Fetch the Paper: Digital Dog Edition

Off-leash Advocacy Alert

This off leash action alert requesting IMMEDIATE action just in from Sally Stephens, Chair of SF Dog:

Last week I sent out an email about a bill introduced by Nancy Pelosi, HR 6305, that includes a section that would change the name of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to the Golden Gate National Parks. While this seems like an innocuous cosmetic change, the implications for recreation in the GGNRA -- including off-leash recreation -- are disturbing:

1. The legislation that created the GGNRA states that the GGNRA was created to: "provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary for urban environment and planning." Recreation, including off-leash dog walking, was the primary reason the GGNRA was created.
2. For years, GGNRA staff have been citing the fact that the GGNRA is a national park as the reason they have to restrict off-leash recreation. They say that the primary reason national parks exist is to preserve and restore habitat, and that recreation interferes with that mandate.
3. The US Code says that national parks have to be governed uniformly (with an emphasis on scenery and habitat). But it also says (16, U.S.C. Section 1a-1) that: "the protection, management, and administration of these areas ... shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress."
4. Even if Congress doesn't intend it, this bill will be cited by those opposed to off-leash and all other forms of recreation as evidence that Congress wants to overturn the recreation mandate contained in the legislation that created the GGNRA. This name change will be cited as proof Congress wants the GGNRA managed to restore habitat, not to maintain needed recreational open space.
5. This is not just about dogs. All current, non-hiking recreational users of the GGNRA are at risk with this bill. Equestrians, surfers, windsurfers, mountain bikers -- all could be banned from GGNRA trails if this name change goes through. Look at Yosemite's park rules -- no bikes or trails, no dogs on trails.
6. This name change will be used to push all recreational users -- including people with dogs -- out of the GGNRA.

Several representatives of dog groups met with Pelosi's staff last Friday morning. We were assured this bill would not be heard in the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands tomorrow (Tues 7/15) as had originally been planned. I have just learned that information was not correct. This bill will in fact be heard by the Subcommittee tomorrow (Tues, 7/15) and will be passed on to the full House Committee on Natural Resources for action the next day (Wed 7/16). The claim is that nothing will really be happening with the bill until September, and that Pelosi's office knows that they have to make some changes to the language of the bill (not just the name change section, but other sections too) and so we all shouldn't be too worried at this point. Don't believe it.

If this bill, H.R. 6305 is passed by the Subcommittee tomorrow, there's no guarantee it won't continue to sail through.

Please email, fax or call Pelosi's office, as well as the Subcommittee members BEFORE 10 am EDT tomorrow (July 15) and demand they remove Section 2 from H.R. 6305.

Ask them to delay any action on the bill until the problems with it can be addressed.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
San Francisco office: (415) 556-4862 phone, (415) 861-1670
Washington DC office: (202) 225-4965 phone, (202) 225-4188

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands:
(202) 226-7736 phone, (202) 226-2301 fax
Raul Grijalva (D, Ariz), Chairman
Rob Bishop, (R, Utah), ranking Republican

Committee on Natural Resources:
(202) 225-6065 phone. (202) 225-1931 fax
Nick Rahall II (D, West Virginia), Chairman
Don Young (R, Alaska), ranking Republican

Also contact your San Francisco Supervisor:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=7271
and Mayor Newsom:
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org
(415) 554-6141 phone, (415) 554-6160 fax
and let them know this bill is unacceptable and will have a negative impact on San Franciscans quality of life and recreational opportunities.

Off Leash Updates

A couple of important items related to off-leash space came across my inbox today.

Is their vision your vision?
If you care about the off-leash use of Ocean Beach, one of SF's favorite dog socialization spots, you may want to show up at the Ocean Beach Vision Council meeting this Thursday, July 8, 6-8 PM at the Osher Great Hall at the San Francisco Zoo.

The Ocean Beach Vision Council was formed by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area officials and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom to discuss how best to improve the use of SF's Ocean Beach, a 5-mile long beach that has been in the center of some controversy around off-leash use by dogs. While some environmentalists claim that parts of Ocean Beach house vulnerable species that are threatened by the presence of dogs, many of SF's dog loving folk enjoy using Ocean Beach and tout it as a valuable exercise and socialization resource in the urban environment--something key for our city's dogs.
SF Dog Chair Sally Stephens notes that many dog advocates are concerned that the Vision Council is biased against off-leash use of Ocean Beach, citing that plans to commercially develop Ocean Beach may leave dogs and their people to find other spots for exercise.

