranny in politically correct drag. Not me. Focus, please. Don't let these people distract you from the issue. You're own rights are at stake. If the federal monster is allowed to get away with using politically correct rhetoric sink its fangs deeper into what few liberties we still possess, what next can it be expected to do? More important, is there anything we can trust it not to do? If you think this is only a matter of abstract political theorizing, read up on a piece of politically correct (for it's time and place) piece of legislation that the Nazis called the "Enabling Act." The lesson of history is abundantly clear on what happens when governments are handed power by people who mean, well but lack political foresight.

If you have a problem with dogs on the beach, come to the beach and talk to their human companions face to face. Don't wimp out like sniveling cowards and instead hand more power to the enemy. The federal government *is* your enemy, right? I ask because we all have a right to know which side you're on. There's an entire planet at stake, to say nothing of our lives and the lives of our families and comrades. We want to know who our enemies are.

>>that was THE very first time Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF's defender here even mentioned the word "petition"
>This is a lie.

no it's not. you are the only one here defending this, and this was the first time you mentioned the petition yourself, while at the same time acting like others were afraid to address it

>treacherous miscreants insisted on flooding the the tread, with spammed lies

the responsibility is on you to show how it was a lie. you can't just call something a lie and expect intelligent people (especially those familiar with your history) to believe you. the posts noted Ocean Beach DOGs direct working relationship with the PLF to chip away at the endangered species act, and you would have none of that truth on your site. it was "anti-dog propaganda", in your words, and the truth of it was irrelevant. it merely contradicted your viewpoint. that does not make it disinfo.

>See for yourselves

now, how can anyone see for themselves that you hid so-called "disinfo" if you give a link that does not show what was hidden? (once again, here's the links that show what you hide and why: the hidden truth of SF-IMCs blatantly racist and anti-environmental associations, http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719603, and
those who tell the truth there become the enemy, http://sf.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=1718736#1719668)

>GGNRA policy is not the will of the people of San Francisco

so you say. GGNRA policy is based on a number of things, and one of those is the endangered species act which enjoys wide public support, even here in the property-rights screw-the-environment san francisco bay area, and these things which the GGNRA base their policies, are based on laws passed by elected officials voted on by citizens of SF amongst others.

you would argue this on precedent? that no single change can ever ever be made in the policies of the park or the GGNRA forfeits the beach? at what point in history are we to stop progressing? at the exact points you personally might have to make a sacrifice for the greater good?

and you would argue for a millisecond that Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF represent the will of SF? and then here come the nazi boogeymen again. you know he's hot when the nazi metaphors come out. "first they came for the innocent dogs on the beach, then they came for the jews..." to whip up an air of hysteria that supposedly justifies your histrionics. of course, you ignored the points made about about your presumed support of the US feds and large corporations in fighting the nazis (or do you think localized collectives were up to the job or we should have waited for them to spread across america which they still haven't before we fought the nazis).

in fact you ignore the majority of the valid points made refuting your weak arguements, so why should people bother taking yours seriously?

I will entertain on last question of yours

>where's this alleged endangerment?

even your pals the Pacific Legal Foundation and Ocean Beach Dog, acknowledge the endangerment, except they use the slippery arguement that it doesn't matter if snowy plovers get wiped out here in SF because there's another genetically similar bird in Idaho or Utah. they would be gone from the west coast forever. of course, you have made it clear that you wouldn't care anyway even if they were the last plovers on earth

while it might rain on your little parade and lead you to spew hatefulled rants at them, the majority of the people of SF support the endangered species act. they don't want to see species like the plovers disapear little by little over time because of property rights nuts

it's time the TRUE will of the people become actual policy in the GGNRA and kooks like the crazy Ocean Beach Dog lady from Pacifica, cranks like the one who runs SF-IMC, and completely evil fucks like the PLF stop mangling up the system with lawsuits. that is what the petition intends to do, make the will of the people become actual policy and make sure not one more nest is messed up by selfish and inconsiderate native bird hating people like you


as for YOU, yes, you embarrass yourself repeatedly here. you throw out flame like baby killers and nazis to defend your selfish interests in your dog being off-leash. that's called hyperbole and makes you less than credible. you controdict yourself constantly and by your own rulebook that makes you at least 1/2 full of crap and most likely a hypocrite. when you act like you do in a public forum, expect to get called on it.

again, though, you cry about ad hominems as you sling insults at your opponents? you truely have no shame

"Now back the topic. You do remember the topic, don't you? "

You mean the topic being how anyone thinks the federal government should be able to enforce the endangered species act is a baby killer? Or was the topic about how plovers arent really endangered and its all some big government conspiracy top prevent your from engaging in the revolutionary act of walking your dog on any god damned beach your want. The thread started with a discussion of Ocean Beach DOG's association with the Pacific Legal Foundation and the politics behind that groups causes. We could try to keep this away from personal attacks by just talking about the PLF and why it is backing this case....

One more time.

>How anyone thinks the federal government should be able to enforce the endangered species act is a baby killer?

That's a straw man. Here's what I actually say:

The federal government kills babies. This has never been refuted, nor can it be. Anyone who helps it in any way is, by definition, a collaborator. As despicable as collaboration is, it has no bearing on the truth of the matter at hand.


>Or was the topic about how plovers arent really endangered and its all some big government conspiracy top prevent your from engaging in the revolutionary act of walking your dog on any god damned beach your want.

Another straw man. How predictable. Here's what I really say:

Plovers are not endangered by dogs on Ocean Beach. If they were, it would have showed up by now. Various people lie about this for various reasons, all of them self serving. In this particular thread, certain people lie about it for reasons that have nothing to do with the plovers or the dogs themselves, or even the federal government. They just are using this as an excuse to attack me personally. If I switched sides tomorrow, morning, by afternoon, they'd switch theirs. That's the kind of people they are. Anyone even passingly familiar with my work knows this. It's really hard to miss.


If they wanted to stop dogs from playing in the surf, more than they wanted an excuse to attack me, they would stop drawing attention to my request that people act to preserve the right of dogs to play in the surf. The more attention they draw to the subject, the more support the dogs garner. They know this. It's self evident. They don't care.

They don't care about dogs, surf or beaches, one way or the other. They care only that the subject gives them the opportunity to attack me. They'll do anything to attack me, from fake typos to fake IPs. They have spoofed my name so often that you can't even be certain it is me, and not one of them, who is writing this very comment. This hasn't hurt my reputation at all, except in their own wishful thinking. Au contrair. It makes the real me all that more credible. That I haven't let it deter my efforts, has earned me a lot of respect in the circles where it matters most.

But it does hurt Indymedia. As long as any Indymedia publishes any disinformation, ever, the credibility of all Indymedias suffer. As long as anyone on Indymedia tells the truth about these people, it behooves them to discredit all Indymedias everywhere. What better way than to publish their own disinformation here. That it also attacks one of their most vocal critics personally, is pure gravy. It's not really about discrediting me, personally. It's about discrediting anyone who speaks the truth about them, and discrediting any place where it is spoken. Otherwise, I'd take all this personally. But I know better. It's not about me. It's about suppressing the truth, no matter who speaks it. I am but one target out of many.

These people attack me for one reason and one reason only. It is because I tell often in public a very uncomfortable truth about them, one that they would much prefer you to neither hear nor think about. They believe that they make enough noise about me, that you'll be stupid enough to overlook the truth itself. It's a trick. Don't fall for it. It's not about me. It's about the truth itself. Don't take my word that it is the truth. Don't take their word that it is not. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. You're smart enough to figure this out. It ain't rocket science. The truth is plain to all who seek it.


>The thread started with a discussion of Ocean Beach DOG's association with the Pacific Legal Foundation and the politics behind that groups causes.

The thread started on another website. Certain people moved it here for reasons already made clear, as a few moments time and a scroll bar can testify. Either they think you've forgotten, or they think if they repeat a lie enough times, that eventually you will prove stupid enough to finally believe it. It's a trick. Don't fall for it.


>We could try to keep this away from personal attacks by just talking about the PLF and why it is backing this case....

PLF is not the issue. Anybody who says it is, is trying to divert your attention from the real issue, a tactic at which these people are much practiced. They have so little respect for your mental capacities that they think you would be stupid enough to decide what is true and what is not, or which side to take on any issue, on the basis of who says what about it, rather than the truth or lack thereof of what is said. This is not just a trick, it's a kid's trick, a little kid's, a very little kid. It is exactly the same as telling you that America should not have fought the Third Reich because Stalinists spoke against Hitler. It's kindergarten logic, and they expect you to fall for it. That's how little respect they have for your intelligence. Shame on them.

I don't feel that way about you at all. I know better. You're much too smart not to do your own research and draw your own conclusions. That's why you're reading the internet in the first place, and not sitting on the couch, sucking up network TV. You're smarter than that. So put it to use. Find out the truth for yourself.

The only real substance in this thread is talk about the PLF and its association with a local group that wants to use a fight over offleash dogs as a way to help bring down the endagered species act.

Another huge issue to affect Ocean Beach, as well as possibly Crissy Field, is that of the snowy plover. Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is now assisting entities up and down the coast of California and Oregon in an effort to delist the snowy plover from the endangered species list. PLF’s assertion is that scientific research shows the snowy plover here is identical genetically to a plover found in Utah, which is found in huge numbers. In effect, their population is far larger than reported—and not in danger of disappearing. Should the plover be taken off the endangered species listing, there is NO reason Ocean Beach cannot be off-leash in its entirety. Additionally, because of the litigation regarding the snowy plover, Pacific Legal Foundation was allowed to bring in an independent firm to audit the Endangered Species Act costs and benefits. It was discovered we are spending 4-5 times as much on this Act than reported by government officials, and the success rate is .01%. On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, a congressional committee is initiating a study and review of the Endangered Species Act with intent to change it. Member attorneys are following all of these actions. Let us know if you want to assist in the lobbying of Congressional officials.

Special thanks are extended to the member attorneys who are spending considerable time and resources to find a way to right this wrong which public controversy has failed to rectify over an 8 year period. Many of you are tired of the fight, and wonder if just "laying low" would perhaps keep the rangers at bay. These attorneys, who continue this fight in the legal sector, inform us that the GGNRA is willing to expend a great deal of time and resources to ban off-leash in as much of the GGNRA as possible. We ask only that the general membership of this group be willing to back these people up if and when the situation presents itself that public outcry is required to augment the legal battle*. We also ask members if they have any contacts in the media, or experience in public relations, that they assist us in presenting our objectives publicly in the best possible light. We all love the beach and the unique rewards it presents us when recreating with our dogs off-leash. Even though we are much smaller than the monolithic GGNRA/NPS, we are in the right on this issue. We can win this fight if we approach it intelligently and diligently.

http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com/id7.html

In the habitats remaining for the snowy plover, human activity continues to be a key factor adversely affecting snowy plover coastal breeding sites and breeding populations in California. Projects or management activities in plover nesting areas that cause, induce or increase human-associated disturbance during the plover's breeding season (March 1-September 14) adversely impact plovers. These activities may reduce the functional suitability of nesting, foraging and roosting areas.

