Don’t Ban Dogs From San Onofre

Dog regulations may occasionally present a few challenges to the California Parks and Recreation administrators at San Onofre (“Line Drawn in Sand Over Dogs,” April 28), but all family dogs should not be banned because of a small number of irresponsible dog owners.

It is unfortunate that administrators decided to issue last week’s edict banning family dogs without a period for public comment and without trying to develop solutions by working with regular users of San Onofre State Beach. Solutions to concerns over public safety and sanitation can be found, but administrators lose all credibility when they attempt to substantiate their decision with a story about a man biting a lifeguard that has nothing to do with the issue of family dogs at the beach.

Frankly, I don’t want to have to explain to my kids that the family dog, a beloved family member, can no longer come to the beach with us as she has almost every weekend for years. I also don’t want my family to have to give up going to the beach, and I don’t want us to feel guilty about leaving the dog chained up while we’re having fun at the beach. But those are the choices the administrators at San Onofre have given all dog-loving families.

Park administrators at San Onofre should rescind their edict banning dogs belonging to responsible dog-owning families and begin working with the various user groups at the beach to develop a program to deal with irresponsible dog owners by:

* Distributing educational literature about these issues at the gate to the park.

* Creating a policy of issuing a friendly warning for a first infraction that causes a problem and a citation for a second infraction that causes problems--no exceptions.

* Placing a sign at the entrance to the park indicating where dogs are and are not allowed so each park user can choose where to spend their day.

C.R. WAXLAX

Corona del Mar

* I note that a one-mile section of San Onofre State Beach is the only place within 30 miles in either direction that dogs have been allowed. Now that is being rescinded.

The problem, says state lifeguard Mike Brousard, is that it has become too popular. Now there’s my kind of lifeguard. We certainly can’t let the people and their dogs have too much fun. Someone might get hurt.

The “last straw” in reaching this decision was an incident where a lifeguard was bitten while writing a citation--not by a dog, but by a person. So now we should ban dogs? Another reason he gives is that lifeguards are too distracted by the dogs and don’t watch the water. Maybe that’s also a good reason to ban pretty ladies. Finally, we’re advised that there are some “bad apples” that are ruining it for everyone. But since this beach is so popular, it seems they are just ruining it for the lifeguards.

“Bad apples” are everywhere. If the guards can’t cope with them, they should be in another line of work. The only solution is to ban lifeguards from this small section of beach and to let people and their dogs use it at their own risk (heaven forbid) and enjoy themselves.

J.J. HERPEL

Fullerton