Public Comment Summary Report 090911 GC4010

User Manual: GC4010

Open the PDF directly: View PDF PDF.
Page Count: 548

DownloadPublic Comment Summary Report  090911 GC4010 Public-Comment-Summary-Report--090911
Open PDF In BrowserView PDF
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
California

PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY REPORT
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
DRAFT DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

September 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE ............................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Public Comment Process Summary .................................................................................................... 1
Nature of Comments Received.......................................................................................................... 1
The Comment Analysis Process ......................................................................................................... 2
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................................... 2
Guide to this Document................................................................................................................... 3
CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT............................................................................................................... 4
PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX A.

Comments Treated as Individual Concern Statements

i

INTRODUCTION AND GUIDE

Introduction
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) prepared the Draft Dog Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Plan/EIS) to address dog management in the park. The Draft
Plan/EIS describes six dog management alternatives, including the preferred alternative (chosen from
alternatives A-E), at 21 GGNRA sites distributed across San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo counties.
The Draft Plan/EIS explained the purpose and need for the plan, presented the alternatives and identified
the preferred alternative for each of the 21 sites. The Draft Plan/EIS also detailed the resources that would
be affected by the alternatives and the environmental consequences of implementing these alternatives.
Because of the diversity of resources and the variety of use patterns across these park sites, a site-specific
approach to analyzing the alternatives was adopted, resulting in a preferred alternative for each site.
Public Comment Process Summary

On January 14, 2011, the NPS released the Draft Plan/EIS to the public for review and comment. The
draft plan/EIS was available for public review until May 30, 2011.
During the public comment period, four public meetings were held in Marin, San Francisco, and San
Mateo Counties. Meetings were held in Mill Valley on March 2nd; in San Francisco on March 5th and
7th; and in Pacifica on March 9th. Three of the meetings were held in the evening from 4:00 until 8:00
p.m.; one San Francisco meeting was held during the day, from 11:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. The public
meetings were in an open house format, with a number of National Park Service staff on hand to discuss
the plan with meeting attendees, answer questions and facilitate public input on the plan.
The public were able to submit their comments on Draft Plan/EIS using any of the following methods:
• Electronically through the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website
• In person at the public meetings
• By mailing comments to the GGNRA Superintendent

Nature of Comments Received
Nearly 5,000 pieces of correspondence from over 31 states were received during the public scoping period. The
majority of correspondence, 4,463, were submitted by California residents. Among the commenters from
California, the topics that received the majority of the comments were expressions of support for, or opposition to,
the Draft Plan/EIS; expressions of support for, or opposition to, the different alternatives at each site; concerns
regarding the park visitor experience; concerns for wildlife and wildlife habitat and concerns about the health and
safety of individuals and dogs.
All comments were carefully read and analyzed; a summary of the concerns expressed is presented in this report.
Commenters are encouraged to visit the GGNRA website http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/dogmanagement.htm for updates on the project’s progress and additional information about this project.
1

The Comment Analysis Process
Comment analysis is a process used to compile and combine similar public comments into a format that can be used
by decision makers and the GGNRA Dog Management Team. Comment analysis assists the team in organizing,
clarifying, and addressing technical information pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. It
also aids in identifying the topics and issues to be evaluated and considered throughout the planning process.
The process includes five main components:
Developing a coding structure
Employing a comment database for comment management
Reading and coding of public comments
Interpreting and analyzing the comments to identify issues and themes
Preparing a comment summary
A coding structure was developed to help sort comments into logical groups by topics and issues. The coding
structure was derived from an analysis of the range of topics discussed during internal NPS scoping, past planning
documents, and the comments themselves. The coding structure was designed to capture all comment content
rather than to restrict or exclude any ideas.
The NPS PEPC database was used for management of the comments. The database stores the full text of all
correspondence and allows each comment to be coded by topic and issue. Some outputs from the database
include tallies of the total number of correspondence and comments received, sorting and reporting of comments
by a particular topic or issue, and demographic information regarding the sources of the comments.
Analysis of the public comments involved the assignment of the codes to statements made by the public in their
letters, email messages, voicemails, and comments stated at the public meetings. All comments were read and
analyzed.
Although the analysis process attempts to capture the full range of public concerns, this content analysis report
should be used with caution. Comments from people who chose to respond do not necessarily represent the
sentiments of the entire public. Furthermore, this was not a vote-counting process, and the emphasis was on
content of the comment rather than the number of times a comment was received. This report is intended to be a
summary of the comments received, rather than a statistical analysis.
Definition of Terms
Primary terms used in this document are defined below.
Correspondence: A correspondence is the entire document received from a commenter. It can be in the form of
a letter, email, written comment form, note card, open house transcript, or petition. Each piece of correspondence is
assigned a unique identification number in the PEPC system.
Comment: A comment is a portion of the text within a correspondence that addresses a single subject. It should
include information such as an expression of support or opposition to the use of a potential management tool,