Activities that may adversely affect plovers include sand deposition or spreading, beach cleaning, construction of breakwaters and jetties, dune stabilization/restoration using native and nonnative vegetation or fencing, beach leveling and off-road vehicles driven in nesting areas or at night.

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/western_snowy_plover.htm

Snowy plovers are threatened due to disturbance, predation and habitat loss. Because the birds and eggs are camouflaged, beach visitors can disturb resting birds or wander right through a nesting area, never knowing the damage they have caused. Visitor use of the beach close to nests causes adult birds to stay off the nest, exposing eggs to predators and the elements. Beach fires and fireworks disturb the nesting birds, and kites flown above look like predators. During the winter, continual disturbance uses up their stored reserves and may lower their breeding success.

Predators on the beach are also threats. Dogs chase and may catch birds or destroy nests, cats prey on birds and chicks, and even leashed dogs may appear as a danger. Native predators such as skunks, crows, ravens, and shrikes are joined by exotic predators such as the non-native red fox to further pressure the birds.

WHY SHOULD I CARE?
The snowy plover is an important part of the interconnected web of life on the shore. Plovers have lived on California beaches for thousands of years, but today human use of their remaining beach habitat seriously threatens their survival. Once numbered in the thousands, fewer than 1500 breeding plovers remain. Prior to 1970 they nested at 53 locations in California, while today they nest in only half as many sites. Since snowy plovers are listed as a threatened species and protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, beach visitors who harm or disturb plovers or their habitat may be cited and fined. Plovers need our help if they are to survive alongside human beach recreation.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22262

Dear Bark,
It is completely irresponsible for your publication to state that: “SFDOG got its push when dogs were banned from Ocean Beach, an area within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, because of unsubstantiated claims that the dogs were disturbing Snowy Plover nesting.” This statement in not factual in many ways:

Dogs are not banned from Ocean Beach! They are free to run off leash in both the northern and southern areas of the beach. Dogs are allowed in the Snowy Plover area although they must be leashed. This is not a ban!

It is well documented that dogs disturb Snow Plovers. Ocean Beach dog/plover interactions were studied by Point Reyes Bird Observatory biologists. I have taken and published photographs to back this up.

Nesting was never an issue with the plovers at Ocean Beach, the park does not want them to nest on the beach. The issue is that the National Park Service has a mandate to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA states that it is a violation to pursue or harass an endangered species, and dog owners letting their dogs chase the Federally listed Snowy Plover is clearly a violation of the act. In other parts of the state dogs have been one of the major factors in Snowy Plover nest abandonment.

It is quite true that SFDOG got its push from the GGNRA starting to enforce the leash law on part of Ocean Beach, but there has always been a leash law on Ocean Beach.

It is reprehensible that SFDOG and the SF SPCA feel no obligation to stick to the facts when it comes to one of our rarest and most threatened species. It is also reprehensible that your journal continues to publish these dishonest statements.
Alan Hopkins
President
Golden Gate Audubon Society

Dear Bark:
I enjoy reading Bark. I am a dog lover and sadly do not have the lifestyle that allows me the opportunity to be a dog owner. Your article on dog parks is a good start. I was sad to see you continue the divisive “us vs. them” attitude with regards to wildlife. The Park Service has an obligation to future generations to preserve our parkland and the wildlife that lives there. Your article stated that there are “unsubstantiated claims that dogs are disturbing Snowy Plover nesting.” Dogs chase birds. What substantiation are you looking for?

I feel it is greedy and shortsighted for us to believe that the pleasure we receive from watching our dogs run free is more important that allowing the Snowy Plover to survive.

As a dog advocate I feel you should help educate dog owners about the benefits of preserving wildlife for future generations. Otherwise dog owners behave in ignorant and selfish ways. Perhaps an article about dog-owner etiquette would be helpful and you could educate yourself and others about the damage that off-leash dogs can do when in the hands of irresponsible dog owners.
A Bay Area Dog Lover

http://www.thebark.com/community/online_barkBack/barkBack.html

The Pasadena Audubon Society has been made aware of the Pacific Legal Foundation's undertaking a lawsuit to delist the Western Snowy Plover and overturn the Critical Habitat Designation for this subspecies. This letter provides some clarification and the probable effects of such a lawsuit.

The snowy plover was first proposed to be listed as a federal threatened species in 1988 and was finally federally listed as threatened in 1993. Despite knowledge of the birds' threatened status, federal critical habitat for the Western Snowy Plover was not designated until 1999, and then only because members of the public concerned about the birds' status brought a lawsuit to protect the birds. Western snowy plovers have only been afforded protection by the Endangered Species Act for a short time, and populations appear to be steady or in decline.

In the final listing rule (58 FR 12864), you determined that the Pacific Coast WSP is in fact isolated based on numerous banding studies and surveys conducted on coastal and interior birds.This determination has been supported by additional banding studies and surveys (Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1994; Palacios and Alfaro 1994; Paton 1994; Persons 1994,1995; Stenzel et al. 1994; Page et al.) Whereas interior populations of the snowy plover are monogamous, the western coast subspecies is serially polygamous in its breeding system. Commonly, males will double-clutch and females will triple-clutch.

The other North American subspecies, the Cuban snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris), nests generally east of Louisiana at various locations along the Gulf of Mexico, including Florida, the Bahamas, the Yucatan Peninsula, and Puerto Rico.The Cuban snowy plover is distinguished primarily by paler plumage.

The western snowy plover is rather fragile and requires undisturbed sandy beaches to breed. Vehicular traffic on beaches is particularly dangerous to the plovers because the birds are difficult to see and are likely to go unnoticed by drivers. The birds and their nests are easily run over by vehicles, and the tiny, light-colored chicks are particularly vulnerable because they fall or walk into tracks made in the sand by vehicles, are unable to lift themselves back up to the regular surface of the sand, and get run over by the next vehicle that comes by.

Federal critical habitat encompasses only those areas that have been found to be essential to the conservation of the species. Though even in these areas, the birds continue to face threats, because a designation of a particular parcel of land as "critical habitat" does not mean that the land, or the species, is absolutely protected within the designation's bounds. Under federal law, the only protection a critical habitat designation affords a threatened species is that for federal activities on the designated land, or activities that require a federal permit, the person or agency that wants to undertake the activity must consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service before doing so. A critical habitat designation does not constitute a prohibition of any activity.

Western snowy plover critical habitat encompasses swaths of vital habitat from the California-Mexico border to the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. Coos County's contemplated suit to undue the critical habitat designation would affect the entire designation, threatening the plovers throughout their range by removing what little protection there is for the birds on the beaches up and down the West Coast. In addition, it should be noted that if the Pacific Legal Foundation's suit were successful, the decline and loss of western snowy plover populations along the Pacific coast attributed to habitat loss and disturbance caused by urbanization, will ensure its speedy road toward extinction.

Thousands of professionals and volunteers are currently working to save the snowy plover from this fate. Audubon Society chapters up and down the west coast, along with birders and other nature lovers, are extremely alarmed that there is movement to take an action that threatens these birds and the fragile ecosystems on which they depend in favor of unfettered access to beaches by motorized vehicles and real estate development.

Without some control over human activities, it is clear that snowy plovers will not be able to recover. For example, at one site in coastal California, humans were directly responsible for the loss of at least 14% of nests over a 6-year period (Warriner et al. 1986). As it is, the birds live an average of only 3 years and the annual reproductive success for coastal snowy plovers in California has only ranged from 0.8-0.9 fledglings per female near Monterey Bay to 0.8-1.1 fledglings per female in San Diego County (Warriner et al. 1986; Powell et al. 1995). The breeding range along California's coast has been significantly interrupted by the loss of all historical breeding sites in Los Angeles County and most of Orange County. Loss of habitat in these areas has been attributed to high levels of recreational beach use and the raking of beach sand (for removal of debris) on a regular basis.

Additional factors are the spread of European beach grass, human disturbance (from runners and walkers, dogs, vehicles and kite-flying), and predator problems (e.g., from feral dogs and cats and introduced animals such as red fox). With so few nesting areas, each population becomes more vulnerable to loss. In 1992, only 30 adults nested on Oregon's coast. The coastal population of the Western snowy plover was listed as a threatened species in 1993. Today numbers are estimated at about 100 nesting birds, too few to assure that the population will survive or be taken off the endangered species list.

The snowy plover's life history pattern will make recovery difficult unless all factors that threaten the plover are controlled. Plovers need open sand areas for nesting. Nests are often within 300' or so from the water's edge. The spread of European beach grass has severely limited the extent of this habitat type. Their nests are only small depressions made in the sand and the speckled eggs sit on top of the sand, very small and hard to see, making them extremely vulnerable to trampling of eggs by humans and vehicles. Eggs incubate in roughly 27 days, during which the adult birds are very vulnerable to disturbance. When adults are flushed off their nest, the nests become very vulnerable to predation. If adults are frequently disturbed, they may abandon their nest.

Studies in California found that people within 1-164 ft of the nest caused flushing of the adults from the nest 78% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 100% of the time. At a distance of 164-328' from the nest people alone caused flushing 57% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 65% of the time. At a distance of 328-820 feet from the nest, people alone caused flushing 34% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 50% of the time. In another study joggers and walkers with off-leash dogs caused a significantly greater number of avoidance responses from plovers than other types of disturbances. In studies on a similar species of plover off-road vehicles caused plovers to flush at an average distance of 131 feet; while off road vehicles within 164 feet of birds cause these plovers to stop feeding 77% of the time.

Once hatched, plover chicks are extremely difficult to see, and remain flightless until they are about 30 days old. Adult birds do not feed the young, rather they lead them to suitable feeding areas. They use the entire beach from the edge of the water to the edge of the beachgrass for feeding. While the presence of people on the beach can disrupt critical survival behaviors, the larger concern is vehicles running over plover chicks, and dogs capturing them. As a result, chick protection efforts tend to focus on seasonal vehicle closures and either prohibiting dogs or requiring that they be leashed.

Maintaining and increasing efforts in all areas from habitat restoration to predator and access control, to public education and monitoring, each play a necessary role in the recovery. We are very supportive of the entire suite of measures proposed in the recovery plan and would be willing help to enable these measures to be implemented. We believe that the time to act is now, while there are still sufficient breeding pairs to help make recovery possible, and while there is still time to experiment with management options. The longer we wait to act, the more restrained our options for getting the bird off the endangered species list will be.

