Saturday, February 27, 2016

GGNRA plans to further restrict dogs in Bay Area urban parkland


Contra Costa Times/Bay City News Service, "Dog owners howling over proposed rules for Golden Gate National Recreation Area."

...."Dog owners, however, say the plan represents a massive reduction from the current amount of access and ignores the input from both Bay Area residents and elected officials. 

Image result for Dogs on GGNRA land pictures
I'm a nice dog
Image result for Dogs on GGNRA land pictures
Enjoying a dog's life
....  Elected officials in San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties, all of which contain parts of the recreation area, and at the state and federal levels have voiced opposition to the proposed regulations. 

....  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."   Read article. 

Related article.  KQED News/Spencer Michels, 2/25/16, "Critics Send Up a Howl Over Proposed GGNRA Dog Rules."  "The GGNRA averages nearly 18 million visitors a year. Meyer contends they expect to see habitat that fosters birds and wildlife, and they want to hike, take photos and do a variety of things “that are not compatible with free-running dogs.” Dog owners, including some staunch environmentalists, take a different view.  Huey Johnson was chief of California’s Resources Agency during Jerry Brown’s first stint as governor and was, like Meyer, in on the founding of the GGNRA. Now head of Marin’s Resource Renewal Institute, Johnson says the National Park Service has it all wrong and isn’t able “to handle the urban park concept.” He thinks the park service is administering the GGNRA like it does the other 407 parks in the national park system, when in fact it is completely different. In general, the National Park Service allows dogs only in developed areas and only if they’re on-leash. ....  Now it is close to the end of the process, and even though the proposed areas where dogs can run free have been reduced, the park superintendent says the GGNRA is the only location in the entire National Parks system that allows any off-leash dog walking. That evenhanded approach doesn’t convince the dog owners, who are used to letting their pets roam free at Fort Funston, Crissy Field and Muir Beach. So this fight isn’t over yet. The rules announced Tuesday are open for public comment until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on April 25. Only then will park officials tweak the regulations — and make them final. 

Reference.  Federal Register, "Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Dog Management. A proposed rule by the National Park Services, 2/24/16." "Summary.   The National Park Service proposes to amend its special regulations for Golden Gate National Recreation Area regarding dog walking. The rule would apply to 22 locations within the park and would designate areas within these locations for on-leash and regulated (i.e., voice and sight control) off-leash dog walking. Areas in these 22 locations that are not designated as open to dogs would be closed to dogs, except for service animals in accordance with National Park Service regulations. The rule would modify and, in some circumstances, relax the National Park System-wide pet regulations for these 22 locations. To the extent not modified by this rule, dog walking in all NPS-managed areas within the park would continue to be regulated under National Park System-wide pet regulations."

Note photographs.Brown dogs by Sally Stephens, Baywoof, 6/1/15, "GGNRA update: new dog restrictions imminent." Brown and black dogs by Sally Stephens, Bay Woof, 10/1/13, "New GGNRA plan still bans dogs from most lands."

Posted by Kathy Meeh

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gave up on Fort Funston years ago.Dog poop all over place.

Anonymous said...

The GGNRA's defense is always, "We manage the GGNRA as we do any other National Park". Wrong! The enabling legislation created the GGNRA as a National Recreation Area making the continued support of historical recreation activities a priority. And yes, that includes off-leash dog walking. But there are many other human only recreational activities that the GGNRA is planning on making illegal including jogging, picnicking, sunbathing, beach volleyball, etc. through their new General Management Plan.

Amy Meyer (as mentioned in this article), along with Sierra Club, Audubon, the GGNRA/NPS and other stakeholders created the original 1979 Pet Policy which reflected the enabling legislation recreational mandate. It struck a balance between dog lovers and dog haters (like some on this site) and allocated less than one percent of the GGNRA for off-leash, voice-controlled dog walking. Today, Amy and the GGNRA act as though the '79 PP was drafted by Satan himself and forced upon them under their vehement protest. Unfortunately for them, the facts and the law don't support their National Park management slight of hand.

ROLL-OVER!

Anonymous said...

Too much dog poop is detrimental to survival of other species.

Anonymous said...

1979? Haven't we learned a few things since then? Traffic is up in the GGNRA. And we have decades of input from scientists, park personnel and park visitors on what works well and what doesn't. It's about time they updated the Pet Policy.

Anonymous said...

Walk your dogs ON leash . . . what's the big deal?

Wildlife, native habitats and the enjoyment of GGNRA space by people walking and riding horses has been diminished over many years by those who insist their dogs must run free. You are lucky they even allow dogs!

And please don't try to give that "responsible dog owner" story line - you know your dogs are not under voice control and you also know you don't pick up after your dogs . . . that's why you want to let them roam so you can justify not finding and removing the poop that then gets washed down into the harbor and the beaches.