2

additional data regarding an existing condition, or an opinion debating the adequacy of the analysis.
Code: A grouping centered on a common subject. The codes were developed during the scoping process and are
used to track major subjects throughout the EIS process.
Concern: Concerns are a written summary of all comments received under a particular code. Some codes were
further separated into several concern statements to provide a better focus on the content of the comments.
Guide to this Document
This report is organized as follows:
Content Analysis Report: This is the basic report produced from PEPC that provides information on the numbers
and types of comments received, organized by code. The first section of the report provides a summary of the
number of comments that were coded under each topic. The second section provides general demographic
information, such as the states where commenters live, the number of letters received from different categories of
organizations, etc.
Public Scoping Comment Summary: This report summarizes the substantive comments received during the
scoping process. These comments are organized by codes and further organized into concern statements. Below
each concern statement are representative quotes, which have been taken directly from the text of the public’s
comments and have not been edited; therefore some spelling and grammar errors were not corrected.
Representative quotes further clarify the concern statements.

3

CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT
Comment Distribution by Code
Code
AD1100
AL1000
AL1010
AL5000
AN1000
AT1100
AT1200
AT1300
AT1400
AW1000
BB1100
BB1200
BB1300
BB1400
CB1000
CC2000
CF1100
CF1200
CF1300
CF1400
CO1000
CO1100
CR2010
CR4000
CR5000
CR6000
CS1100
CS1200
CS1300
CS1400
DC1000
ED1000
EJ2010
EJ4000
EJ5000
FB1100
FB1200

Description
Alternative Development: Comments to Process
Suggest New Alternative Elements
Suggest an Alternative that has Been Dismissed
Comments on Dog walking Permit System
Comments on ANPR
Alta Trail: Support Preferred Alternative
Alta Trail: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Alta Trail: Desire Other Alternative
Alta Trail: Suggest Change in Alternative
Animal Welfare: Impact on/to dogs
Baker Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Baker Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Baker Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Baker Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
Consultation and Coordination: Reg-Neg process
Crissy Field: Support Preferred Alternative
Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Crissy Field: Desire Other Alternative
Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
Coastal Zone Consistency Determination
Comments Considered an Individual Concern Statement
Cultural Resources: Affected Environment
Cultural Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Cultural Resources: Cumulative Impacts
Cultural Resources: Impairment Analyses
Cattle/Sweeney: Support Preferred Alternative
Cattle/Sweeney: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Cattle/Sweeney: Desire Other Alternative
Cattle/Sweeney: Suggest Change in Alternative
Duplicate comment
Editorial
Environmental Justice: Affected Environment
Environmental Justice: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
Environmental Justice: Cumulative Impacts
Fort Baker: Support Preferred Alternative
Fort Baker: Oppose Preferred Alternative
4

# of
Comments
15
1681
786
437
8
6
9
16
13
153
11
28
31
26
802
10
57
125
106
158
0
20
9
5
0
0
6
29
22
20
43
66
16
25
0
5
4

Code
FB1300
FB1400
FF1100
FF1200
FF1300
FF1400
FM1100
FM1200
FM1300
FM1400
FP1100
FP1200
FP1300
FP1400
FT1100
FT1200
FT1300
FT1400
GA1000
GA2000
GA3000
GA4000
GC1000
GC2000
GC3000
GC4000
GC4010
GC5000
GC6000
GC7000
GC8000
GC9000
GC9010
GC9020
GC9030
GC9040
GC9050
GC9060
GC9070
GC9080
GC9090

