Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff Writer, 3/2/16. "New rule bans dogs off leash. Park Service restricts canine access on GGNRA lands; dog groups irate."
| A recreation area should include me, I need to run and play, thanks for caring. |
.... In Pacifica, in fact in all of San Mateo County, there are no areas designated for off leash dog walking. That immediately caught the ire of the leader of the Montara Dog Group. .... “Current GGNRA dog walking trails in Pacifica would be cut by more than half. Access to Sweeney Ridge would be lost from the Pacifica side,” she (Christine Corwin of the Montara Dog Group) said."
.... NPS will hold public meetings on the proposed rule
from 6-8 p.m. Mar. 22 at Farallone View Elementary School in Montara and
Mar. 31 from 6-8 p.m. at the Pacifica Community Center. The public comment period began Feb. 24 and runs until May 25. To read the rule and follow the link to log comments, go to http://www.nps.gov/goga/getinvolved/prop-rule-dog-mgt.htm." Read article.
Related article. Half Moon Bay Review/Clay Lambert, 2/25/16, "GGNRA plan limits dog walking." .... “Under the proposed rule, the GGNRA
would remain the most dog-friendly National Park in the United States,”
said GGNRA Superintendent Christine Lehnertz in a prepared release. As
proposed, the new rules allow for walking dogs in 22 spots within the
park, including 11 segments within Rancho Corral de Tierra in Moss
Beach, Montara and El Granada. All of those require a leash, unlike
Crissy Field and Fort Funston in San Francisco, where dogs are allowed
off leash. The rules would allow for one to three dogs on leash in these
areas. The rules are not final and the National Park Service is now
accepting comment on the draft. .... 'Not good enough,' said U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier in a prepared release. 'The National Park Service has tried but not hard enough and has not
listened to the residents and dog walkers of San Mateo County. How can
you say it is fair to create seven off-leash areas in the San Francisco
and Marin portions of the GGNRA and none, zero in San Mateo County?' " Also see Fix Pacifica article reprint, Contra Costa Times/Bay City News Service, 2/23/16, .... The proposed rule for dog
management is open for public comment from today through April 25 at regulations.gov.
Public meetings will be held in San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin
counties, and comments can also be submitted by mail to Superintendent,
GGNRA, Dog Management Proposed Rules, Building 201, Fort Mason, San
Francisco CA 94123."
Related activist coastal dog groups. Montara Dog Group Blog, Facebook, organization name changed to Coastside Dog of San Mateo County. About: "Stretching from Pacifica to Half Moon Bay, the San Mateo County
coastside has long been a haven for outdoor enthusiasts and dog lovers.
We believe that protecting our area’s natural environment, rural
character, and dog economy go hand-in-hand. We believe that responsible
dog ownership is at the heart of ensuring that we have spaces to hike
and to recreate with our furry companions. We are committed to
community, common sense approaches, and solutions. " For clear, outlined information see Ocean Beach Dog, "GGNRA Dog Management Plan (DMP), 2016.
Note the happy dog photograph was found somewhere on the internet, but in the course of posting links, I've inadvertently lost track of the source to credit.
Note the happy dog photograph was found somewhere on the internet, but in the course of posting links, I've inadvertently lost track of the source to credit.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
9 comments:
Thanks for posting, Kathy! This has serious ramifications for the people and their family pets in San Mateo County. Not only is SMC getting completely screwed, but those of us who travel to SF properties like Fort Funston and Ocean Beach to legally exercise our pets will be severely impacted. In fact, expect more people breaking the law here in Pacifica out of necessity for the health, happiness and manageability of their four-pawed friends.
Go to Ocean Beach DOG for details on the proposed plan and for information on how to comment. This is the People's Recreation Area, not the private land of the NPS/GGNRA extremists.
Thanks!
It's beaucoup important to preserve property rights for dogs because of the total ban on dogs in the Pacifica quarry we will face as soon as it is approved as wetlands.
Those who currently use quarry or Mori Point will be out of luck if we don't act to protect ourselves now.
9:08
This is precisely how the faux-enviros, NIMBY's and "I Got MINE's" are destroying Pacifica. They think our city is their private property. They elect puppets like Lancelle, Vreeland, deJarnutt, Digre and Keener to do their bidding and they will not stop until they've brought Pacifica completely to it's knees and surrenders to the SMC, GGNRA, CCC and any other bureaucracy willing to be their Rich Uncle.
They have no one's interest in mind but their own.
908 AM, the link to your clear, outlined information on Ocean Beach Dog has been added to the article. Thanks for keeping us updated!
Right on 9:08
Dogs have no Property rights. What's next, are you going to put a dog on trial for assault when he bites someone? Will your Saluki turn state's evidence against your pit bull?
You don't have any right to run your dog on public property or Don Peebles property.
That he has been GIFTING YOU the temporary access for a decade was your Christmas present, and you don't get that present next year, tough luck.
You nimby animal rights activists think dogs are people.
Guess what, the rest of the world considers them part of the food chain.
A dog is never going to tell you to get a job, take a bath, or see a shrink. They don't care what kind of car you drive or if your house is a dump. Finding unconditional love and companionship is pretty easy with dogs, not so easy with humans. Your dog/s act like you're a big deal. That's pretty special stuff.
1239, what a yuck comment. Dog's have the power to change peoples hearts. They are our family members. They are not part of the civilized society "food chain".
BTW, The quarry property (owned prior by Peebles Corporation) was sold to Enhoorn (a Michigan state company). First related comment to that sale from Tribune, 11/26/14; and a Tribune pre-development article 9/18/15.
The new plan is mainly housing, if such a ballot measure can possibly pass. The saga continues, and that's what happens when nimbies (probably you and your mixed comment) terminate balanced development in this City.
Hence, the ballot measure will likely fail, the City will continue to struggle financially, and the land will not be developed.
If it's even half as nice as the Peeble's plan it will be a substantial improvement for Pacifica. Unfortunately you are probably right. The NOTHING for Pacifica gang will do everything in their power to derail it and make sure it remains a big toilet by the sea. I predict this will be Lancelle's big move back into politics. After all, she graduated with honors from the Vreeland Institute of Slimy Politics.
At first I liked the suggested project in the quarry, but now I'm having second thoughts. While I'm happy with the apartments, especially if they includes some affordable ones, the city doesn't need any more open space in perpetuity. It does need more commercial tax revenues, so I'd prefer a project with more shops and less wetlands. I'm not getting the sense that the "We are at one with the earth" types are impressed by the extra wetlands, anyway. They're going to vote "No" no matter what gets proposed.
Also, the people who own the quarry currently have no obligation to allow people to walk their dogs there.
Post a Comment