Anonymous said...

9:27- You just don't give up, do you? Or to borrow from one of your hackneyed clich├ęs, you just won't let sleeping dogs lie. Is it your hatred of dogs that drives you or are you just out for revenge after getting spanked down on the other thread discussing this topic?

So where is that "input from scientists" you pompously offer as justification? We have asked to see it through multiple FOIA requests and Federal appeals, and to date, the GGNRA has responded "no data available at this time". So as much as you obsess on removing all things canine from National Recreation Areas, National Parks, local parks and probably everywhere else, for that matter, the failure of the GGNRA to produce any monitoring documentation and site-specific peer reviewed studies to support such action, as required by their own regulations, would make this attempt both arbitrary and capricious. Ultimately, we will prevail in a court of law because arbitrary and capricious is not a good defense. But why should citizens have to go through such time and expense just to get a government agency to live up to its own enabling legislation and its own regulations?

What's funny, 9:27, is that every assertion you have made on this and on other threads on this topic is a product of your own imagination. You have nothing other than your irrational hatred of dogs to support your wild claims. No wonder you side with the GGNRA on this. Perhaps you even work for them, although trolls usually are not employed by definition.

Anonymous said...

I like dogs but they belong in rural areas. I can't stand all of the dog poop everywhere. Let's not forget that their urine also kills vegetation. I work hard to keep my property clean and well manicured but unfortunately dogs are killing it continuously as the owners just look on.
Disgusting!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for asking, 8:51. Since the amount of space we are asking for off-leash recreation amounts to less than one half of one percent of the GGNRA's 80,000 plus acres, there is plenty of space for you and Trigger to enjoy yourselves sans off-leash dogs. Additionally, dogs are completely banned from the majority of the rest of the GGNRA. This should be excellent news for dog haters. But it's not enough, is it?

You complain about dog feces but I see you are a horse enthusiast. Are you kidding? No other species even comes close to leaving the huge piles of turds that horses leave behind on GGNRA trails. Have you ever gotten down off Trigger and picked them up? Just once? At least the vast majority of dog owners obey the law and pick up after their dogs.

And finally, you claim, "...you want to let them [dogs] roam so you can justify not finding and removing the poop that then gets washed down into the harbor and the beaches." It's interesting to me that the GGNRA made a similar claim in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement. When we pointed out to them through comment that not only can they not produce any documentation or studies to back up such a claim, but we countered with a study by the reputable environmental organization Heal the Bay. The study confirmed that the beaches where dogs are allowed to roam freely are not contaminated with dog feces and were actually given a superior grade for water quality. It turns out the beaches with serious contamination were south of Half Moon Bay where dogs were banned entirely. The strain of the bacteria found in the water traced the contamination back to shorebirds.

Anonymous said...

Dog poop is sneaky! Horseshit isn't.

Anonymous said...

9:55 said "I like dogs but they belong in rural areas"

That's going to come as very bad news to the tens of thousands who depend on service dogs for their very own survival/existence in these crowded, dangerous cities. Guess we'll just have to tell all those blind and deaf people to stick it.

Oh, and how about all those miserable city dwelling seniors - abandoned by society - left only with the companionship of their loyal best friend of the canine persuasion? Let's just load up the bus with these scourges of urban life and ship them all out to the Mohave Desert. Now we're talkin'!

Oh, and I almost forgot the "I like dogs but..." qualifier. What do you propose for those you don't like? Shipping them off to Devil's Island or Guantanamo Bay? Your "humanity" overwhelms me.

And perhaps it would be more productive and less disingenuous of you to blame the drought, rather than a canine conspiracy, for the sorry state of your front lawn. But that's just me...

Well done, 9:55! Well done.

Anonymous said...

Loose dogs on public trails are a problem here.

Don't add any more of them, and owners that don't clean up their pet's poop are just inconsiderate.

I don't want to touch your dog's poop any more than you do.

You want to let your dog run free, do it in the quarry like everybody else does, and please, clean up your dog's poop and your neighbor's dog's poop because I hate smelling it, stepping in it, cleaning it up all the time just because you're lazy.

Anonymous said...

722 stated, "Too much dog poop is detrimental to survival of other species"

I agree, 722. Let's just stop feeding them. Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

12:11 said: "Loose dogs on public trails are a problem here."

How does the proposed 2016 Dog Management Plan change this? Seriously? Dogs have never been legally allowed loose/off-leash in Pacifica or San Mateo County, for that matter, on GGNRA properties. If you have a problem, it should be with enforcement, not newer, more restrictive rules/regulations. It has always been against the law for people not to pick up poop or allow their dog to harass wildlife or children. Those of us who obey the law know this and the passage of new, more restrictive laws won't help solve the real problem one bit with respect to us. Those who already break the law will continue to break the law and no rule/regulation/law will stop them. It's what they do. The only thing that will ever stop bad behavior like this is enforcement. That works. But you know that. You just don't like dogs and want them removed from the planet. You are not honest about your true agenda.