Description
Fort Baker: Desire Other Alternative
Fort Baker: Suggest Change in Alternative
Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative
Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative
Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative
Fort Mason: Support Preferred Alternative
Fort Mason: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Fort Mason: Desire Other Alternative
Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative
Fort Point: Support Preferred Alternative
Fort Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Fort Point: Desire Other Alternative
Fort Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Fort Miley: Support Preferred Alternative
Fort Miley: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Fort Miley: Desire Other Alternative
Fort Miley: Suggest Change in Alternative
Impact Analysis: General Comment
Impact Analysis: Use Trends And Assumptions
Impact Analysis: General Methodology For Establishing Impacts/Effects
Impact Analysis: Impairment Analysis-General Methodology
Off-leash dogs: Support
Off-leash dogs: Oppose
General Comment: Support current management
General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA
General Comment: Ban all dogs from GGNRA
On-leash dogs: Support
On-leash Dogs: Oppose
General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan
General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan
General Comment: Support Alternative A for All Sites
General Comment: Support Alternative B for All Sites
General Comment: Support Alternative C for All Sites
General Comment: Support Alternative D for All Sites
General Comment: Support Alternative E for All Sites
General Comment: Oppose Alternative A for All Sites
General Comment: Oppose Alternative B for All Sites
General Comment: Oppose Alternative C for All Sites
General Comment: Oppose Alternative D for All Sites
General Comment: Oppose Alternative E for All Sites
5

# of
Comments
6
5
34
287
153
159
6
8
6
19
4
1
1
10
1
2
2
3
342
77
469
1
608
204
712
178
113
251
43
348
1381
47
51
20
151
8
5
6
3
6
6

Code
GR2010
GR4000
GR5000
GR6000
HS2010
HS4000
HS4010
HS4015
HS5000
HV1100
HV1200
HV1300
HV1400
LE1100
LE1200
LE1300
LE1400
LP1000
LU1000
LU2000
LU3000
LU3010
LU3020
MB1100
MB1200
MB1300
MB1400
MH1100
MH1200
MH1300
MH1400
MP1100
MP1200
MP1300
MP1400
MR1100
MR1200
MR1300
MR1400
MT1000

Description
Geologic/Soil Resources: Affected Environment
Geologic Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Geologic Resources: Cumulative Impacts
Geologic Resources: Impairment Analyses
Health and Safety: Affected Environment
Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
Health and Safety: Impacts of Dogs vs. Humans
Health and Safety: Impacts of Dog Related Incidents
Health and Safety: Cumulative Impacts
Homestead Valley: Support Preferred Alternative
Homestead Valley: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Homestead Valley: Desire Other Alternative
Homestead Valley: Suggest Change in Alternative
Lands End: Support Preferred Alternative
Lands End: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Lands End: Desire Other Alternative
Lands End: Suggest Change in Alternative
Laws and Policies: Impact of GGNRA actions on other NPS units'
enforcement of servicewide policies and regulations
Land Use: Policies and Historical Use
Other Agencies Policies and mandates Regarding Dog Management
Land Use: Dog Parks Provided by San Francisco and Other Municipalities
Adjacent Lands: Impacts to other State or County Parks
Adjacent Lands: Impacts to other Dog Parks
Muir Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Muir Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Muir Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Muir Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Marin Headlands: Support Preferred Alternative
Marin Headlands: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Marin Headlands: Desire Other Alternative
Marin Headlands: Suggest Change in Alternative
Mori Point: Support Preferred Alternative
Mori Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Mori Point: Desire Other Alternative
Mori Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Milagra Ridge: Support Preferred Alternative
Milagra Ridge: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Milagra Ridge: Desire Other Alternative
Milagra Ridge: Suggest Change in Alternative
Miscellaneous Topics: General Comments
6