A lawsuit designed to abolish the protections for this sensitive bird, even if it is temporarily successful, will only mean the further decline in this threatened species, which could mean more radical closures and more stringent regulations being needed later.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please feel free to call me at (323)266-5184.

Sincerely,
----
Pasadena Audubon Society

http://www.pasadenaaudubon.org/snowyplover.html

>Dogs are not banned from Ocean Beach. They are free to run off leash in both the northern and southern areas of the beach.


Both the northern and southern areas of the beach are GGNRA property. Dogs run free on parts of it because the GGNRA is not trying to stop them. Yet. But they will if these *ssholes have their way. The only thing that hold back the GGNRA from chasing dogs out of the surf at Kelly's Cove is the resistance put up by the people of San Francisco. We who hang out at Kelly's Cove have no problem with staying off the part of the beach south of GG Park and north of Fort Funston, if it will get these *ssholes off our back. That's what we've been doing. But these *ssholes aren't satisfied with that. They want Kelly's Cove and Fort Funston, too. They are greedy, selfish, inconsiderate *ssholes who *must* be stopped. If we don't stop them here, sooner of later they will try to take our pets away altogether. Their leaders have stated repeatedly in public for decades that that is thier actual agenda.

See:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/politics/animal-rights/myths/part2/

They *must* be stopped. They have landed on our beaches. Next, they will be in our homes. That's the kind of people they are.



>I feel it is greedy and shortsighted for us to believe that the pleasure we receive from watching our dogs run free is more important that allowing the Snowy Plover to survive.

(1.) This is a false dilemma, i.e. bunk logic. The plovers are not threatened. If they were, we'd see evidence. We don't.

(2.) It's the dogs' pleasure, not our own, we are concerned with. We want to give our dogs pleasure. It is our duty as human companions. These people want to stop us. Ergo, they're *ssholes. Only an *sshole would do something like that.


>members of the public concerned about the birds' status brought a lawsuit to protect the birds

The key word here is "concerned," as opposed to informed. Informed opinion disagrees with the alleged "endangerment" of the birds. The problem with these people is that they assume that because the government says plovers are endangered, that it must be true. There faith in the government is, at best, quaint. At worst, it betrays a mentality not unlike that of little children who believe everything their parents, their priests and their teachers tell them, and go running to an authority figure when the other kids wont play by their rules. Either way, their faith, is based on wishful thinking and not direct investigation. All faith, by definition, is based on wishful thinking, not direct investigation. People who actually hang out on that beach and directly observe conditions with their own eyes, know better. There are no fewer plovers than there ever were.

Trust in authority figures is the single most destructive force in human history. It is the direct cause of war, exploitation and ecocide. Get over it. Think for yourselves. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions.


>Dogs chase birds.

So what? It doesn't reduce the number of plovers, either by predation or by interfering with breeding, which is the issue here. If it did, there would be fewer and fewer plovers. There aren't. Plovers are thriving. To call them endangered is a lie. These people are liars.

Dogs and plovers have coexisted for thousands of years. And now, all of a sudden there is supposed to be an "emergency"!?! Gimme a break.

"If we don't stop them here, sooner of later they will try to take our pets away altogether. "
Thats a slipery slope argument thats a little extreme.
If you want to engage in a real debate on issues stop saying stuff like this. Most of the people who are the strongest supporters of restrictions on dogs to protect birds are likely themselves dog owners.

"Informed opinion disagrees with the alleged 'endangerment' of the birds. "
From what Ive seen every environmental group has sided with the endagered species act and its only PLF sites that challenge the status of the Plovers. Do you have any other source for your accusation than them?

"People who actually hang out on that beach and directly observe conditions with their own eyes, know better. There are no fewer plovers than there ever were."
So your saying that you refute the endangered species status of a bird because you think your seen enough of them to make them not endangered?

" Dogs and plovers have coexisted for thousands of years."
Thats hardly an argument. People were not walking their dogs on Ocean beach in the same numbers even 50 years ago. More than 150 years ago you may have had a few wild dogs chasing birds but not many. Plus plovers were not endagered 100+ years ago and while their endangerment is mainly due to development recreational use on the remaining beachs that have not been destroyed now poses a larger threat.

I mean, c'mon people! It's obvious that Nessie is spamming Indybay under different names. He does this all the time. Why do you put up with his nonsense?

Anyway, responsible dog owners support leash laws. We always have. We always will. I can't tell you how many times I've had peoples lame-ass dogs come running up to me and my pit (he's always on a leash in public) and the owner says "it's ok, my dog is friendly" and I can see their dog getting anxious, then aggressive, and then its on...

People who refuse to leash their dogs in public should not own a dog, period, end of story.

> Thats a slipery slope argument thats a little extreme.


That's what their leaders say. I believe them. History is very clear on what happens when we ignore authoritarians who predict what they are going to do when they have enough power. If you don't believe me, read *Mein Kampf*.


>Most of the people who are the strongest supporters of restrictions on dogs to protect birds are likely themselves dog owners.

Who takes which side, and how great their number, is irrelevant. The issue here is the use of false claims to increase the power of the federal government under the pretense of political correctness.


>From what Ive seen every environmental group has sided with the endagered species act and its only PLF sites that challenge the status of the Plovers. Do you have any other source for your accusation than them?

Direct personal observation. I made mine. Have you made yours? If not, you are relying on the word of self proclaimed authority figures. That's just plain bad science. It's even worse politics. I've been hanging out in Kelly's Cove since 1993. I have observed no reduction in the number of plovers. I always believe my own eyes when they contradict with the pronouncements of authority figures.


>So your saying that you refute the endangered species status of a bird because you think your seen enough of them to make them not endangered?

It's not that I've seen "enough" of them. It's that I have seen no reduction in their numbers. This so-called "emergency" is at odds with the facts on the ground. Nothing has changed. If dogs playing in the surf were a threat to the number of plovers, it would have showed up by now. It has not.

But even if there were a reduction in the number of plovers, it would still not justify an increase in the power of the state. Nothing justifies giving the state power. History is very clear what happens when states become too powerful. See above.

Rather than increase the power of the state, we need to educate people how to care for themselves, for each other and for our environment. Laws wont do this. All they do is cost taxpayers money and lengthen the tentacles of the state.

If you have a problem with dogs playing in the surf, don't sic the cops on us. Come down to the beach at talk to their human companions face to face. If you're not willing to do that, but you are willing to sic the cops on us, you're an *sshole. Sorry, there's no polite way to put it. People who sic the cops on other people are *ssholes. Period.



>Thats hardly an argument. People were not walking their dogs on Ocean beach in the same numbers even 50 years ago.

(1.) That's an unsubstantiated allegation.

(2.) But even if it were true, so what. Nothing has changed in (at least) fifty years and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe there's an "emergency"!?! Gimme a break.


>It's obvious that Nessie is spamming Indybay under different names. He does this all the time.

(1.) "Nessie" is not my name.

(2.) Our names do not matter. What matters is what we say and do.



>Why do you put up with his nonsense?

The reason this website was created, and continues to exist, is to provide Bay Area activists, their friends, their allies, and their potential allies a place to post the news they think each other know about, and to analyze that news in a cogent fashion. I've been a Bay Area activist for what's going on four decades now. I have more than the right to post here, I have the duty.


>responsible dog owners support leash laws.

I'm not opposed to leashing dogs. To imply that I am is a straw man. There's a place for leashes and a place for no leashes. I'm opposed to leash laws applying to Fort Funston and Kelly's Cove. I'm opposed to the federal government enforcing leash, or any, laws anywhere, any time, for any reason. The federal government is a monster, by far and away the greatest threat to peace and justice on the planet today. Only two kinds of people would even consider feeding it power, fools and villains.


>People who refuse to leash their dogs in public should not own a dog, period, end of story.

Spoken like a true *sshole. I pity your dog. Dogs need to be able to run some everyday. If you don't let your dog run, you're abusing it. Abusers should not be permitted to come anywhere near dogs, let alone take responsibility for their wellbeing and happiness.

"Direct personal observation. I made mine. Have you made yours? If not, you are relying on the word of self proclaimed authority figures. That's just plain bad science"

sorry, but direct personal observation IS bad science. have you been counting birds and nests for, logging those numbers, comparing your empirical records with those of others, and sharing your results with actual scientists to validate your numbers? more likely, what you're talking about is not science at all but mere casual observation

if all science was today was sitting around and casually observing, we'd still be back in the 15th or 16th century scientifically.

and you don't rely on scientific authorities for anything? you conduct all of your own medical and scientific research and believe nothing that has withstood the test of time over centuries of real scientific examination, striclty relying on what you yourself have proven through your own astute non-scientific obeservations??

and what unadulterated ego, to contradict countless groups with real scientific credentials, even contradict your own allies ocean beach dog who admit dogs are a threat to the birds, just they don't care if the bird disappears from the beach, and say that you alone have divined the truth of the matter

and you have the nerve to call anything an "unsubstantiated allegation"??

astounding really, the things you say and expect other people to believe.

after being shown to have straight-up lied on at least two occassions right here in this very thread, you came back with a very weak "never trust anyone" more or less and then had the gall just a comment or two later to note about yourself, "It makes the real me all that more credible."

you call things "disinfo" that merely point out uncomfortable truths for you

you live in a fantasy world where your narcissistic opinion equates with hard science and only you alone can divine the truth of the world. it's quite an anti-social take on the world. pathetic really

I pity you, sad hateful man. why do you persist in making yourself the clown here? have you no shame at all?

Its probably not worth arguing with Nessie. He tends to take stands for one reason or an other on an issue and then use baseless argument to argue for the cause. In many cases I agree with him, but even in those cases his style of arguing is underhanded and mainly consists of name calling and slippery slope arguments taken to crazy sounding extremes. If you ever confront him on his lack of civility and unwillingness to use real arguments rather than guilt by association and other such tricks he always responds that you shouldnt talk about him personally A lot of it just comes down to him being a bully and while in this case I disagree with him it disturbs me more when I agree with what hes saying since he tends to hurt the causes he supports. Even in this case, perhaps there is a real argument for allowing off leash dogs on Ocean Beach since it isn't a nesting place (many of the lawuits by the PLF are over other beachs which are nesting places afterall), but he wont make an argument based off facts and tends to rely on "from the gut" types of arguments.

You're revolution as you see it ain't never gonna happen. You can't even get along with people who are otherwise similar to you, in this case the subset of Bay Area "dog lover's" that are interested in radical activism enough to frequent Indymedia websites. You peg too many people as black and white enemies for your revolution to ever come to fruition. You push people away forever - they will not forget. A real revolution would involve multitudes of disparate people working together. Otherwise, it's just petty sectarian bickering and more of the same which is pretty much what we've had since the Vietnam War ended.

