Beach Bonfires in San Francisco
Jun 5, 2007, 1:17p - Environment
I'm interested in having a beach bonfire in San Francisco, but I haven't found much reliable information on the web. Disappointed by this stupid Internet thing, I gave in and called a real, living human being named James Marks of the National Park Service, who's responsible for issuing special permits for SF beaches. I was lucky enough to get him ... more »
Read comments (20) - Comment
Sedley
- Jun 7, 2007, 10:15p
Good info, Ocean Beach bonfires take me back to high school...
omar
- Jun 7, 2007, 11:37p
this post would be 10X better and drive 100X more traffic if it were titled
"beach bonfires in babylon"
nikhil
- Jun 8, 2007, 4:11p
huh? i don't get it
omar
- Jun 11, 2007, 12:23a
i have heard from sources that you may be doing a bonfire! (as if the blog post weren't enough).
one thing: last time we went to a beach bonfire we were completely sand blasted. the wind can relly get going and make life miserable. what worked was having winter clothing equivalent on (certainly a hat) and good alcohol to deaden the pain ;)
Peter
- Aug 14, 2007, 12:51a
I go to a group that has bonfires every month at either Ocean Beach or in Berkeley. They are great. Yeashore.org
codesmith
- Dec 5, 2007, 11:58p
We had a good sized fire going in the starfish pit tonight across from the Beach Chalet. We were there from about 7pm until 9pm when a park ranger, dressed up all commando like, came by with a shovel. Of about 20 people on the beach one person had a glass bottle of beer - a nono that he called out. He then declared our fire illegal and started shoveling sand on it. When asked why it was illegal he said only "natural wood" is allowed to be burned. There were just embers and a piece of cardboard thrown on it. The cardboard was declared illegal and non-natural.
So I don't know how common this is but this guy was a dick and then was no reason for his action. We were closing it down anyway but this was BS. Total power tripper. And you're Nikhil, there's no info on the web about the rules.... lame.
That said, the firepits are very nice and it's great to be able to still have fires out there. It was a beautiful night!
Flame-on
- Jul 2, 2008, 9:49a
Though the park's rules may douse some of our late night beach drinking and partying, you have to appreciate the fact that San Francisco is one of the few cities in California that even allows bonfires. The National Park Service was in discussions whether to band the bonfires all together. Their short term resolution were the controlled fire rings. The birth place of Burning Man, an amazing way to experience California's coast- let us all recognized the rules of the park so that we may all enjoy this San Franciscan tradtition for generations to come. For more info please check out: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/22/MNGDROPM781.DTL
sharon
- Mar 11, 2009, 8:41p
very helpful!!!
thanx
Anne
- Jun 23, 2009, 4:12p
Thanks!
thanks!
- Aug 20, 2009, 2:58a
that really helped...maybe you can suggest some other locations to have a bonfire after a nice hike?
Liz
- Sep 7, 2009, 11:08p
Thank you for taking your time and posting this information, it has been very helpfull. God Bless.
Sarah
- Mar 26, 2010, 2:52p
Rules for bonfires on Ocean Beach
http://www.beachcalifornia.com/beach/sanfrancisco-beach-bonfires.html
im awesome
- May 26, 2010, 1:29p
thanks for the info...im awesome
I am so nice
- May 24, 2011, 9:48a
Thank you for the info.
Bobby
- Jul 1, 2011, 3:25a
This helps out so much
beach bunny
- Apr 28, 2012, 11:33a
Thanks for the info but wondering if they still allow it since this info is 2yrs old! Anyone out there know?
jayjay
- Feb 23, 2013, 2:23a
Yeah thanks. I've been searching forever too and you were the first one that I saw put something up. That was 2007 though, any updates?
Steven
- Apr 11, 2013, 12:20a
TTHHHAAAANNKKK YOU!
pablo
- Oct 3, 2013, 9:34p
this help me a lot thanks.
Amazed USA Man
- Aug 23, 2015, 6:36a
The all night bon fires has been a tradition on ocean beach since SF began.