# of
Comments
28
8
2
1
157
106
87
55
1
2
4
14
2
2
8
6
13
22
119
5
96
150
191
22
95
56
43
11
23
26
16
7
22
31
31
8
6
16
12
212

Code
NL1100
NL1200
NL1300
NL1400
NL1500
OB1100
OB1200
OB1300
OB1400
OV1100
OV1200
OV1300
OV1400
PN4000
PN7000
PN8000
PO2010
PO4000
PO5000
PP1100
PP1200
PP1300
PP1400
PS1000
RB1100
RB1200
RB1300
RB1400
RF1000
SA1100
SB1100
SB1200
SB1300
SB1400
SH1100
SH1200
SH1300
SH1400
TE2010
TE4000
TE5000

Description
New Lands: Support Preferred Alternative
New Lands: Oppose Preferred Alternative
New Lands: Desire Other Alternative
New Lands: Suggest Change in Alternative
New Lands: Question Definition of New Lands
Ocean Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Ocean Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Ocean Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Ocean Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Oakwood Valley: Support Preferred Alternative
Oakwood Valley: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Oakwood Valley: Desire Other Alternative
Oakwood Valley: Suggest Change in Alternative
Purpose And Need: Park Legislation/Authority
Purpose and Need: Adequacy of EIS Purpose and Need
Purpose And Need: Objectives In Taking Action
Park Operations: Affected Environment
Park Operations: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Park Operations: Impacts
Pedro Point: Support Preferred Alternative
Pedro Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Pedro Point: Desire Other Alternative
Pedro Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Comment Regarding Public Scoping Process
Rodeo Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Rodeo Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Rodeo Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Rodeo Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
References: General Comments
Site Accessibility
Stinson Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Stinson Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Stinson Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Stinson Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Sutro Heights: Support Preferred Alternative
Sutro Heights: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Sutro Heights: Desire Other Alternative
Sutro Heights: Suggest Change in Alternative
Threatened and Endangered Species: Affected Environment
Threatened And Endangered Species: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Threatened And Endangered Species: Cumulative Impacts
7

# of
Comments
8
58
67
71
5
26
59
60
72
8
32
25
12
89
18
20
98
114
2
2
5
6
9
87
18
20
24
12
2
131
6
9
9
11
3
5
3
8
264
476
0

Code
TE6000
VR2010
VR4000
VR5000
VR6000
VU2010
VU4000
VU4005

Description
Threatened And Endangered Species: Impairment Analyses
Vegetation and Riparian Areas: Affected Environment
Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Cumulative Impacts
Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Impairment Analyses
Visitor Use and Experience: Affected Environment
Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors
who Enjoy Dogs
Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors
who Do Not Enjoy Dogs
Visitor Use and Experience: Actions of Dog Owners
Visitor Use and Experience: Concern Statement of a Dog Owner
Visitor Use and Experience: Concern Statement of Non Dog Owners
Visitor Use and Experience: Professional Dog Walkers
Visitor Use and Experience: Cumulative Impacts
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Affected Environment
Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Cumulative Impacts
Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Impairment Analyses
Water Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Water Resources: Cumulative Impacts
Water Resources: Impairment Analyses
Water Resources: Affected Environment

# of
Comments
0
73
20
0
0
354
322
156

VU4010
0
VU4015
0
VU4020
0
VU4025
340
VU5000
1
WH2010
302
WH4000
206
WH5000
0
WH6000
0
WQ4000
11
WQ5000
0
WQ6000
0
WR2010
13
Total
9517
(Note: Each comment may have multiple codes. As a result, the total number of comments may be
different than the actual comment totals)
Correspondence Signature Count by Correspondence Type
Organization Type
County Government
Business
Federal Government
Conservation/Preservation
Non-Governmental
State Government
Unaffiliated Individual
Civic Groups
Total

# of Correspondences
2
2
6
5
36
4
4789
9
4853

8

Correspondence Signature Count by Correspondence Type
Type
Web Form
Other
Park Form
Letter
E-mail
Total

# of Correspondences
3772
174
221
656
30
4853

Correspondence Distribution by State
State
AK
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
IL
IN
KY
MA
MD
MI
NC
ND
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
TN
UN
VA
WA

