Good points in favor of one terminal
In the Feb. 22 issue of the University City/Golden Triangle News, there was a guest editorial on the opinion page by Richard Wolf that proposed taking over the Marine Corps Recruit Depot for use by the San Diego International Airport (“The future of Lindbergh Field: relocate MCRD,” page 6). I, too, think that the land from MCRD would be an excellent place for an airport terminal for Lindbergh Field. However, it seems to me they would only need the southeast corner “” the area described by base streets Guantanamo Street, Iwo Street and Midway Avenue. Surely the idea is a better one than trying to mix fighter jets and commercial airlines over Miramar.
Wolf made many good points in favor of one larger terminal. He said it would allow for more restaurants and shopping, a single security area, gates closer to security, a multilevel parking structure and transportation to and from the airport would be easier. Washington Street goes right to what is called Gate 5 of MCRD, where on and off ramps from Interstate 5 could be expanded and where there are already trolley and bus stops.
I don’t agree about rental car agencies at the terminal, though. Most of the major agencies are already on Pacific Highway between Washington and Sassafras and could have a central pick up/ drop-off point at the terminal. I also feel that eliminating the present terminals might leave room for another runway, rather than moving Harbor Drive into that area.
I fully understand Congress and the Marine Corps opposing sharing Miramar with a public airport, but would it hurt to ask if they would give up a small portion of a facility that doesn’t have faster-than-sound fighter planes zipping around overhead?
Sandra McConnell, Ocean Beach

Not big aquatic pets
I applaud CAL-OSHA for its report concerning trainer safety at SeaWorld. It is regrettable that the agency retracted the report, whether due to a perceived lack of expertise in marine mammal science or to pressure from Anheuser Busch corporate interests.
The conclusion that the death of a SeaWorld trainer is only a matter of time is obvious to even the most casual observer, let alone a trained safety inspector. When you put an enormous, wild killer whale, the top predator of the sea, into a small enclosure with another mammal a fraction of its size, you have a formula for disaster. Add to that the daily coercion to perform circus tricks, the thoroughly unmet physical and social needs of the whales, plus the bizarre and unnatural theme park environment complete with thunderous music, nightly explosions and hordes of screaming people, and you could hardly create a more perfect setting for trouble if you tried.
A quick internet search reveals many theme-park incidents and injuries involving marine mammals in past years, and who knows how many more have gone unwitnessed by the public during training sessions, and/or unreported. The fact that these wild animals can be trained to perform does not change the fact that they are wild. Whether stolen from the sea or born in captivity, they are not big aquatic pets just because someone can pat them on the head, kiss their faces or ride on their backs. They are not “gentle animals” as the SeaWorld spokesman insisted in Friday’s television clips, and they are not domesticated. Any captive wild animal may rebel; many have, and many more no doubt will in the future.
Marine mammal scientists state that stress appears to be the underlying cause for most of the orca deaths in captivity, where the animals live nowhere near the 60-80 years of age enjoyed by their species in the ocean. Who would doubt that a far-ranging creature with strong social bonds to a large pod in the wild might well be stressed by a life of captivity and forced performing? It has often been said that keeping an orca in a tank is like keeping an eagle in a parakeet cage.
You don’t need to be a CAL-OSHA investigator to predict the eventual outcome of the encounters between trainers and orcas. The appropriate relationship between people and wild animals is one of distance, and any time you close that gap you are asking for trouble ” whether it be in a zoo, a circus, a nightclub act or a marine park. The performing animals in many cases are worth more to the industries involved than are the employees. Just as airlines compute the cost differential between installing new safety materials in aircraft versus the payout on lawsuits after a crash, so do animal entertainment businesses recognize that their “performers” are too lucrative to restrict for safety reasons. This is not to say that they don’t make an effort to create a safe situation for employees, it is to say that the proximity of wild animals and human beings makes safety an illusion. Sooner or later nature prevails over good fortune.
CAL-OSHA may have made some errors in their SeaWorld report, but predicting the eventual death of a trainer was not one of them.
Jane Cartmill, Vice-President, San Diego Animal Advocates