Shutting down the night fires is but yet another example of how we are not free in our own land anymore. The beach and parks are owned by the people. Yet we have commando's showing up to tell us we cannot have a fire at night or even drink a can of beer with our picnic. What happened to our great Country. We are supposed to be a free Country, yet they have more freedom in Canada at this point. They always use the excuses that people do this or that and mess it up for everyone else. Why should I have to pay for what some other jerk did? Always it ends up being that I have to pay for someone else's behavior. If there was a real problem with people trashing the beach, then when those people who are responsible should police the beach themselves and report abusers so they could be fined. Also they complained they didn't have enough man power or money to keep up with the messes. Maybe one of those overpaid government employees that milk the tax payers daily by doing as little as possible could have organized a community volunteer program, which I understand they are doing anyway even though they shut down the night fires. If people are going to volunteer to clean up then that should have been the solution. But instead, they always have to shut everything down and regulate everything and keep us from enjoying our own Country. My father fought for this Country, his father, and all the way to my great great great granpa so that "We the people" could be free and enjoy our Country. But here we have a foreign body (the national parks were all given to the U.N. by clinton) that jacked up all the rates as soon as they gave them our parks, and then took all the freedom to use those parks away in place of their rules and regulations which the people DO NOT want! We want to be able to lay on the beach no matter what time it is, and there is no reason why we cannot have a fire in a safe spot along the beach using natural elements. It just breaks my heart to see that no one is standing up to be counted against government intrusion anymore. Let the people govern themselves! They'd save a ton of money, and people are much more likely to be responsible and respectful when they feel they have a voice and a choice and realizing that "this land is our land from California to the New York Islands!"
Carbon Neutral
Jul 15, 2006, 7:13p - Environment
UPDATE: I just finished The Skeptical Environmentalist, and I must say it's an extremely persuasive book. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in digging deeper into the true state of the world.
The book's biggest weakness is that it doesn't present the 500,000 year history of global temperature (from An Inconvenient Truth), so it dramatically underestimates the ... more »
Read comments (5) - Comment
Gary
- May 27, 2006, 6:13p
Check out this article at Salon on the carbon neutral market:
http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/26/offsets/print.html
omar
- May 28, 2006, 1:45p
my usagecame in at 12800, a little less than average. this is likely because i don't own a car (though all my flying causes the number to go way up!).
something that hit me pretty hard as i learned more about climate change came from a talk i saw by larry brilliant. he said that it's quite likely that if the climate continues to change as is, then most of bangladesh will be washed away, and all the good we thought we were doing with microfinance in that country will also be washed away. ie climate change can smash a lot of good.
jonathan
- Apr 8, 2007, 8:18p
Although I haven't read this book yet (I'll take a look soon), I definitely disagree with the notion that environmental problems can be put off to a later date. I have a couple questions about his reasoning:
You say: "Improving environmental problems generally costs more and provides fewer benefits than spending on other issues..."
How does he measure benefits? Often benefits are measured over far too short a time scale, and it is inherently difficult to measure the benefit from preventing the destruction of some environmental system, because the effects of that destruction are too complex to predict accurately.
The reasoning that "environmental problems ... aren't well-understood or urgent enough to warrant a high level of attention right now" is short sighted and misleading. Although the dynamics of many of the ecosystems we are destroying are not well-understood, the general principals that loss of biodiversity and overtaxing of natural resources are harmful is definitely known. With regards to them not being urgent, many of the problems we are creating are irreversible. If we want to be at all cautious, we should act now so as to solve problems before they happen.
Basically my question is: are these issues dealt with in the book? If so, how?
If you're interested in an argument as to why environmental problems are urgent, and why they are not separate from the social problems of health care, transportation, civil war, etc., please read Collapse by Jared Diamond. As the Science review said "It is probably the most important book you will ever read."
Oh, by the way, I met you at the caltech BMS visit day if you're wondering who I am.
nikhil
- Apr 9, 2007, 12:06a
Hey jonathan,
Thanks for the comment. I wrote this awhile back, so I dug back in the book to get you your answers.