Percentage
0%
0%
0%
92%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%

# of Correspondences
1
1
1
4463
4
2
3
1
4
3
1
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
4
9
4
1
1
312
3
6
9

State Percentage # of Correspondences
WI
0%
2
Total
4853

10

Golden Gate NRA
Dog Management Draft Plan/DEIS
GGNRA Draft Dog Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement
Concern Response Report
Report Date: 09/07/2011
AD1100 - Alternative Development: Comments to Process
29823
NPS should supply the research used to develop the alternatives. This plan proposes
major changes to access for dog walkers. The changes are not supported by the findings
in the EIS. Impacts from noncompliance are not well documented. NPS should evaluate
baseline conditions for specific sites before changing the status.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1168
Comment ID: 193540
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not pretend to speak for all lands under the CGNRA. It
may be that some parcels of land would actually benefit from reduced or eliminated dog
access. However, the draft dog management plan proposes across-the-board cutbacks in
dog access to virtually all CGNRA land. This approach to dog management seriously
undermines the individual findings contained in the report. In other words, CGNRA
greatly loses credibility when it makes the same recommendation for so many parcels of
land that are clearly so different from one another.
Corr. ID: 2033
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193266
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Where is the research that was undertaken on the foregoing in
creating the Alternatives?
Corr. ID: 3929
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205780
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is questionable that noncompliance (of dogs going off-leash
in on-leash areas) will necessarily cause any impacts. I ask that the GGNRA reevaluate
its logic behind its arguments and look at the baseline conditions in specific areas before
coming up with a new alternative.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29825
The geographic scope of the EIS should have been broader. Some commenters state the
EIS should have addressed all lands within GGNRA. All areas addressed in the 1979 Pet
Policy should have been evaluated in the DEIS. Commenters requested the scope be
expanded to address all fire roads in and adjacent to GGNRA, especially in Marin
County. Rancho should be evaluated with a balanced set of alternatives in the EIS.
Organization: Cayuga Improvement Association
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3786
Comment ID: 205539
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I was also disappointed that areas like the Tennessee
Valley trail in Marin were left out of the report. I was told this was because dogs
are not currently allowed there. All GGNRA properties should have been in the
report. The report should have been written describing how dogs are managed on
ALL GGNRA property. The report should reflect the entire scope of the GGNRA
property and truly reflect how many areas do and to not allow dogs. When you
exclude an area you are exaggerating how much of the total acreage is open to dogs
now and how much of a change you are making
Corr. ID: 3991
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207412
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

11

AD1100‐ Alternative Development: Comments to Process
Representative Quote: The fire roads listed above are 12 feet wide on average,
providing plenty of room for multiple use. Dogs on a 6 foot leash will not be
causing damage to wildlife or native habitat, or disturbing other users. These fire
roads are all adjacent to the freeway and/or the communities of Southern Marin.
They are not in the heart of the Headlands. They can all be accessed from outside
the GGNRA reducing auto traffic into the GGNRA.
There has been little or no discussion of on-leash access for dogs in the GGNRA,
the focus of concern has been off-leash / voice control use. For those of us who
hike long distances with our dogs, on-leash access is important. As the Baby
Boomers age, having a dog along on-leash on a long hike is an issue of safety and
ensures that we will continue to exercise.
Corr. ID: 3991
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207411
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I request the NPS consider an Alternative that would allow
dogs on-leash on the fire roads that run out of the GGNRA and/or border the
boundaries between the GGNRA and the communities that are adjacent to the
GGNRA. The fire roads and the two trails listed below would allow a person with a
dog on-leash to walk in the GGNRA in Marin from the southern end of Sausalito
on the fire roads that are near the eastern boundary of the GGNRA north to Marin
City and Tam Valley, and then to walk west along the fire roads near the northern
boundary of the GGNRA to Muir Beach.
- The GGNRA shares a border with Sausalito, Mill Valley, Muir Beach and
unincorporated Marin County land including Marin City and Tam Valley. The fire
roads that connect the GGNRA to these communities and the fire roads that run
near the boundaries of the GGNRA with these communities should be accessible to
the public walking with their dogs on-leash.
- The fire roads that lead from the neighboring communities into the GGNRA and
run adjacent to them are, from Muir Beach in the north to Sausalito in the south:
- Coastal Trail from Muir Beach to Coastal Fire Road to Coyote Ridge Trail (a fire
road) to Miwok Trail (a fire road).
- Miwok Trail from Highway 1 to Coyote Ridge Trail.
- Miwok Trail from Tennessee Valley Road to Coyote Ridge Trail.
- Marin Drive from Tam Valley to the Miwok Trail.
- County View Road from Tam Valley to the Miwok Trail.
- Tennessee Valley Road (or the adjacent Rhubarb Trail (Marin County trail)) to
Oakwood Valley Fire Road.
- Oakwood Valley Fire Road from Tennessee Valley Road to Alta Trail (a fire
road).
- Alta Trail from Donahue Avenue in Marin City to Rodeo Valley Trail.
- Pacheco Fire Road from Marin City to Alta Trail.
- Orchard Fire Road from Marin City to Alta Trail.
- Rodeo Avenue from Highway 101 to Alta Trail.
12

