Golden Gate National Recreation Area was designated for recreation, a San Francisco view

Congress was clear that the GGNRA must “concentrate on the outdoor recreational needs of the people.” The legislation mentioned playing catch with dogs, not growing native plants.

"Legislation mentioned playing catch with dogs,
not growing native plants"

The Board of Supervisors recently voted to oppose the GGNRA plan. City lawmakers no longer have authority over the federal land — but they could again.  When San Francisco transferred the land to the GGNRA, a condition was added to the deed: “So long as said real property is reserved and used for recreation or park purposes.” If the GGNRA continues to ignore its recreation mandate, San Francisco could claim a violation of the deed and take the land back.

If maintaining the coast won’t fit City Hall’s budget, there’s another option. We can ask our representatives U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier to hold the GGNRA to its original promise. Or Congress can give the management of our coast to a federal agency that’s more recreation-friendly than the GGNRA. Dog owners are united to save all kinds of recreation at the coast. Will people who don’t like dogs join them in common cause? Read article.

Reference -  National Park Services, "Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California."

Related - San Francisco Chronicle/City Insider/Rachael Gordon, 4/26/11.  "The Board of Supervisors went on record today in opposition of the National Park Service’s draft proposal to significantly expand restrictions on dogs on Golden Gate National Recreation Area land."  Note:  the running dogs photograph is from that article.  

Posted by Kathy Meeh