Your revolution is the product of an imagination and demeanor that lacks the magnaminity to actually get along with other people besides those in your tiny, self-validating cliques, as are the only two things in your "track record" that are verifiable. You have already shown yourself to be untrustworthy in this very thread right here, so why should anyone buy your lists of 35 year-old events and navel-gazing yarns?

Your revolution is a lonely one.

straw men, ad hominems, extraneous apostrophes, etc.




>You're revolution as you see it ain't never gonna happen.

It's already happening, and has been since long before I was born.



>You can't even get along with people who are otherwise similar to you, in this case the subset of Bay Area "dog lover's" that are interested in radical activism enough to frequent Indymedia websites.

(1.) This is simply untrue. Some I get along with and some I don't. To lump them all together is disrespectful, dehumanizing and at odds with the facts on the ground.

(2.) Also, you should be aware that this thread is read by people who never heard of Indymedia before, but were directed here by a search engine.

(3.) This isn't about me, my style or my personality. To even bring them up is duplicitous. It betrays an inability and/or an unwillingness to address the substance of the issue



>You peg too many people as black and white enemies for your revolution to ever come to fruition.

This is a straw man. You're also begging the question. I didn't say snitches were the enemy of "my," or any, revolution. I merely said they were the enemy. In fact, they are the enemy of many different groups and individuals, some of whom have nothing else in common. They are also the enemy of honor.


>You push people away forever - they will not forget.

That's OK. The exact same actions draw other people in. There are are plenty of people out there you really like my style, and yet others who like me precisely because of the kind of people who don't like me.

No matter what I say or do, some people are going to like it and some people are going to not like it. I can't please everyone. It's not possible. Since I am neither a politician nor a diplomat, I don't even have a reason to try to please everyone. My friends like me. More people want to be my friend than I really have the time and energy to be friends with. Pleasing my enemies is not on my do to list. So I'm really pleased with my strategy.

Besides, my longevity as an activist is due, at least in part, to not being mistaken for a leader by the powers that be. Having a given percent of the activist community think I'm an *sshole ant at given time is my insurance. If you're really serious about activism you must come to realize that we are in a protracted struggle, and commit to the long haul. But commitment is not enough. You have to also survive. The single most important thing that any activist can do to stay free and alive is to never, ever, ever take a leadership role, not in real life and not in the perception of the powers that be. The easiest way to do this is to not attract a following, or even too much attention. The easiest way to do that is to intentionally alienate some people. It's easy. A lot of people should be alienated because we're better off without them. Besides, followers in general are really annoying people.



>You have already shown yourself to be untrustworthy in this very thread right here, so why should anyone buy your lists of 35 year-old events and navel-gazing yarns?

You should never believe anything except what you see with your own eyes, and not all of that, not by a long shot. Never trust anybody. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions.

But a long as we're discussing track records, I'm curious. What's yours? Do you have one? Would you care to share it with us, or are you ashamed?

"Yeah, yeah, and i eat babies, too. "

So far I have seen you accusing others of killing babies and people trying to deal with your lack or a coherent argument. The pet owner vs conservation conflict is hardly new and in most cases people have better arguments than you have made. Its partly because you are aiming too large; most people arguing for allowing dogs to roam free on a given beach would first attempt to negotiate with envioronmentalists rather than going for the throat with demonization and slippery slope arguments that remind people too much of "wise use" propaganda against other environmental laws. The slippery slope arguments about unleashed dogs on specific public lands is rather amusing when dogs are not allowed offleash in most places for less positive reasons. Most such restrictions (like the proposed restriction on number of dogs in private residnces in Oakland) are locally supported ordinances that in some cases may even be able to be challenged at a federal level on "property rights" grounds.

Audobon has interesting stuff about how pet cats endanger many birds:
http://www.audubon.org/bird/cat/
Its a seperate argument but I could see people try to argue against a restriction on cats being outside in certain areas without denial of facts, demonization of environmentalists, or slippery slope arguments. As with your false arguments above there would be clear logical fallicies to argue that "cats always have hunted birds" since pet cats (and pet dogs) are a domesticated species that exists in numbers and places that really have little relationship to wild cats.

It's not about me. It's not about cats. It's not about anything other than people empowering the federal government on the basis of a false claim in this one specific instance. Anything else is a distraction.

To summarize:

Dogs playing in the surf does not emdanger plovers. People who say otherwise are lying.

Further empowerment of the federal government endangers us all.

Focus, please.

most activists are not such narcissistic numbnuts that they have to stroke their own egos in online comment threads. they care about things beyond their own little worlds. they are not interested in pissing contests about who is the punkest and they have enough humility not to rave about themselves as activists in a world that is still so fucked up

then there are others who just can't get enough of themselves...

"Not only am I winning the game, I'm *way* ahead."

This is not about me, or my ego, or my style, or anything else about me. It's about a transparent attempt to use disinformation to lengthen our enemy's tentacles.

Real activists would be discussing the actual issue instead of engaging in COINTELPRO type character assassination, as if my character were even the issue. Apparently certain people feel it more important to attack activists than to attack the world's problems. We can only speculate as to their motivation. Fortunately, the list of possibilities is extremely short. It's either pathology or a paycheck. Either way, it's off topic and counter productive.

Focus please.

We have yet to hear how dogs playing in the surf endangers plovers in any way whatsoever, let alone seen any proof. The reasons for this are self evident. They don't. There isn't any. Plovers don't even feed in the surf, let alone nest there. When a wave comes in, they pull back in mass. When the wave pulls back, they rush out to see what little creatures it brought them, which they then slaughter mercilessly. But they never, ever go into the surf itself for any reason, ever, least of all to build nests. If they did, Plater's petition would be fact based and therefore valid. They don't. It isn't. Address that. Leave character assassination to the agents of the new COINTELPRO.

we already know about the dangers of "baby killers"

now add that those who have disagreed with His Majesty and His Royal Dog here are not "Real activists"

and if you call our little Charles Manson on his hypocritical BS, then that makes what you say "COINTELPRO type" because he fancies himself a latter-day Fred Hampton or Abbie Hoffman


as for "disinformation to lengthen our enemy's tentacles" -- yes, indeed, like saying that one's own personal non-scientific observation outweighs the scientific determinations of countless groups, none of which the PLF or Ocean Beach Dog even disagree with (they BOTH concede free-roaming dogs are a danger to plovers but say it doesn't matter because of some other birds in Utah). but His Majesty here will tell you it's just not so, because he has seen it with his own eyes, and with his own eyes is able to determine what defines appropriate breeding grounds for healthy bird populations. this god-like confidence in his own perception justifies working with ocean beach dog and the plf to undermine and destroy the endangered species act. and this from a guy who has been repeatedly shown to have little to no credibility in this very thread. just trust him on his unique determination, he implores (and nevermind that he has a vested interest in this dogfight, no bias there)

narcissie: "Focus please."

We're quite focused. We're focused on your rhetorical duplicity, including the ease with which you'll throw around the word COINTELPRO whenever someone dares, dares, to disagree with you.

The problem is, you somehow believe that you are literally beyond reproach, and that anyone who criticizes you _must_ be doing it for some other reason than that you roundly and unambiguously deserve it.

@%<

Does this have anything to do with surf, plovers or dogs? If so, we'll not hear it from the Zionist propaganda mill. They only care about one thing, protecting their racist theocracy from the inevitable justice it so richly deserves.

But what about the rest of you, they ones who actually live in San Francisco and so actually have a stake in this issue? Can any of you explain how dogs playing in the surf actually endangers plovers in any way? Inquiring minds want to know.

>as for "disinformation to lengthen our enemy's tentacles" -- yes, indeed, like saying that one's own personal non-scientific observation outweighs the scientific determinations of countless groups, none of which the PLF or Ocean Beach Dog even disagree with (they BOTH concede free-roaming dogs are a danger to plovers but say it doesn't matter because of some other birds in Utah). but His Majesty here will tell you it's just not so, because he has seen it with his own eyes, and with his own eyes is able to determine what defines appropriate breeding grounds for healthy bird populations. this god-like confidence in his own perception justifies working with ocean beach dog and the plf to undermine and destroy the endangered species act. and this from a guy who has been repeatedly shown to have little to no credibility in this very thread. just trust him on his unique determination, he implores (and nevermind that he has a vested interest in this dogfight, no bias there)

what can you offer besides your own biased observations? why should anything you say in this thread on this subject be deemed credible?

It's a reference to somebody else's explanation, one which doesn't even address the central issue, causation. If you can't demonstrate causation, everything else is irrelevant. It's sort of like trying to figure out why the Black Death was killing so many people by experimenting with different breeds of leeches. It misses the point.

That's why I don't rely on other people's explanations, not of this, not of anything that I am capable of investigating myself. Nor do I rely on authority figures, period, particularly self proclaimed ones. i do my own research. I do it scientifically. I learned how to do scientific research while working as a lab tech years ago. Step one: investigate the right thing. In this case, it's not the birds themselves. It's their nests. Trashing nests would reduce their numbers, but it ain't happening. That's why the plovers come back here on a regular basis. Go see for yourself.

And do keep in mind that saving plovers is not the greatest good we can do here. Even if the plovers were endangered, which they are not, it still would not be worth further empowering the federal government to deal with it. There are other ways. For instance, you could come down to the beach and talk to these dogs human companions face to face. Why don't you do that? Not a rhetorical question. Be specific.

"Nor do I rely on authority figures, period.... i do my own research. I do it scientifically."

okay, then, present us all right here with your scientific research on plover populations over the years. show us your statistically significant results. please, show all of your work on this and elaborate on your prior research into sustainable populations of plovers and other species. it would be preferable if you had anyone else at all on this planet review your work and report on their findings here, but we'll let that one slide even though one of the main foundations of science is consensus and peer review.

speaking of doing your own research and never ever trusting authority figures, can you please elaborate on how you create your own medications, where do you find the time and materials, and when you are sick what types of diagnostic tools have you developed to self-examine and determine the proper course of action in your independent scientific research?


ps. working in a lab for a real scientist does not make you one yourself. how many research papers in university libraries have you read? how deep does is your understanding of statistics? have you ever actually designed and conducted a peer reviewed original research project yourself? maybe you have in your plover studies and can enlighten us all right now

Off leash dogs should be baked to feed the hungry. Dog is much better than cow.

The issue here is not plover population, per se, but the effect that dogs playing in the surf has on plover population.

You will never come up with the right answers unless you ask the right questions. The question here is, do dogs playing in the surf effect plover population. First, a method of causality must be established. if you can do that, then it pays to counts plovers to determine the extent of the effect. But before you can establish the extent of an effect, any effect, you first have to establish that there not only can be an effect, but that there is. You have established neither. Ergo, your methodology is flawed. You're putting the cart before the horse. That's flawed. Flawed methodology can never produce valid results.