AD1100‐ Alternative Development: Comments to Process

- We are requesting on-leash access to two trails because they provide access to 2
of the fire roads listed above:
- The Morning Sun Trail that was built to provide access from Sausalito to the
GGNRA Headlands; it goes from the Spencer Ave bus-pad on the west side of 101
up to Alta Trail.
- The SCA trail that runs parallel to Wolfback Ridge Road and about 20 feet below
it. This trail connects Alta Trail with the fire road (this one is un-named) that goes
over the 101 tunnel and then back into Sausalito (it comes out on Hecht Avenue).
Corr. ID: 4005
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206272
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It has been posited that only three of the areas in the 1979
Pet Policy for Marin County were
Discussed by the Reg Neg committee. Further, few of the areas included in the
1979 Pet Policy
for Marin are included for consideration in the Draft Plan/DEIS alternatives for
Marin. This
appears to be a serious oversight in my view.

29827
Commenters were concerned about the alternative development process. A no dog
alternative should have been included to comply with NEPA. The ROLA
certification program should not have been eliminated due to cost concerns.
Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4070
Comment ID: 207709
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Chapter 2 Alternatives
14)Alternative Elements Eliminated from Further Analysis-Pg. 93, First whole
paragraph, "This program was cost prohibitive and would have required substantial
park staff time" Cost is not an acceptable reason for eliminating an alternative. If
this type of management is too costly than the park service should not allow the
activity in the first place.
Corr. ID: 4070
Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207676
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1)Why wasn't a global no dog alternative analyzed in the
DEIS? It may not be preferred among most users, but it would satisfy the
requirements under NEPA and show a good comparison of how excluding a certain
use would socially affect visitors.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29833
NPS should have involved local citizens and citizen groups more in the
development of the plan.
Corr. ID: 4013
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206813
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Perhaps the most striking feature about the proposed
DDMP was the fact that local citizens (including dog owners) were not able to
participate in regulation drafting. By leaving out & not actively working with the
local public population, the NPS created a DDMP that ignores the needs of very
people who most often use the GGNRA resources. The DDMP does include a
background (though biased) on the construction of a dog management/EIS plan.
13

AD1100‐ Alternative Development: Comments to Process
The NPS efforts in 2004- 2006 to implement the Negotiating Rulemaking act and
form a "neutral party" (the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee) to help draft a dog
management plan was by far the best effort to include the local public in design
regulation. The NRC actually contained representatives from a variety of different
interest groups. The DDMP states that the NRC was able to reach consensus "on
nine guiding principles, guidelines for commercial dog walking, and a site-specific
alternative for Oakwood Valley (Marin County)." The NRC failed to reach
consensus of other issues - "special regulation for dog management at GGNRA".
Corr. ID: 4262
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209147
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I was upset to see that GGNRA has decided, without
inputs from the local
community (other than one meeting at Farallone View where the majority of
the people spoke overwhelmingly in favor of allowing dog access), to ban
all dogs from the property. In my opinion, this is not only unjust to
the local community and doesn't support the established mixed use, but is
not founded on research or analysis.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