BTW, the Quarry is private property, not a dog park. People are using it as such because selfish dog-haters like you won't provide them any other space for recreation. Since it is private property, the owners have every right to ask the city to enforce trespassing laws on their property. But unlike you, they share.

Anonymous said...

11:47 said, "Dog poop is sneaky! Horseshit isn't."

11:47, are you sure you are not Captain of the debate team?

Anonymous said...

Some of you dog haters really should enjoy this one:
The Proposed GGNRA Wildlife Protection Area

These felons really do need to be punished!

Anonymous said...

I feel bad for dogs. Chased out of this place and that. Never fitting in. Biology no friend. Can't pick their owners. And, far too often, championed by zealots who do their cause infinitely more harm than good. So be it.

Anonymous said...

Dogs will be banned from the quarry if the planned wetlands restoration occurs.
They can't let dogs tromp around on an endangered species breeding ground.

Anonymous said...

Good point. I'm sure Lancelle and her faux-enviro buddies know this as they're bullying the new owner to conform to their world view.

Anonymous said...

Dog poop hides in places where my shoes can't see.
I ran away SF to escape from repeated dog poop attacks!

Anonymous said...

The problem is, 1:36, dogs shouldn't need to be "championed by zealots who do their cause infinitely more harm than good." Interesting that you call me a "zealot" when all I have done is present facts. When you resorts to a personal attack such as this, I can only conclude that you have no response to the facts that I have presented.

The good deeds of dogs should speak for themselves and shouldn't require advocates. Beyond the working roles dogs assume to help the disabled, the aged, law enforcement, search and rescue, drug enforcement, business and family protection, etc., it is well documented that the family dog provides its human guardians tangible health benefits. Why should anyone have to champion their cause or their existence? Dogs should be recognized by a society willing to provide them with a rewards system for the great sacrifices they have made for us humans, including, but not limited to, giving up their freedom for us. Phonies like you, 1:36, who claim to "feel bad for dogs" or "love dogs but.." clearly are so emotionally damaged that you don't like dogs and/or fail to see the benefit they provide others. Consider this, 1:36, I don't even have a dog.

Medical science has proven unequivocally that dogs require ample exercise for their own health, well-being and manageability. This can only be achieved through off-leash recreation. But if anyone has some videos of 1:36 playing a game of fetch with a full sized dog on leash on his/her own private property, I'd love to see them. I could always use a good laugh.

Anonymous said...

In the commercials played during the Super Bowl, 2 out of every 3 had dogs in it. Clearly, America loves dogs. But Pathetica doesn't. There seems to be only one person advocating for the welfare of dogs here. The rest, well, read the comments. What happened to this town? When did we become so mean, so cruel, so heartless? When did they stop dispensing the humanity pills?

Anonymous said...

Who will advocate for the welfare of the Budweiser horses?
The Geico lizard?

Anonymous said...

I love my dogs, but I understand why non-dog owners are bitter. Sadly, for whatever reason, there is an over abundance of dog S*&t on Pacifica streets and beaches. The fact that so many residents/visitors to this town are comfortable leaving dog waste on public walkways (more so than in any other city I've been too outside of Europe) pisses me off -- and I have dogs; so I can only imagine what kinds of feelings it inspires in those who do not share my love for canine companions. If people would simply pick up after their pooches, I have no doubt that act of basic human civility would go a long way towards softening the hearts and minds of the anti-dog crowd. (And "NO"-- putting the waste in a doggie bag left on the sidewalk or in a store doorway does not count as "picking up after your dog".)

Anonymous said...

The Budweiser Clydesdales? Didn't you read 11:47's post? Horseshit, even huge piles of it is perfectly fine. It's not "sneaky", you see, like dog poop. Pacificans love horses. It's dogs they hate.

And the Geico lizard? Obviously an endangered or threatened species. What lizard isn't? They get the run of the planet. Can go anywhere with complete impunity. And wherever they are, it automatically becomes protected habitat. No need for "zealots" here.

Next...

Anonymous said...

I love dogs. And I had dogs. And I would very much like to get a pair of dogs again. But you know what I don't like? Dog poop that's left un-picked. Its a vector for disease for other dogs and humans. Its just unhygienic.
Horseshit on the other hand is not a disease vector. Because:
1) Horses don't eat poo. Horseshit or any other shit.
2) They don't co-habitate with humans in closed quarters. Dogs do.
3) They don't make fervent and eager attempts to lick faces and mouths. Dogs do.
4) Horseshit is both sizable and malodorous enough to detect from a distance and avoid. It's not sneaky!
I would like it if all dog owners are considerate enough to pick up after their dog. And doubly-especially so in urban and semi-urban areas. I've put off having any dogs until that time I move to country.
Dogs are free animals. They should not be abused in the name of companionship.