So I ask again. How, exactly, does dogs playing in the surf reduce the number of plovers? Be specific.

And again I point out, that the number of plovers is not as important in the greater scheme of things as is the power of the federal government. The federal government is a monster. It would be better to lose every plover, were it necessary, which it is not, rather than to strengthen this monster and lengthen its tentacles.

Address those issues. Leave me and my style and my ego and my other politics out of it. I'm not part of the equation. Neither are they. This isn't about me. This is about the use of fraudulent claims to justify strengthening a monster.

Does this have anything to do with surf, plovers or dogs? If so, we'll not hear it from the Zionist propaganda mill. They only care about one thing, protecting their racist theocracy from the inevitable justice it so richly deserves.

"With an iron first we shall remove the infidel cocker spaniels from the Holy Land"

Valdamir Jabotinsky
speech to the ZOA , 1929

"First we will rid the land of the Palestinians, then we will turn our attention to their pets"

David Ben Gurion, 1964
Autobiography

# of Palestinian Pets in 1948 346,983
# of Palestinain Pets in 2005 126,849

Proof positive of the trans- specices cleansing policies of the Israeli government. End this travesty. Send money to
Allison Weir
<http://www.ifamericaknew.com

see these links for a refresher course



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1772527
In the habitats remaining for the snowy plover, human activity continues to be a key factor adversely affecting snowy plover coastal breeding sites and breeding populations in California. Projects or management activities in plover nesting areas that cause, induce or increase human-associated disturbance during the plover's breeding season (March 1-September 14) adversely impact plovers. These activities may reduce the functional suitability of nesting, foraging and roosting areas.


Snowy plovers are threatened due to disturbance, predation and habitat loss. Because the birds and eggs are camouflaged, beach visitors can disturb resting birds or wander right through a nesting area, never knowing the damage they have caused. Visitor use of the beach close to nests causes adult birds to stay off the nest, exposing eggs to predators and the elements. Beach fires and fireworks disturb the nesting birds, and kites flown above look like predators. During the winter, continual disturbance uses up their stored reserves and may lower their breeding success.

Predators on the beach are also threats. Dogs chase and may catch birds or destroy nests, cats prey on birds and chicks, and even leashed dogs may appear as a danger. Native predators such as skunks, crows, ravens, and shrikes are joined by exotic predators such as the non-native red fox to further pressure the birds.

WHY SHOULD I CARE?
The snowy plover is an important part of the interconnected web of life on the shore. Plovers have lived on California beaches for thousands of years, but today human use of their remaining beach habitat seriously threatens their survival. Once numbered in the thousands, fewer than 1500 breeding plovers remain. Prior to 1970 they nested at 53 locations in California, while today they nest in only half as many sites. Since snowy plovers are listed as a threatened species and protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, beach visitors who harm or disturb plovers or their habitat may be cited and fined. Plovers need our help if they are to survive alongside human beach recreation.



Pasadena Audubon Society
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php#1772532
The Pasadena Audubon Society has been made aware of the Pacific Legal Foundation's undertaking a lawsuit to delist the Western Snowy Plover and overturn the Critical Habitat Designation for this subspecies. This letter provides some clarification and the probable effects of such a lawsuit.

The snowy plover was first proposed to be listed as a federal threatened species in 1988 and was finally federally listed as threatened in 1993. Despite knowledge of the birds' threatened status, federal critical habitat for the Western Snowy Plover was not designated until 1999, and then only because members of the public concerned about the birds' status brought a lawsuit to protect the birds. Western snowy plovers have only been afforded protection by the Endangered Species Act for a short time, and populations appear to be steady or in decline.

In the final listing rule (58 FR 12864), you determined that the Pacific Coast WSP is in fact isolated based on numerous banding studies and surveys conducted on coastal and interior birds.This determination has been supported by additional banding studies and surveys (Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1994; Palacios and Alfaro 1994; Paton 1994; Persons 1994,1995; Stenzel et al. 1994; Page et al.) Whereas interior populations of the snowy plover are monogamous, the western coast subspecies is serially polygamous in its breeding system. Commonly, males will double-clutch and females will triple-clutch.

The other North American subspecies, the Cuban snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris), nests generally east of Louisiana at various locations along the Gulf of Mexico, including Florida, the Bahamas, the Yucatan Peninsula, and Puerto Rico.The Cuban snowy plover is distinguished primarily by paler plumage.

The western snowy plover is rather fragile and requires undisturbed sandy beaches to breed. Vehicular traffic on beaches is particularly dangerous to the plovers because the birds are difficult to see and are likely to go unnoticed by drivers. The birds and their nests are easily run over by vehicles, and the tiny, light-colored chicks are particularly vulnerable because they fall or walk into tracks made in the sand by vehicles, are unable to lift themselves back up to the regular surface of the sand, and get run over by the next vehicle that comes by.

Federal critical habitat encompasses only those areas that have been found to be essential to the conservation of the species. Though even in these areas, the birds continue to face threats, because a designation of a particular parcel of land as "critical habitat" does not mean that the land, or the species, is absolutely protected within the designation's bounds. Under federal law, the only protection a critical habitat designation affords a threatened species is that for federal activities on the designated land, or activities that require a federal permit, the person or agency that wants to undertake the activity must consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service before doing so. A critical habitat designation does not constitute a prohibition of any activity.

Western snowy plover critical habitat encompasses swaths of vital habitat from the California-Mexico border to the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. Coos County's contemplated suit to undue the critical habitat designation would affect the entire designation, threatening the plovers throughout their range by removing what little protection there is for the birds on the beaches up and down the West Coast. In addition, it should be noted that if the Pacific Legal Foundation's suit were successful, the decline and loss of western snowy plover populations along the Pacific coast attributed to habitat loss and disturbance caused by urbanization, will ensure its speedy road toward extinction.

Thousands of professionals and volunteers are currently working to save the snowy plover from this fate. Audubon Society chapters up and down the west coast, along with birders and other nature lovers, are extremely alarmed that there is movement to take an action that threatens these birds and the fragile ecosystems on which they depend in favor of unfettered access to beaches by motorized vehicles and real estate development.

Without some control over human activities, it is clear that snowy plovers will not be able to recover. For example, at one site in coastal California, humans were directly responsible for the loss of at least 14% of nests over a 6-year period (Warriner et al. 1986). As it is, the birds live an average of only 3 years and the annual reproductive success for coastal snowy plovers in California has only ranged from 0.8-0.9 fledglings per female near Monterey Bay to 0.8-1.1 fledglings per female in San Diego County (Warriner et al. 1986; Powell et al. 1995). The breeding range along California's coast has been significantly interrupted by the loss of all historical breeding sites in Los Angeles County and most of Orange County. Loss of habitat in these areas has been attributed to high levels of recreational beach use and the raking of beach sand (for removal of debris) on a regular basis.

Additional factors are the spread of European beach grass, human disturbance (from runners and walkers, dogs, vehicles and kite-flying), and predator problems (e.g., from feral dogs and cats and introduced animals such as red fox). With so few nesting areas, each population becomes more vulnerable to loss. In 1992, only 30 adults nested on Oregon's coast. The coastal population of the Western snowy plover was listed as a threatened species in 1993. Today numbers are estimated at about 100 nesting birds, too few to assure that the population will survive or be taken off the endangered species list.

The snowy plover's life history pattern will make recovery difficult unless all factors that threaten the plover are controlled. Plovers need open sand areas for nesting. Nests are often within 300' or so from the water's edge. The spread of European beach grass has severely limited the extent of this habitat type. Their nests are only small depressions made in the sand and the speckled eggs sit on top of the sand, very small and hard to see, making them extremely vulnerable to trampling of eggs by humans and vehicles. Eggs incubate in roughly 27 days, during which the adult birds are very vulnerable to disturbance. When adults are flushed off their nest, the nests become very vulnerable to predation. If adults are frequently disturbed, they may abandon their nest.

Studies in California found that people within 1-164 ft of the nest caused flushing of the adults from the nest 78% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 100% of the time. At a distance of 164-328' from the nest people alone caused flushing 57% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 65% of the time. At a distance of 328-820 feet from the nest, people alone caused flushing 34% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 50% of the time. In another study joggers and walkers with off-leash dogs caused a significantly greater number of avoidance responses from plovers than other types of disturbances. In studies on a similar species of plover off-road vehicles caused plovers to flush at an average distance of 131 feet; while off road vehicles within 164 feet of birds cause these plovers to stop feeding 77% of the time.

Once hatched, plover chicks are extremely difficult to see, and remain flightless until they are about 30 days old. Adult birds do not feed the young, rather they lead them to suitable feeding areas. They use the entire beach from the edge of the water to the edge of the beachgrass for feeding. While the presence of people on the beach can disrupt critical survival behaviors, the larger concern is vehicles running over plover chicks, and dogs capturing them. As a result, chick protection efforts tend to focus on seasonal vehicle closures and either prohibiting dogs or requiring that they be leashed.

Maintaining and increasing efforts in all areas from habitat restoration to predator and access control, to public education and monitoring, each play a necessary role in the recovery. We are very supportive of the entire suite of measures proposed in the recovery plan and would be willing help to enable these measures to be implemented. We believe that the time to act is now, while there are still sufficient breeding pairs to help make recovery possible, and while there is still time to experiment with management options. The longer we wait to act, the more restrained our options for getting the bird off the endangered species list will be.

A lawsuit designed to abolish the protections for this sensitive bird, even if it is temporarily successful, will only mean the further decline in this threatened species, which could mean more radical closures and more stringent regulations being needed later.



thing is, you say only your pseudo-scientific observations matter. people should come fight you on the beach if they disagree

and, of course, you add that endangered species don't matter anyway, just as Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF also say, and THAT is the exact topic of this post

"It's that I have seen no reduction in their numbers. This so-called "emergency" is at odds with the facts on the ground."

"How, exactly, does dogs playing in the surf reduce the number of plovers? Be specific."

okay then

>Studies in California found that people within 1-164 ft of the nest caused flushing of the adults from the nest 78% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 100% of the time. At a distance of 164-328' from the nest people alone caused flushing 57% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 65% of the time. At a distance of 328-820 feet from the nest, people alone caused flushing 34% of the time, while people with dogs caused flushing 50% of the time. In another study joggers and walkers with off-leash dogs caused a significantly greater number of avoidance responses from plovers than other types of disturbances. In studies on a similar species of plover off-road vehicles caused plovers to flush at an average distance of 131 feet; while off road vehicles within 164 feet of birds cause these plovers to stop feeding 77% of the time.