31917
Commenters questioned what was used to develop the alternatives, and felt that the
methods and justifications should be provided in more detail.
Corr. ID: 4666
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209160
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternatives Arbitrary; Alternative Development Process
flawed, not disclosed
This section beginning on p. 45 is named the "alternative development process"
however no process is identified and no rationale is presented for why the
alternatives were developed the way they were. No resource protection priorities or
use conflict goals were identified for the areas, which is necessary to assess the
ability of the alternative to meet the goals in a manner that does not unnecessarily
infringe on recreational uses without providing measurable benefit. Much more
detail is needed for disclosing the alternatives development rationale and process,
especially since no clear logic is apparent in the development of the alternatives - it
appears very arbitrary. General themes were used to name the alternatives (e.g.
multiple use, most protective, etc.) but no information is provided as to how this
theme is accomplished for the particular resources and user conflicts that are
occurring in that park unit. The DEIS only states that the internal NEPA team
discussed strategies and management goals. It states that there was an internal sitespecific analysis (p. 46) that guided the development of alternatives, but this
information is not included in the document, so is not available to the public. We
are told on page 46 that Chapter 2 provides an overview of how the analysis of
data, expert opinion, and best professional judgment was applied to develop
management alternatives, but no such overview is included. Chapter 2 simply states
that the team's internal discussions resulted in the formation of alternatives
presented.

AL1000 - Suggest New Alternative Elements
Concern ID: 29682
CONCERN Number of Dogs per Walker - The park should limit the number of dogs per walker to three with
STATEMENT:no exceptions. Commenters find it hard to believe that one person can handle more than 3 dogs.
Also, visitors should not be allowed to stop and congregate.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
79
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
14

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
ID:
223780
Representative Quote: 5. One owner should be limited to 3 dogs on leash and if in an off leash
area, one dog off leash.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
285
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181009
Representative Quote: Limit dog walkers and the number of dogs allowed per person. When I
see a walker with 10 dogs, 4 on leash, 6 off, I know there will be problems.
Corr. ID: Organization: GGNP Conservancy & Golden Gate Audubon Society
1026
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191801
Representative Quote: 2.) There should be a limit of 3 dogs per person. It is not appropriate for
the Park Service to create commercial permits for commercial/professional dog walkers. Also, it
is unlikely that most visitors with dogs will be able to keep control of more than 3 dogs at one
time.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1714
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191154
Representative Quote: We needs some off leash dog walking areas + real hiking areas not Mill
Valley dogs parks.
In addition, I think limiting dogs in one area like dog walkers gathering should be stopped. I
believe this is part of the problem when 3 dog walkers gather to chat you will see 18-21 dogs
which is intimidating to some people. 6-8 dogs per dog walker is great but no gathering will
probably alleviate the problems.
So in summary, please keep real hiking trails + beaches available for off leash dogs + limit
gathering of dogs.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2353
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195377
Representative Quote: I would like to see the NPS adopt the preferred alternative for all others
areas under consideration as well, with one exception: there should be no exceptions to the three
dogs per person limit, for either commercial or individual dog walkers, in the ROLAs. One
person cannot reasonably be expected to keep more than three dogs under sight and voice control;
allowing this even by permit is likely to cause the ROLAs to be revoked under the compliance
procedures outlined in the draft document. It would probably be simpler to maintain the three-dog
limit throughout the dog-walking areas, rather than allowing six dogs in the on-leash areas and
only three in the ROLAs, but staff knows much better than I whether that is the case.
Concern ID: 29683
CONCERN Fees - Commenters suggest requiring a daily. monthly, or annual dog walking fee at the park. Fee
STATEMENT:costs could cover maintenance or restoration of the area.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
279
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
15

