I have always read the letters to the editor with interest. It is enlightening to have a forum, where Malibuites can freely discuss problems of the community, without their speech edited. Judging from my own experience, that is exactly how the letters are presented — in their entirety and in their original form. The only indication of the editor’s opinion is the title under which a given letter is published. The editor reserves the right to attach the most informative, concise and appropriate title. It may coincide with the overall tone of a letter, thus making it more profound. Or, just the opposite — an intentionally chosen title can render a letter totally useless. Since it is always printed first, and in larger bolder letters, the title defines the first impression.
I do respect this editor for his talent and courage as a journalist. However, I have found it difficult to guess Mr. York’s opinion about two letters, discussing violations of L.A. County beach regulations by dog owners.
In the first case, dated June 1997, I wrote a letter about a dog drinking water from a Zuma Beach water fountain. Despite my protest, the owner allowed the large dog to put his dirty paws directly on the fountain, and to lick the faucet, while salivating profusely. It was a quite repulsive picture. Writing the letter, my intention was to point attention to the health hazard, created on the beach by an irresponsible dog owner and to prevent people from using potentially contaminated water fountains. To my not so pleasant surprise, the letter was published under the title “Buy Your Dog a Snapple,” thus making it sound funny instead of concerned about a health safety issue.
In the second case, after a human life was lost in a dog attack, Mr. Sam Birenbaum wrote a letter, discussing different aspects of the dog problem on our beaches. His letter was published under the title “Bitching About Dogs on the Beach.” I am sure that Mr. Birenbaum does not agree with such a picturesque motto. As a citizen and as an attorney, his only intention was to stress the need for proper enforcement of regulations, that have already been in place for years.
Perhaps Mr. York wanted to put a little humorous twist to the both stories. Or, maybe he was too careful not to displease the numerous dog owners among the Times’ readership.
One way or another, the bottom line is: Dogs are not allowed on L.A. County beaches.
The existing regulations have to be strictly followed, because they are in place for a number of health and safety reasons. How many more times health standards have to be violated? How much more cleanliness can be compromised? Can we allow one more life to be lost? County beaches are intended for human use only. If everybody brings to the beach their dog, their cat, their horse, their snake, their ferret, their camel, their pet cougar, their whatever — then the beach will turn into a zoo, and maybe we, the two-legged, should be put in cages(for our own safety), while “they” roam around.
Ian Popov