>Once hatched, plover chicks are extremely difficult to see, and remain flightless until they are about 30 days old. Adult birds do not feed the young, rather they lead them to suitable feeding areas. They use the entire beach from the edge of the water to the edge of the beachgrass for feeding. While the presence of people on the beach can disrupt critical survival behaviors, the larger concern is vehicles running over plover chicks, and dogs capturing them. As a result, chick protection efforts tend to focus on seasonal vehicle closures and either prohibiting dogs or requiring that they be leashed.

"keep in mind that saving plovers is not the greatest good we can do here. Even if the plovers were endangered, which they are not..."

"again I point out, that the number of plovers is not as important..."

which brings us back to your alliance with Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF, both of whom scoff at endangered species protection for their own selfish reasons, OBD for their selfish desire to let their dog run free regardless of consequences to native species and the PLF for their selfish desire to empower wealthy property owners regardless of the consequences to native species and our overall environment. empowering OBD and the PLF empowers property rights racists


now, please enlighten us all on how your own supposed "scientific research" shows that "it's not the birds themselves. It's their nests. Trashing nests would reduce their numbers, but it ain't happening." I'd really like to see your numbers and research here. surely you have some as you have been so adamant that "(you) do (your) own research". now is your big chance to establish a shred of credibility here and convince us all that you are not aligning with Ocean Beach DOG and the PLF out of self interest but as a result of solid scientific results you have produced


Focus please

The PLF aims to undermine the endangered species act and many people who really dont agree with them but just want to be able to let their dogs run around on the beach are siding with them and using their arguments because they have used their resources to coopt the dogowners cause.

If the real aim of a few dog owners who live near the beach is to be able to have an area to let their dogs run free, it seems like there are easier and more politically correct ways to do that then challenging the endangered species laws. A fenced off area on part of the bearch that keeps dogs away from plovers would be one solution. If plover populations are unpredictable or seasonal than having different area set aside at different times of year for dog running may also work.

if the problem is that the government agencies regulating the beach have blanket policies that dont take into account where the plovers actually are that could be addressed without the PLF style of argument that challeneges the endagered species status of plovers or the effects of dogs on them. Perhaps the angency has a blanket policy for financial reasons (if they cant afford to monitor plover locations and just apply one policy to all beachs irregardless of where the plovers actually are); a solution to that would be for dog owners to work with environmentalists to create an independently funded group that is agreeable to both parties to monitor plovers and determine where its safe to have dogs run loose.

There is no reason for this level of polarization between dog-walkers and environmentalists. If dog walkers really want an area to have their dogs run free on the beach there are plenty of solutions that dont involve working with right-wing groups who only see the struggle as a tool to undermine environmental laws for the interests of the wealthy and big business.

PLF aims are not the issue here. To bring them up as reason not to fight the empowerment of the federal government is no different than saying the US should not have fought the Third Reich because Stalinists opposed Hitler. It's kindergarten logic.

Plovers are not endangered, least of all by dogs playing in the surf. Self serving liars are saying otherwise so they can have a politically correct excuse to collaborate with the forces of evil. If you doubt for even an instant that the federal government is evil, you are simply uninformed. Please educate yourselves. Read history. Read news. Wake up. There is a monster breathing down our necks. It must be opposed by any means necessary. To not oppose it *is* collaboration.

There is no excuse for collaborating with the forces of evil, even to achieve limited good. Remember, the people of Germany voted the Nazi party into the position of power from which it destroyed all dissent, because they believed that, among other things, that Nazis in power would better protect the environment. And they did, at least at first, till the bombers came. They also built roads, improved public health, fostered science and ended unemployment. These were all good things. Supporting the Nazis because of them was not.

We must not let history repeat itself. We are on the verge of open martial law in this country. To give succor to the forces in power for any reason, especially a bogus one, especially at this crucial historical juncture, is inexcusably bad politics.

you rip on the federal government as if every last function it does is 100% evil, Nazis built roads, etc. (ignoring for the moment that it is a hyperbolic arguement to assert that every function of government equates with the thrid reich)

you contradictorily imply over and over that the US was right to have fought the Third Reich

and you continue to ignore my repeated questions regarding how in the hell you reconcile those two things

should the US have waited until localized collectives and/or militias were ready to fight hitler? seems like you think waiting to fight a hitler is a bad thing to do and yet we still today do not have that capacity at a local level or even regional level, so hitler would have kicked our butts and we'd all be speaking german today if we hadn't used the national organizational structure we had at the time (which included large for-profit corporations contributing to war effort).

likewise, i would argue, if we pretend there is no national organization of people we call the federal government, and act like every last thing is does is the same as the thrid reich, we will be effectively surrendering our natural world to those with the most money, ie. large corporations and wealthy propery owner who often place their own greed above the environment or the common good. until a replacement exists for the way people in this part of our hemisphere organize themselves, the federal government does serve useful purposes that benefit those who agree to be organized in such a fashion at this day and time. not that it's perfect, far from it, but things like affirmative action and the endangered species act benefit people and animals today. you have nothing real to offer in their places other than empty rhetoric

your flaming and contradictory rhetoric ignores the plain fact that it would be too late by the time your dream world appears to save our environment from greedy capitalists and our very existence from a foreign nazi-like regime that sought to occupy our lands

"if the problem is that the government agencies regulating the beach have blanket policies that dont take into account where the plovers actually are that could be addressed without the PLF style of argument that challeneges the endagered species status of plovers or the effects of dogs on them. Perhaps the angency has a blanket policy for financial reasons (if they cant afford to monitor plover locations and just apply one policy to all beachs irregardless of where the plovers actually are); a solution to that would be for dog owners to work with environmentalists to create an independently funded group that is agreeable to both parties to monitor plovers and determine where its safe to have dogs run loose.

There is no reason for this level of polarization between dog-walkers and environmentalists. If dog walkers really want an area to have their dogs run free on the beach there are plenty of solutions that dont involve working with right-wing groups who only see the struggle as a tool to undermine environmental laws for the interests of the wealthy and big business."

Please engage in real conservation and stop all the Nazi 3rd Reich talk since it has little to do with dogs, beachs or Plovers.

"Plovers are not endangered, least of all by dogs playing in the surf. Self serving liars"

1) you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence that plovers are not endangered (other than your own god-like powers of perception), certainly nothing scientific, and if you bother to read any of the studies done on the subject, dogs, especially off-leash dogs, are part of the problem

2) self-serving liars??? you are the one with the dog you want off-leash. all the talk about nazis is just a distraction from your real motivations. what self-interest is satisfied in protecting indigenous species, pray tell?

> should the US have waited until localized collectives and/or militias were ready to fight hitler?

In fact, localized collectives and/or militias were not just ready to fight the fascists as early as 1936, they were fighting and they were winning. Then the so-called "free world" blockaded their arms supplies. So they lost the war. Fascism triumphed, and thus the fascists were enheartened to attack elsewhere.

The nation states of the so-called "free world" never lifted a finger to stop fascist expansion until it threatened their own existence. Au contrair, they actively collaborated. Even after open hostilities commenced, the so-called "free world" continued to trade with the fascists under the table, as thoroughly documented in *Trading With the Enemy* by Charles Higham.


>if we pretend there is no national organization of people we call the federal government

This is a straw man argument. I have *never* suggested we pretend they don't exist. Au contrair, I call attention to the threat they present at every possible opportunity.


>and act like every last thing is does is the same as the thrid reich,

I never said that, either. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's rude. It's dishonest. it's very bad form. What I say is that to enable it in any way strengthens the whole. Consider, for example, the fascist army it currently is using in a vain attempt to subdue Iraq. That army does many good things. For example, it build schools. It provides medical care for select Iraqis. It provides electricity in certain areas. Does this in any way justify Americans paying taxes to support this army? Of course not. That army also burns babies alive. The government is a package deal. You cannot glove the hand that feeds without also putting a boot on the foot that kicks.


>we will be effectively surrendering our natural world to those with the most money, ie. large corporations and wealthy propery owner who often place their own greed above the environment or the common good.

There are two faults with this argument, either of which is fatal:

First and foremost, the government only goes through the motions of protecting isolated, token, and usually non profitable portions of the natural world. The vast, overwhelming majority of the natural world it either ignores or actively participates in its destruction, not in the least by way of law enforcement against those who engage in direct action to protect the natural world.

Secondly, the real problem is that those with the money have power, not in the least because they own the government lock, stock and barrel. They throw us the occasional token sop for one reason and one reason only. It placates us, so we don't lynch them as they so richly deserve. Ergo, the ways in which they use their power against the natural world, humans included, is merely a symptom. The disease is capitalism. Treating isolated symptoms, even when it is marginally successful, but not the disease itself, does not cure the disease. It makes it worse. As long as we focus on the symptoms and not the disease, the disease will continue to metastasize until it kills us all.


>until a replacement exists

Every second that we focus on anything other than creating that replacement, prolongs the disease.


>affirmative action and the endangered species act benefit people and animals today.

First of all, this is not true. It benefits certain people and certain animals, under certain specific and isolated circumstances. People and animals in general it does not help, and therefore in the long run hurts. We're treating symptoms but not the disease. Ergo, the disease gets worse.

Secondly, to differentiate between people and animals in the context of the environment is a false dichotomy. We are both parts of the same environment. Note that I said "part of." We are not *in* the environment. We are parts of it. It is a whole. It is also false to differentiate between the "natural" and the "unnatural" worlds. There is no such thing and "not natural." We are part of Nature, and so is everything we do. We are not above it. We are not outside it. We are not inside it. We are parts of Nature. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will stop trying to fight it, and go along with it's natural flow.


>you have nothing real to offer in their places other than empty rhetoric

Au contrair. I offer sound advice that you refuse to listen to, either because you are terminally stupid, or because you have been brainwashed by government schools and corporate propaganda. To support capitalism in any way whatsoever, particularly to support the bloodthirsty state with which it enforces its will, is against your own best interests. To work against your own best interests is, at best, stupid beyond belief. Wise up. The ruling class and all its minions are the mortal enemies of workers and our environment everywhere. To support it in any way is class treason.

Also, I have done more than merely offer advice and provide vital information, as valuable as that is. I have spent he better part of my life working with like minded people to develop working models of the worker self-owned, worker self-managed economy with which we will replace the cancerous growth upon the global body politic that is capitalism. Have you? What have you done besides run at the mouth, carry signs around and chant? That's not a rhetorical question. Be specific.


If you *really* want to "save our environment from greedy capitalists," then do it. Don't try to palm the job off onto one of their minions. It wont work. If it was going to work, we would have seen evidence by now. We have not. There is one way and one way only by which to save our environment and ourselves, we have to do it ourselves.