Anonymous said...

There are so many dogs pooping all over this town.
There's dog poop on the beach. Dog poop on the sidewalks.
It's nice to have some places to walk where there is no dog poop.

Anonymous said...

721 Most intelligent comment on this subject right there in your last two lines. Unpopular for sure so prepare yourself, but right to the heart of the problem.

Anonymous said...

Lots of people live in relative isolation these days. The internet and pets have become the social circle. Easy to understand the devotion. GGNRA don't care.

Old Rocker said...

The Reason A Dog Has So Many Friends is that it Wags it's Tail instead of it's Tongue
(Aerosmith)

Anonymous said...

I never knew Pacifica had so many MBA's and PHD's in poop!

Anonymous said...

9:33
Are you new here? Most of the faux-enviros have shit for brains.

Anonymous said...

I can understand the disgust over the dog poop. I have a dog and I am also appalled at what people leave behind. But these changes are really hard hearted and under handed. These properties were obtained for the purpose of being used by All the People. San Mateo got No off leash areas. What a shame.

The off leash beach in Pacifica only exists at low tide. First time I went the breakers were hitting the stairs.

And for the thought that dogs should only be in rural areas. The areas in Montara/Moss Beach IS RURAL! So now I can't walk my dog on trails I ride my horse. Even if it's over 300 acres and not a soul around. And I still carry the poop Bag of Honor. Long gone are the days I used to do both at once!
But the human demands were much less back then. I could ride for hours and never see a hiker and never bikers unless you mean the motored ones. I understand the changing needs. But to lock out the responsible public with no other place to go, just means you will create a new class of law breakers because we have... no where else.

Anonymous said...

10:23

The shit for brain noobies have run the city for 35+ years.

Anonymous said...

This is the logical extension of the faux-enviro mission, which is to exclude you from their own little world. Fortunately they are beginning to choke on their own abusive power (witness the overthrow of the CCC legacy leader).
These people have no shame. They love to scream at you....... "GET OFF MY LAWN!" and then turn around and charge the taxpayer for the privilege.
Pacifica has it's own brand of these "I GOT MINE" defects. Lancelle, Vreeland, deJarnutt, Digre, Keener, Loeb, Verby, Bray, Shoemaker, Goldberg, Hall, Howard, Maykel, Bohner, and hundreds more (not thousands) all love to shoo you out of their own little private piece of paradise. They are more than willing to sue and/or destroy Pacifica into non-existence in order to get their way.

Anonymous said...

Well, those "defects" shooing you 334 out of this private paradise is one thing. I mean, c'mon, you've been shooed before, right? It's the interference with commerce and making a buck off paradise that's so un-American. Let's make America great again!

Anonymous said...

To pay our bills we need to be a city of 65,000 people, not 45,000

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog said...

Pacifica, you are a great town ________________

Anonymous said...

5:25 How will 20,000 more people generate more revenue to pay our bills, over and above the cost of increased demand for services?

Anonymous said...

20,000 more residents? Where? That's maybe 8000 to 10000 homes, apts, trailers. Even if we had the buildable space, and we don't, the property tax wouldn't cover the bills which are growing every year. Plus the pension obligations, repair to the sewer plant, broken infrastructure. More taxes? Not a chance. The handwriting is on the wall. We blew it and all that's left is the death squirm and the vultures selling solutions that really only work for them.

The Local Libertarian said...

@7:08 -- I have to agree that Pacifica is proverbially "FU**ED". Whether some like it or not, this town is in for a real difficult time ahead.

The "choke" is setting in:

Morgan Stanley slashes value of stakes in Palantir, Dropbox

Dave McClure Braces for Startup Valuation Drop

Silicon Valley Shaken as 19 Start-Ups See their Valuations Slashed

These 2 things will pop the housing bubbles in San Francisco and Silicon Valley

There is not a chance they'll be able to sell their $50M Library bond.

Anonymous said...

Lib, you could be right. Things do appear to be cooling off as they tend to do every few years. How cold will it get? How's that sewer fund? It's not so much that Pacifica has missed this boat, it's that we've missed every boat in the last 50 years. Shabby and badly run backwater town may just be our destiny--enlivened by occasional grand illusions, like a new library. In every area there's always got to be some town that serves as the cautionary tale for the rest. Pacifica owns that space!

Anonymous said...

Is it true that the quarry renovation would prohibit dogs running there?

Anonymous said...

Why would the quarry ban dogs? That doesn't even make sense.

Anonymous said...

And the beat goes on....

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Dogs-owners-unleash-protest-of-proposed-7305701.php

http://www.ktvu.com/news/118266162-story