This is an excellent opportunity to advocate for our community's dogs. Urban dogs need sufficient space and fresh air, and the unfettered socialization that off-leash recreation affords. Ocean Beach's 5 miles of shoreline can provide a very special environment for our canine friends.

What's in a name?
I also got word today from Suzanne Valenti, a representative of Ocean Beach Dog, that Nancy Pelosi has submitted Bill HR 6305 that would, among a number of other things, rename the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to "Golden Gate National Parks." If you think this is meaningless, you might want to think again.

Years ago when the people of San Francisco turned some of their key open space over to the Federal government, it was with the intention that the land continue to be used recreationally. According to the Ocean Beach Dog web site:

Off-leash advocates have been told by GGNRA staff for years that changing the name from Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Golden Gate National Parks will make it easier for them to further restrict recreation within GGNRA boundaries. There is no other reason for this name change. They want to remove recreation from the park just as they remove it from their name.

It's been no secret for the last few years that a vocal group has called for dogs to either be banned completely from certain land in the GGNRA or to be forced to return to leash-only recreation. The Ocean Beach Dog group contends that this "name change" would effectively allow the affected land to be treated more like a national park rather than the recreational treasure it has been for the many Bay Area residents who have enjoyed it with and without their dogs.

If you would like to comment on this issue:

• Contact Nancy Pelosi and demand that she remove Sec 2 from HR 6305:
  email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
  District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 556-4862
  Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965
• Also contact the Committee on Natural Resources to which the bill has been referred:
  1324 Longworth House Office Building
  (202) 225-6065 Fax: (202) 225-1931
  MR. NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
  MR. DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
  and the Subcommittee on National Parks Forests and Public Lands to which it was referred on June 25:
  1333 Longworth House Office Building
  (202) 226-7736 Fax: (202) 226-2301
  Mr. Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona, Chairman
  Mr. Rob Bishop, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Last Day to Comment on GGNRA Beach Closures

SF Dog President Sally Stephens sent us this reminder for dog owners to comment on the GGNRA proposed closures of Crissy Field and Ocean Beach (to protect the Western Snowy Plover). If you have not commented on this very important issue, we urge you to do so now. Here's Sally's letter:

Today, Monday, Jan 21 is the final day to submit public comment on the GGNRA's proposed closure of parts of Ocean Beach and Crissy Field to off-leash dog walking because of the presence of Western Snowy Plover birds. It's important that people set aside their cynicism and comment even if it's just to say "I oppose the closure. There is no scientific evidence that off-leash dogs are deterimental to the plover population at Ocean Beach or Crissy field."

It's too late to mail a comment in, but you can comment online at:

http://tinyurl.com/299re6

For more detailed talking points, you can go to: http://sfdog.org/news/news.htm

Vote for the Dog Park!

Don't wait on this one.... Marin IJ has an online poll today asking if the Field of Dogs dog park should be replaced by an office building. Chime in.

Off Leash Proponents: Last GGNRA Committee Meeting

SF Dog just sent this; please make sure you attend or send your comments as instructed.

FINAL MEETING OF GGNRA NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE

Saturday, October 27, 2007
9 am to 3 pm
Building 201, Upper Fort Mason
San Francisco


Beginning in March 2006, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee has been meeting to see if any consensus could be reached about a Dog Management Policy for the Golden Gate National Recreational Area. The Committee is composed of representatives from a variety of dog groups (including SFDOG), local environmental groups, equestrians, the SF/SPCA, and other "stakeholders". The October 27 meeting is the final scheduled meeting of the Committee.