As for flames, you deserve it. Try as I may, I cannot for the life of me fathom a rational for being polite to people who work for the enemy. Collaborators are scum. You are not only actively collaborating, you are using mass media to try to convince others to do the same. That makes you part of the problem. If you want me to be polite to you, get over it. Stop preaching collaborationism and get up off your sorry butts and take action. If you want me to stop pointing out how much like "good Germans" you are, stop supporting the fascist state. In the meantime, you are what you are, and I will continue to point it out to the world.


>and our very existence from a foreign nazi-like regime that sought to occupy our lands

What on earth are you talking about? This is gibberish. The regime that threatens us is not foreign, but domestic. It tells you you are threatened by foreigners so that you will be afraid, and in your fear empower them. No foreign power could ever invade us. We're too well armed. We don't need an army. We *are* an army. We are perfectly capable of defending ourselves, our homes and our families with no help from the state. The army of the state does not exist to protect us, but to further the imperialist ambitions of the ruling class.



>you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence that plovers are not endangered (other than your own god-like powers of perception), certainly nothing scientific, and if you bother to read any of the studies done on the subject, dogs, especially off-leash dogs, are part of the problem

It's already been settled. Ergo, it is incumbent Plater and his supporters demonstrate that:

(1.) the so-called "emergency" actually exists, which they haven't, and

(2.) that further empowering the government will even solve the problem, let alone that it is worth the cost.


>all the talk about nazis is just a distraction from your real motivations.

What are you saying here, that you can read my mind? Is that what you're saying? Be specific. Yes or no?


>what self-interest is satisfied in protecting indigenous species, pray tell?

Personally, I like watching plovers, so I'm not going to do anything to hurt them. It is in my self interest to have them there to amuse me. It is not in my self interest to empower the government in any way, at any time, for any reason. It it the cat's paw of evil, and you are trying to sharpen its claws.

I have no problem with people protecting plovers, as long as they do it ways that do not sacrifice justice, peace and liberty by empowering the forces of evil in the process.

However, even if it were possible to stop dogs from playing in the surf, which this proposed regressive de facto taxation will most assuredly will not do, it would not protect plovers one iota. Dogs playing in the surf does not endanger plovers because not only do plovers not nest in the surf, they don't go into the surf at all. Dogs playing in the surf is totally irrelevant to plover survival. It has no effect, one way or the other. Were dogs trashing plover nests, then they would be a problem. But they aren't. But even if they were, their playing in the surf would *still* not endanger plovers. Playing in the surf has no effect whatsoever, nor have you or anyone else demonstrated that it does.

What does have an effect is the further empowerment of the government. It makes things worse.

more lies and meaningless bloviating and airy platitudes from the most self-indulgent self-righteous blowhole around these parts

at least the two hours you spent on that you weren't actually wrecking the endangered species act or affirmative action

little wonder your IMC bites so hard when you prioritize your time like this

I'll reply in more depth when I have time

maybe someone else can step in here

". . . say something once, why say it again . . . "

--David Byrne

Not just the Pacific Legal Foundation, who work directly with Ocean Beach DOG to weaken the endangered species act, but Republicans in high positions of power in the federal government such as Bush, Congressman Pombo, and others have their sites set on the snowy plover. Three articles and one republican opinion piece follow:


>The Bush administration is reviewing several other species for delisting, including the western snowy plover in the Bay Area.

>In the past few years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to eliminate "distinct population segment'' status for the gray wolf and the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl. The agency is also considering delisting the coastal western snowy plover on that basis.


CALIFORNIA
Suit could follow any delisting of marbled murrelet
New count method may remove seabird from U.S. protection

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Environmental groups have vowed to stop a plan by the Bush administration that would eliminate federal Endangered Species Act protections for a secretive seabird that nests in California redwoods.

Environmentalists in San Francisco, Garberville, Portland and Tucson said Tuesday that they will sue if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delists the marbled murrelet, a rare dove-size bird living in forests and oceans along the Pacific Coast.

Last week, the agency confirmed that by the end of the year, it will propose removing the threatened species status for the marbled murrelets living in California, Oregon and Washington.

The Bush administration is reviewing several other species for delisting, including the western snowy plover in the Bay Area.

The murrelets in those three states were listed as threatened in 1992 after scientists realized they were indeed a rare bird and their forest habitat was rapidly disappearing. Since then, the 8-inch murrelet has served as the key obstacle stopping Pacific Lumber Co. and other timber concerns from logging old-growth forests in Humboldt, Del Norte and Santa Cruz counties.

Scientists view the presence of nesting murrelets as a sign of a healthy coastal forest ecosystem.

"The murrelet is the absolute best indicator we have of the health of old-growth forests. If it's allowed to go extinct, you can just wave bye-bye to the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest,'' said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson.

"It's so extraordinarily rare that there's probably less than one marbled murrelet for every spotted owl. There's no room for error or delay in protection.''

The move to change the bird's status surfaced when a trade group, the American Forest Resource Council in Portland, Ore., filed a petition seeking review of the species.

Then, a year ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the California, Oregon and Washington murrelets weren't geographically isolated or biologically distinct from the Alaska and Canada murrelets.

By combining the populations -- an estimated 17,000 to 27,000 marbled murrelets in the three states plus the 860,000 in Alaska and the 55,000 to 78,000 in British Columbia -- the birds don't seem so rare anymore.

The policy decision last year came, in part, from Assistant Interior Secretary Craig Manson. He confirmed that Washington, D.C., officials had overruled the agency's Pacific Region biologists who viewed the three-state population as separate.

"Basically, it was a policy decision not to consider the marbled murrelet down here as a distinct population,'' said Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland.

At the time, Dave Allen, director of the Pacific Region, said a status review of the entire species would come first, followed by any delisting recommendation. In spite of that, the agency has moved ahead with delisting. The completion of the review by the agency is at least six months away.

Regardless of what Fish and Wildlife Service decides, the marbled murrelet would remain listed as an endangered species under California law. But the state law is somewhat weaker. The federal law protects against harassment or a significant disruption of normal behavioral patterns, said Esther Burkett, a murrelet researcher with the state Department of Fish and Game. That would include cutting down the nesting trees and surrounding habitat.

But the state law has been interpreted to only protect against actually harming or killing a bird, she said.

The marbled murrelet, with its soft "kir kir kir'' call, isn't the only species facing delisting.

In the past few years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to eliminate "distinct population segment'' status for the gray wolf and the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl. The agency is also considering delisting the coastal western snowy plover on that basis.

"What we're seeing now is a strategy to employ this policy to either remove species from the list or prevent species from getting on the list,'' Suckling said. "And that is a very new strategy with the Bush administration.'' The option wasn't used in the Bill Clinton era, he said.

David Patte, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman, responded to the criticism by saying that under the Clinton administration, the agency didn't undertake any five-year reviews of listed species either because of lack of funds or priority.

"We're starting to do that more, and it opens up these questions,'' he said.

Page B - 3

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/26/BAG62FE5IB1.DTL&type=printable


-------------------------------


>Environmental groups criticized Pombo's proposal as an effort to strip the law of some of its toughest enforcement provisions, which require land owners and the federal government to stop actions that threaten to harm endangered species.

>"It reduces the prospects for recovering species, it weakens the scientific foundations for decision-making, and it takes taxpayer dollars away from conservation efforts," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife. Clark was Fish and Wildlife Service director under President Bill Clinton.

>Pombo said his bill would offer property owners grants and incentives to cooperate in protecting species on their land. The law would also require the federal government to compensate land owners if protecting endangered species forced them to give up the use of their land.


Rewriting Endangered Species Act
House Resources panel's OK expected as critics complain

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Washington -- House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo of Tracy introduced new legislation Monday to rewrite the Endangered Species Act that critics say could make it more difficult to list species as endangered and to set aside land to help them recover.

But the Republican lawmaker, a rancher and longtime property rights activist, said his proposal was intended to fix a law that had helped only 10 of about 1,300 species recover since it was signed by President Richard Nixon three decades ago.

"This is a completely different approach," Pombo said Monday in announcing the proposal in Sacramento during a conference call with reporters.

"This is not doing it the way things have been done over the last 15 or 20 years," he said. "The way this legislation is put together -- with a system of incentives, grants and cooperative agreements with private property owners, with states and with local governments -- we eliminate most of the conflict that exists under the current act."

Environmental groups criticized Pombo's proposal as an effort to strip the law of some of its toughest enforcement provisions, which require land owners and the federal government to stop actions that threaten to harm endangered species.

"It reduces the prospects for recovering species, it weakens the scientific foundations for decision-making, and it takes taxpayer dollars away from conservation efforts," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife. Clark was Fish and Wildlife Service director under President Bill Clinton.

"It runs counter to the intent of the Endangered Species Act," Clark said.

The bill could have broad consequences for California, where efforts to protect species such as the tiger salamander and the fairy shrimp have set off clashes between private land owners, government scientists and environmentalists.

Under the law as it is now, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to designate critical habitat for endangered plants and animals to help them survive and eventually recover to a healthy population level. But ranchers, farmers and other land owners have long complained that critical habitat designations set onerous restrictions on the types of activities that can take place on their land.

Pombo's bill would eliminate critical habitat designations and instead require the agency to prepare recovery plans that identify certain areas considered to be important to a species' recovery.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, a co-sponsor of the Pombo bill who proposed the critical habitat provision, called the changes a response to decisions such as the agency's designation of 1.7 million acres of land in California and Oregon as critical habitat for vernal pool species, which are plants and tiny animals that live in seasonally flooded depressions. Cardoza said the designation affected 330,000 acres in Merced County, more than one-third of the county's area.

"The (Fish and Wildlife) Service admits these are hastily prepared in response to legal action," Cardoza said. He said the proposed legislation "will shift the focus from litigation to biological recovery."

But critics argue that removing critical habitat designations from the law would essentially leave no legal protection for the fast-disappearing habitat of many endangered plants and animals.

"It hardly matters if you list a species, if you don't take care of their habitat," Clark said.

Pombo said his bill would offer property owners grants and incentives to cooperate in protecting species on their land. The law would also require the federal government to compensate land owners if protecting endangered species forced them to give up the use of their land.

Environmental groups say the provision amounts to paying landowners not to violate the law. Pombo acknowledged the provision could add cost to the legislation, but insisted the government could recoup the money by reducing the cost of litigating endangered species decisions.

The legislation would also require the federal government to give greater weight to peer-reviewed science and empirical data, rather than computer modeling of the populations of endangered species. Proponents of the measure said it would reduce errors in listing decisions, but critics argue it would make it more difficult to get a species listed as threatened or endangered.

Pombo said he had spoken Monday with Craig Manson, the assistant secretary of the interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, who said the agency was "pleased with most of what was in the bill." Pombo said he expected the Bush administration to ultimately support the measure.