Skeptical Environmentalist is basically a data-dense textbook that presents numerous statistics regarding the costs and benefits of various social policies, most notably policies directed toward the environment and human health. It is one of the most rigorously researched books I've ever read, with nearly 3000 endnotes for its 350 pages, and a bibliography with roughly 2000 sources.
A good example of one area he examined is policy toward pesticides. For a variety of reasons, we live in a society that has a deep fear of chemicals and other "synthetics", especially when it comes to ingesting them. I'm not suggesting that this is unfounded, but that such health risks need to be put in perspective with other health risks. For example, Lomborg points out that "our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned, more than 1,200 times more carcinogenic than our present DDT intake, and more than 66 times more carcinogenic than the most dangerous present-day pesticide intake, ETU." (235) He draws this conclusion from his comparison of the relative cancer risk of the average American daily intake of various foods and synthetic pesticides. (234) How did he get the data on relative cancer risks? By examining the data on rodent exposure to such chemicals.
Based on this data, it would be more benficial to human health to reduce the carcinogenic content of coffee than reduce usage of pesticides. But is this the policy we have today? No. Many environmental organizations are focused on reducing pesticide use and increasing the availability of organics, which is all fine, but likely not the best prioritization of human energy or orientation for social policy.
Lomborg goes on to detail the economic costs of banning pesticides, where he cites another professor's estimate of $4B lost annually in the US. (246) Banning pesticides altogether would reduce yields in Denmark by 16-84% and cause a price increase of 30-120%. More expensive fruits and vegetables means lower consumption, which would lead to a substantial increase in cancer since fruits and vegetables are believed to reduce likelihood of cancer. So his point is that not only would the transition to a pesticide-free society cost a good chunk of change, it would also lead to more cancer deaths.
In general, Lomborg measures benefits based on the human life cost (changes in death rates and life expectancy). I agree, its hard to measure the long-term impact of environmental damage, but he does a good job going back into the historical data and teasing out trends (except in the case of global warming, which I described previously). Not to say that he doesn't value the environment in and of itself - he was a member of Greenpeace before he started working on this book.
Now to the topic of deforestation. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the overall area covered by forest has not changed much since 1950, leveling at about 30% land area, or 4B hectares. (111) He says that globally we've lost about 20% of the original forest cover since humans started doing agriculture. (Goudie 1993) Since wood accounts for 25% of the energy consumption in the developing world as a whole and 50% in Africa, dramatically limiting cutting would have a very bad impact on development in poorer countries. He also states that "our entire consumption of wood and paper can be catered for by the tree growth of just 5% of the current forest area." (115, citing Bailey 1995) Fundamentally, Lomborg finds that "it seem hypocritical to accept that we have benefited tremendously from felling large sections of our own forests but not to allow developing countries to harvest the same advantages." (117) I couldn't agree more.
So Lomborg isn't advocating environmental destruction - in this case, he's just going to the data and pointing out that the hype around deforestation is overblown and really not something to worry too much about, given the conditions today. He's not advocating that we destroy biodiversity, but that stuff isn't as bad as we've been led to believe.
I hope these examples help to answer your questions. His arguments are intricate and rely on a ton of data. I'd be happy to discuss this more if you have some counter-data or believe that Lomborg's analysis is flawed in some way. All in all, I was impressed by the analytical process in the book.
It should be noted that the Danish Ecological Council posted a detailed rebuttal of the book, available here: http://www.ecocouncil.dk/download/sceptical.pdf . I've downloaded it but haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. And of course, Lomborg has his rebuttal to the rebuttal: http://www.lomborg.com/Reply%20to%20Skeptical%20Questions.pdf
Also, I bought Collapse over a year ago and its been waiting patiently on my shelf to be read. Diamond's earlier book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", was one of the best books I've ever read (on my top 11 list: http://nikhil.superfacts.org/archives/2007/01/top_11_book_rec.html ). Thanks for the recommendation - that should bump it higher in my queue.
jonathan
- Apr 10, 2007, 4:45p
I'm not trying to troll. But in case anyone is thinking of picking up this book, or has read it and is considering its ideas, please see:
www.anti-lomborg.com
http://www.lomborg.com/files/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Reply%20to%20Nature.pdf
Or just read the Wikipedia article.
|