The GGNRA has restricted the sites that the Committee can consider for off-leash recreation to 12:

1. Ocean Beach (north of Stairwell 21 and south of Sloat Blvd, excluding the Snowy Plover area
2. Baker Beach
3. Lands End Trail
4. Crissy Field (excluding fenced tidal marsh and dune areas, and the Wildlife Protection Area on west beach)
5. Upper Fort Mason Great Meadow and Parade Ground
6. Muir Beach (excluding tidal lagoon, Redwood Creek, wetland and dune habitat areas)
7. Rodeo Beach (excluding Rodea Lagoon, and fenced habitat protection area)
8. Homestead Valley
9. Fort Funston (excluding fenced and/or signed areas closed for protection of endangered species, habitat restoration, erosion control and public safety)
10. Oakwood Valley trails (Marin)
11. Cattle Hill (San Mateo)
12. San Pedro Point (San Mateo)

Eight areas are under consideration for on-leash only access:

1. Mori Point Trails (San Mateo)
2. Sweeney Ridge trails, excluding the Notch trail (San Mateo)
3. Milagra Ridge trails
4. Ocean Beach Snowy Plover Management area between Stairwell 21 and Sloat Blvd
5. Sutro Heights Park
6. Alta Avenue trail (Marin)
7. Fort Baker (excluding fishing pier and Chapel Trail)
8. Other areas with threatened or endangered species (if potential adverse impacts can be mitigated)

This meeting will be the first time that the Committee will discuss the specific sites under consideration and where dogs can be off-leash at each site.

If you care about off-leash recreation in the GGNRA, you should try to attend this meeting.

There will be a period for public comment at the end of the meeting. This is your chance to let the GGNRA and the Committee know that you support off-leash access in the GGNRA. Let them know which of the sites under consideration you use and how many years you've been using them. Let them know that there are few problems with off-leash dogs at the sites you frequent. Support continued off-leash access at these and other sites.

Unfortunately, at the urging of representatives of some of the environmental groups, the Committee voted in one of its first meetings to limit the total length of public comment to 20 minutes. Bring a written copy of what you want to say and give it to GGNRA staff and tell them you want it included in the public record as your public comment. You can also write a comment down on forms available at the meeting. You can submit written public comment if you are denied the chance to speak because of the time limit.

If you cannot attend the meeting, you can submit the public comment you would have said at the meeting to:

Public Comment for 10/27/07 NR Committee Meeting
c/o Chris Powell
Golden Gate National Recreational Area
Building 201
Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123

Be sure to indicate you are submitting public comment for the meeting, and that you want your comment to be included in the public record for the Committee meeting.

Sally Stephens
Chair, SFDOG

Please feel free to post this notice to other pro-off-leash listserves and websites.

The Fight for Truth, Part 1

In the March issue of FETCH our cover story by San Francisco correspondent Kris Larson attempted to present positions held by groups and individuals in the ongoing debate about off-leash recreation in the GGNRA. One thing's for sure, we never cover this topic without making pretty much everyone mad; I think that may be what gets some of the parties mad, as they don't want us to present opinions other than the ones they promote.

Actually, our cover story was intended to summarize the issue, not editorialize on it. We got notes from more than one "side" but the most thoughtful of them was from Steve Golub of Ocean Beach Dog.

Before you go on to read Steve's letter, let me state my current thinking on this matter. After everything I've read and heard, I simply don't think the off-leash opponents have been able to prove an environmental crisis sufficient to ban off-leash recreation in the GGNRA. And I believe that the community as a whole needs to support the need for dogs to have open space to exercise, and this is a precious commodity in the dense environs of the City. And simply, the right to off-leash recreation existed legally in the GGNRA and should not be revoked.

Read on for Steve's letter.

Trish King Refutes Brent Plater

As we've reported recently in FETCH, the issues around off-leash use of public lands are heating up again (not that they ever really died down--things were just quieter in the first phases of negotiated rulemaking).

In a recent letter to FETCH, off-leash opponent Brent Plater made some claims about prominent experts and their "views" of dogs being off leash. One of them, Trish King, was mentioned in Plater's letter and Trish wants to go on record to let everyone know her TRUE thoughts on off-leash time for dogs:

With reference to a letter to the editor in the February issue, the quote in question was taken out of context from an article I wrote about dog parks.  The article was a cautionary one about owners taking responsibility for their dogs, and understanding potential problems in dog parks.  The article is confined to enclosed dog parks, not open space areas or trails. Dog behavior is complex and can change depending on the locale.

I would like to clarify my position on this matter; I am philosophically in favor of responsible off leash play. 

Trish is the Behavior & Training Director at the Marin Humane Society. Many dog owners respect Trish immensely for her expertise and understanding of canine behavior and we appreciate that she's taking a stand for responsible off leash play.