Cows defended after criticism ‘herd’ I would like to respond to last week’s complaint from Mr. John Beaver regarding the Cows (“Cow art cheapens our Village,” Letter to the Editor, page 8). Clearly his dislike of Ms. Marengo and Ms. Sherer has destroyed his humor and compassion. My daughter Lane spent 17 months at Rady’s Children’s Hospital fighting cancer. Thank you Deborah, Tiffany and anyone else who donates time and energy bringing the “Cows” here to raise money for this incredible organization and to the wonderful people who work there. Mr. Beaver, try this! “Tis better to say nothing and have people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Grow up. Mark D. Lyon, La Jolla I wish to congratulate the originators of the La Jolla CowParade for a charming and clever idea. The decorated cows add fun and new life to the Village. They are fanciful, whimsical works of art sure to bring a smile. With so many empty storefronts, the addition of the painted cows adds a spark to what appears to be a depressed business area. Thanks to the talented artists who created the artsy cows, each unique in its own right. Yes, I would be tempted to buy one. What a shame there are some old grouches who cannot see the fun in the CowParade. I hope that when the exhibit moves on, another, just as clever, will take its place. It is the type of tonic the Village needs. Mary Rayes, La Jolla Memo to John Beaver, re “Cow art cheapens our Village”: Ya think the news racks and T-shirt shops don’t? Joy Urich, La Jolla Animal activists driving up the costs Several writers took issue with my assessment of Ms. Sherri Lightner’s efforts to preserve the Children’s Pool for children in the March 12 issue of the Village News. They are entitled to their opinions, but should not be allowed to alter documented facts. Mr. Myers questioned the number of children in San Diego County. The actual figure from the U.S. Census Bureau, based on the population in San Diego County for 2007, is 740,000 children. Perhaps I should have used the estimated number of children in the City of San Diego, 308.000. The number of children denied access to this small swimming beach swamps the 100 or so seals typically using the Children’s Pool for hauling out. Mr. Fraser believes he has a keen sense of humor and wants to know how 700,000 kids could fit on Children’s Pool beach. No one would try to put 700,000 kids on this pocket beach nor would they try to put 35,000 harbor seals on it, which is the harbor seal population currently residing in southern California. Mr. Fraser erroneously cites the million-dollar price tag trumpeted by activists to “dredge the beach.” The term “dredge” does not appear in Judge William C. Pate’s 2005 court decision, in O’Sullivan v City of San Diego, which ordered “The City, as trustee of the Children’s Pool, is hereby ordered to employ all reasonable means to restore the Pool to its 1941 condition by removing the sand build-up and further to reduce the level of water contamination in the Pool to levels certified by the County of San Diego as being safe for humans.” The directive doesn’t mention seals. It doesn’t specify the method of removing sand. The central directive is that the water should be made “safe for humans.” The city appealed the decision to the Fourth Division 1 of the Court of Appeals. The appeal lost. It was then appealed to the California Supreme Court, where it also lost. The city now attempts to end-run these legal decisions by having the Tidelands Trust changed by the state legislature. There were two early cost estimates to restore the Children’s Pool beach. In 1998, Coastal Environments, a local coastal engineering company, quoted a cost of $40,000 for removing sand via backhoe and disposal at the city-owned sanitary landfill. Testing Engineers, a professional engineering firm, proposed opening existing seawall sluiceways at a cost of $30,296 in 1998. Neither action would have required federal or state government approval. Yet the city maintains the cost for sand removal would be an additional million dollars. Ask any reputable civil engineer; the million-dollar price tag is demonstrably high. It is the rise of “animal activism” which has caused the astronomical increase in the cost for restoring the Pool. The principal cost of pool restoration is not the work itself but rather litigation costs associated with the city vigorously defending a legally indefensible position. I fully agree with Mr. Fraser’s suggestion to “Follow the money.” The sale of seal trinkets at the Children’s Pool by activists generated more than $308,000 in 2007 (see http://www.aprl.org/2007APRL990.pdf). Who is benefiting from the seals? It is not the children of San Diego. The next push by environmental activists is to change the name of Children’s Pool to Seal Beach to atone for perceived sins against nature. Mr. Fraser seeks to do this by changing a fundamental Christian teaching found in Genesis 9:2-3: “Dread fear of you shall come upon all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon all the creatures that move about on the ground and all the fishes of the sea; into your power they are delivered. Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat.” What these activists are doing is illegal by both the laws of man and of God. They may be successful in coercing our legislature, but hopefully not faithful Christians and Jews. David W. Valentine, Ph.D., La Jolla