The use of the Oceano Dunes offroad vehicular area has remained a lively topic of discussion locally. New Times’ Jan. 8 opinion section contained a couple of pieces opposing the use of the area by off-road vehicles, and the topic pops up frequently in often heated debate (“Oceano deserves a vehicle-free beach,” and “Restore Oceano’s natural defenses”).
The vehicle use area comprises roughly a third of the long stretch of beach that runs from Pismo Beach to Point Sal. The majority of the beach is, for the most part, inaccessible by road, and in a wild state. Historically, for a hundred years, the beach was routinely used by vehicles, with modern use restricted to the 7 or so miles of the park.
Our strong local winds created the dunes, and you can often see a plume of dust rising from the entire length of the beach, not just the vehicular area. Opposition to vehicular use of the beach was originally based on the theory that vehicle use created finely ground crystalline silica dust, which was dangerous to the downwind communities of Oceano, Nipomo, Santa Maria, and Guadalupe. Although the SLO County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) originally claimed that all of the wind-borne dust was unhealthy crystalline silica dust, a later study by Dr. Lynn Russel of Scripps Institute showed that it actually only constituted 14 percent of the dust.
Currently, opposition is centered on environmental impacts, such as damage to the plover and plant life. A lot of areas have been fenced off to address those concerns.
Obviously, any human use of an area is bound to impact the natural native environment. Our entire region was once wild and pristine. If you believe that an existing use of an area should be eliminated and the area “returned to nature,” are you prepared to live in a traditional Chumash shelter and to give up your coffee shops? Or is natural restoration just for others?
The current beach users are not limited just to rowdy kids in ATVs, motorcycles, and offroad vehicles. They also include hundreds of thousands who drive on the beach to camp, picnic, swim, fish, surf, and bicycle. Many users are families seeking an affordable vacation who lack the money to go to a fashionable “eco-resort” in Costa Rica. If vehicles are banned, their use would be practically limited to just the areas close in to the entrances.
And, of course, there is the matter of money. A California State Parks study estimated that closure would result in a loss of $243 million in local spending, 3,300 jobs, and a lot of tax revenue from lodging and restaurants. After having our tax revenue from Diablo Canyon terminated and our schools already howling in fiscal pain, do we want to have to tighten the belts even further?
As with many of our most fractious issues, the real fight just boils down to the culture wars and blue vs. red tribalism.
You need to learn to share with those who have just as much right to the beach as you do.
Those who oppose vehicular use tend to be environmentally oriented suburban liberals who cannot say the terms “internal combustion” or “MAGA” without spitting. Many came to SLO from elsewhere to attend Cal Poly and stayed
Those who support vehicular use tend to be from more rural areas and Central Valley towns and lean more conservative. They tend to like large 4×4 pickup trucks or Jeeps, may have an ATV or motorcycles for everyone in their family, and have immense RVs or camping trailers. Overall, they represent an enthusiastic embrace of the motor culture rejected by the opponents.
They also display cultural traits that liberals find off-putting, like flying American or Mexican flags at their campsites or on their vehicles or displaying signs endorsing MAGA, Trump, or the Second Amendment. All in all, there is a lot to annoy the liberal environmental warrior.
There is land enough for both groups. Those who prefer a remote, quiet, untouched beach have the rest of the local coast readily available for their use, from Oso Flaco and the Guadalupe Dunes southward, which is roughly twice the size of the vehicular use area used by many more people. Mechanical disturbance of the dunes quickly “heals” in the wind, and plants and birds soon re-establish themselves.
Is it fair and reasonable to eliminate the enjoyment of the hundreds of thousands who currently use the area, just to accommodate the relative few who are capable of walking a number of miles on soft sand in search of an isolated and a pristine environment?
The hundreds of thousands of people who prefer vehicular use are also residents of California, pay taxes, and contribute to the local economy. They vastly outnumber the people who use the remote, natural areas of the coast. They’re also entitled to a “playground” to pursue their interests.
You need to learn to share with those who have just as much right to the beach as you do. You are not entitled to a private seaside naturalists club where the “undesirables” are excluded. You often preach “inclusion” and the acceptance of other lifestyles. Now is the time to practice it. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach, who confesses to occasionally driving on the dunes in his old Jeep. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Health & Wellness 2026.
I’m a registered Republican and am opposed to vehicular activity on any part of the dunes. My concern is all the oil that drips off the engines of ridiculous lifted trucks, from RVs, and dirt bikes. It all washes out to the ocean and further pollutes it. It’s bad enough that most of our food is contaminated with glyphosate, GMOs, PCBs, and forever chemicals, why add add motor oil to the mix. Further, as someone who enjoys fishing in the ocean, I’m not very hip to eating fish soaked in petroleum. As far as the cultural aspect of the folks that drive here from elsewhere to romp in the dunes, the only flag I care to see them flying is the American flag.
Petroleum is not a foreign substance on our beach. The name “Pismo” is from a Chumash word for the tars on the sand coming from the naturally occurring oil seeps offshore. Relatively few of the ancient Chumash drove ATV’s or 4×4 vehicles. I have never seen a discharge of oil from an offroad vehicle on the sand.
Sounds like a good place to recruit ICE “professionals.”
See what I mean about the dispute really being driven by the culture wars?
You brought it up, but you have to admit the “Get out of my way or you’re gonna get hurt” mentality applies to both situations.
I have have never threatened to run down a political opponent, although I admit that if I was in my Jeep and found myself being hectored by a tweedy ornithologist I might feel tempted to chase them around a dune or two.
We’re talking about millions of drips of processed petroleum. Motor oil isn’t asphalt seeps, it’s highly processed petrol.