The House Resources Committee is expected to pass the bill at a hearing on Wednesday, and GOP leaders have promised a vote on the House floor this fall. The more closely divided Senate, however, has shown little interest in taking up the contentious issue of reauthorizing the law this year.

Key elements of Rep. Pombo's measure

A new bill proposed by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, would make major changes to the 1973 Endangered Species Act, including:

Stripping the requirement that the Fish and Wildlife Service designate "critical habitat" for endangered species, which sets strict limits on development by land owners. Instead, the agency would design recovery plans that identify certain land as important to a species' recovery and offer incentives for land owners to cooperate.

Requiring the government to pay land owners if they are blocked from using their land because of the presence of an endangered species.

Directing the secretary of the Interior to write new rules for determining the "best science" in listing endangered or threatened species, which critics say could make it more difficult to list new species.

Page A - 3

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/20/MNGKTEQK2S1.DTL&type=printable


-------------------------------


It's not just wealthy property owners, it's about jobs, too, the Republicans say, because of course they have the back of the average working person in mind as they destroy the endangered species act.


Whither the Endangered Species Act?
Changes needed to restore jobs

Sam Aanestad - republican, Grass Valley
Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Momentum is building in Congress for wide-scale changes to the federal Endangered Species Act, an action long overdue. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, who chairs the all-important House Resources Committee, fast-tracked last week his plan to implement changes to the ESA, which has been largely responsible for thousands of job losses and angst in Northern California.

It's no secret that the campaign to place the northern spotted owl under "endangered" status is directly to blame for gutting a once healthy resources industry. According to the California Forestry Association, approximately 60,000 jobs have been lost throughout the Pacific Northwest, through actions made under the veil of the ESA and other misguided environmental actions.

Pombo is acutely aware of the problems we are facing not only in Northern California, but also in Oregon and Washington. When I testified in opposition to the proposed Northern California Wilderness Act before Pombo's committee earlier this year, he showed the depth of understanding that we have yearned for.

Unemployment rates in nearly every county that composes my state Senate district are nearly twice the statewide average, statistics from the state Employment Development Department show. It wasn't always this way. Northern California was once home to a thriving resources industry, providing jobs to thousands of families.

But the misguided environmental mandates that have been imposed through the ESA and other efforts have brought this area to its knees with an economic sucker punch to the gut. Northern California was once home to 140 sawmills, providing jobs for entire communities and other opportunities for small-business owners. But thanks to environmental restrictions that have been imposed since 1990, more than 80 of these mills have been forced to close. That is unacceptable.

Pombo understands this. He has long been a champion of private-property rights and is endorsing a series of reforms and modernizations for the ESA that will place Northern California on the long road to economic recovery. Pombo's bill, HR3824, will provide just compensation to landowners if property is taken. All disputes that arise over the taking of private land "are to be resolved in favor of the property owner." This is a welcome change.

Secondly, the bill also provides direct grants to private-property owners who engage in voluntary efforts to aid the recovery of species that have been deemed "endangered." This also represents an enormous change from the original ESA, where property was taken without warning or just compensation, and the owner was viewed as "the man with the black hat."

But, most important, Pombo's plan makes a key change in helping endangered species recover. The "critical habitat designations" that have eaten up large chunks of private property and placed them under lock and key, will be replaced with "science-based recovery plans." Studies from the American Land Rights Association have concluded that, for many species such as the northern spotted owl, habitat designation is completely irrelevant to recovery. This change would not only protect private-property rights, it is also a great boost to species recovery.

Finally, Pombo's proposed reforms call for direct state involvement in all recovery plans. As it stands now, that relationship is mostly adversarial, and decisions are made without the input of local and state leaders. The proposed bill is clearly another step in the right direction.

I'm pleased to see that Pombo is working in a bipartisan fashion in crafting this long-needed reform plan, and has garnered the support of influential Democrats such as Rep. Dennis Cardoza of Merced, who is co-sponsoring Pombo's bill. Former state senator and current Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, has also sided with the reform effort, but he is not alone.

Change is never easy, but in this case, it's clearly warranted. The past abuses committed under the guise of the ESA must be corrected. Any rational, commonsense plan that is brought to the table to combat the previous abuses made under the veil of the Endangered Species Act is welcome.

State Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, sits on the Natural Resources and Water Committee of the California Senate.

Page B - 9

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/28/EDGN7EUB701.DTL&type=printable


-------------------------------


related: Pombo facing future electoral troubles??


Pombo loses ability to fly under radar
C.W. Nevius
Saturday, September 24, 2005

It would seem to be a wonderful thing for a politician.

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, captured the national spotlight this week with his aggressive challenge to the Endangered Species Act. As chairman of the House Resources Committee, Pombo fast-tracked his alternative, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, through the committee and on to the House floor.

"This would be a very big thing for him,'' says the committee's spokesman, Brian Kennedy. "When you are chairman of a committee, your profile raises exponentially.''

Terrific, right? Not so fast. There are those who think the best thing Pombo had going for him was that he was the stealth congressman. That he's better off being the "Who's he?'' candidate than the more revealing designation -- the only Republican congressman in the Bay Area.

Pombo, who is pictured on his House Web site wearing a cowboy hat, had no worries about the Bay Area's liberal voters when he won a close and nasty battle in 1992. He was an old-school rancher whose slogan -- "Central Valley Values'' -- struck a chord in Tracy and Stockton.

But two things have happened since then. A huge influx of priced-out Bay Area home buyers have flooded his district -- Tracy's population was 33,000 in 1990 and 74,000 in 2004 -- and in 2001, the boundary lines were re-drawn. Pombo's District 11 now stretches from Lodi to Morgan Hill and includes chunks of Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa counties in addition to San Joaquin County. It is a much different constituency.

Voters in parts of the district may not share the same values as a congressman who complains about endangered species protection, wants to drill for oil off the coast of California, favors a ban on abortion and is against gun control.

Some of them are pushing hard for a Democrat to beat him in next year's election. So what, say Pombo's supporters.

"This is an effort that is being stage-managed inside the (Washington, D.C.) Beltway,'' says Pombo consultant Wayne Johnson of attempts to stir up opposition. "I don't think in all honesty they have been very successful in recruiting a candidate to run against him.''

Johnson notes that the influx of newcomers hasn't changed the district's Republican tilt, still 44.6 percent as of February, compared with 36.9 percent Democrats (the rest are an increasing number of "decline to state.'') And when Democrats tried to run someone from "over the hill,'' Danville attorney Elaine Shaw in 2002, Pombo won by a convincing 10 percentage points.

"He wins in the valley,'' Johnson says. "And he wins in the bay.''

But some things have changed, beginning with Pombo's higher visibility. Although his bill is being trumpeted as a much-needed revision of the Endangered Species Act, parts of it -- such as compensating landowners full market value for projects that could not be built because of environmental concerns -- drew criticism even from the Bush administration's Interior Department.

It would also cut the time to study environmental impact to just 90 days and would do away with provisions to set aside large areas known as "critical habitat" for species such as the red-legged frog, the tiger salamander and the fairy shrimp.

If Bay Area voters are suddenly looking up and wondering, "Who is this guy?'' the answer is he's the congressman who got a score of zero in 2000 from the League of Conservation Voters.

Lisa Tucker, who is a consultant for Democrat Steve Filson, a Danville commercial pilot who will challenge Pombo in 2006, says something else has changed.

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted the race,'' Tucker says. "That's never happened before.''

Johnson says he thinks the attack is merely a way to gin up contributions from angry liberals, but Tucker insists there is more behind it. The DCCC did some polling last spring that led it to believe that the voters in Pombo's district are more open-minded than many might think. After all, this is a district that voted for both President Bush and liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

For starters, when we say Pombo's the "stealth congressman,'' we're not kidding. According to the poll, 22 percent of likely voters in District 11 "do not recognize his name,'' and 21 percent are unfamiliar enough with him to be "unable to rate his job performance.''

"Even the people in Tracy don't know who is or what he stands for,'' says Tracy attorney, slow-growth advocate and Pombo opponent Mark Connolly. "He was in office before half of the people even moved here.''

There's more in the Democratic poll, including a 10-point increase in Pombo's negative ratings, and a big slide in the popularity of President Bush in the district, but these indicators reinforce the same point: Pombo has managed to stay under the radar among the general public while courting his core base of land developers and ranchers.

Frankly, until now, he hasn't faced a real challenge since his bruising first election in 1992. But if one is going to be made, it is going to take some serious money. Pombo has not only vastly outspent his opponents in 2002 and 2004, he's been able to funnel money to other candidates.

If Filson, or someone else, is able to put the money together, you'll want to keep an eye on that election. It could be a corker. If nothing else, at least everyone will know who Richard Pombo is.

C.W. Nevius' column appears Tuesdays and Saturdays in the Bay Area section and in East Bay Life on Fridays.


Page B - 1

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/24/BAGG9ET3271.DTL&type=printable

The marbled murrelet has nothing to do with dog playing in the surf at Kelly's Cove. Marbled murrelets never go near the place.

As for "friends of the devil," these sick, evil miscreants who would deny dogs the right to play in the surf side by their own admission with the IS federal government, the largest and most powerful organization of mass murderers on the planet today.

But of course, that doesn't matter, either. The issue here is dogs playing in the surf. Anything else is irrelevant. But for the small, ill educated and historically illiterate minds out there who actually still believe that the validity of any proposition can be determined by who takes which side, I must point out that OceanbeachDOG has never murdered anyone, let alone done it wholesale, let alone burned countless babies alive and poisond whole swaths of the biosphere with chemicals and radiation. The federal government does all these thing routinely, as a matter of policy. Only class traitor Quislings and Vichy collaborators side with a monster like that.

But of course, that doesn't matter, either. This is about one thing and one thing only, dogs playing in the surf. Everything else is an irrelevant distraction.

"There has always been a leash law at Ocean Beach" Nonsense. As a born and raised San Franciscan, there was never a leash law at Ocean Beach until the GGNRA illegally attempted to rescind the 1979 Pet Policy. Prior to the existence of the GGNRA, pets were always allowed off leash at Ocean Beach, Ft. Funston, Crissy Field, and many other beaches in the Bay Area. Moreover, the tidelands in this State are, with few exceptions, owned by the State (not the federal government) and held in trust for the use of the citizenry. The federal government has absolutely no legal authority to regulate sovereign State-owned properties held in trust for the people to use for recreational purposes. Try researching facts and law before making unsupportable statements.

There is in fact law on point. Go read the basic civil jury instructions of the State of California. One of the basics states that a witness found false in one material aspect of his testimony may have his entire testimony disregarded.
This was obviously created because of people like Plater, who have an amazing ability to speak out of both sides of their mouths.
It does the environmental cause great harm to align itself with the CBD and its mouthpiece whose time would be better spent getting the training wheels off his cycle of lies.