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
ID:
180933
Representative Quote: I also request that you consider a dog license system with a reasonable
annual fee that would allow dogs full use of the park and go into a fund used for restoration and
mitigating adverse impacts.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
339
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181110
Representative Quote: We pay enough taxes here to be able to enjoy the beautiful beaches and
woods of SF with our canine companions.
That said, if this is not feasible, I would propose a fee and registration for dogs to run offleash
and frequent certain areas. This could allow regulation of which dogs are allowed to be offleash
and would bring revenue to the city to care for any dog related expenses.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
378
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181166
Representative Quote: Why ban dogs from being off-leash. Like most government policy, it
comes down to money. So why not require a usage fee for these areas. I'm sure most dog owners
would be willing to pay $15/ dog annually to use these areas. Just think, with 100,000+ registered
dogs in SF alone, the revenue that would be generated to fill your pockets
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1483
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223789
Representative Quote: 4. Add a fee onto dog licensure to pay for these services.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1726
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191180
Representative Quote: I support option A for allowing off leash dogs: the options listed in the
executive summary do not includ a proposal to license dog owner for a fee to walk their dogs of
leash. I do support limiting commercial dog walkers to 3 dogs. Or a maximum of 6 dogs
Concern ID: 29684
CONCERN Muzzles - Commenters suggest requiring muzzles on dogs, specifically those being walked offSTATEMENT:leash. This would protect visitor safety.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
79
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223769
Representative Quote: 2. All dogs should be muzzled everywhere. In particular if they are off
leash.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
631
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
182496
16

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
Representative Quote: If the GGNRA does decide to keep off leash areas, they should be
muzzle requirements that are enforced. The maximum fine for breaking leash rules or muzzle
rules should be $1000 (minimum$200).
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
727
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
182735
Representative Quote: I support the alternatives that are the most protective to the wildlife and
for human safety. I have human safety concerns about dogs off leash. I am one of the many
victims of dog bites. I want to see on leash requirement as well as muzzle requirments
everywhere for this reason. No human should be banned from a part of the park because
dangerous animals are allowed to run free.
Concern ID: 29685
CONCERN Aggressive Dogs - Aggressive dogs including those breeds such as pit bulls that are considered
STATEMENT:aggressive should not be allowed at the park. If these dogs are not banned, they should be
required to always be on-leash.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
79
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223771
Representative Quote: 4. Pit bulls and other breeds that are bred to be aggressive should not be
allowed in the park.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
288
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181015
Representative Quote: Look at places like Pt. Isabel, where signs clearly state that aggressive
dogs must be on leash. They are on leash, and if not, they get reported and don't come back. It
works.
Concern ID: 29686
CONCERN Fencing - Commenters suggest using fences/barriers/vegetation and possibly entrance gates to
STATEMENT:keep off-leash dogs in certain areas and away from sensitive resources.
For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29444 (CF1100), Comment 210027.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
441
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181693
Representative Quote: Thank you for your work on this DEIS. I support the proposed
alternative, with one major exception:
I am very disappointed that the proposed alternative does not require that all areas for off leash
dogs be fenced or otherwise physically restricted. The foremost duty of the National Park Service
in all units is to protect its units' resources. Off leash dogs that are not enclosed by physical
barriers, whether natural or man-made, pose a serious threat to those resources. Dogs do not
recognize human boundaries if those boundaries are not physically restricted, and off leash dogs
will wander outside them. Once they do, there is a strong chance that they will negatively impact
the park resources. Physically restricting off leash dog areas is the only way to ensure that dogs
will not run off leash where they will negatively impact people, wildlife, and even leashed dogs
17

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
472
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181761
Representative Quote: After having many encounters with off leash, poorly socialized dogs, my
belief is that dogs should be on a leash anytime the dog is not on the dog owners property or in a
dog park designed for running dogs off leash. They should not be off leash in common areas
where other humans are.
If the GGNRA is going to allow dogs to run in some areas, I think there should be a fence
designating where the dogs are allowed off leash as most dog owners "stretch" the boundries.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
928
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191385
Representative Quote: All off-leash dog areas should be fenced or clearly delimited for the
protection of other park visitors and dogs. Park visitors should be given a choice about whether
they will interact with off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: Organization: Davis Dog Owners Group
2439
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200770
Representative Quote: I believe that dogs should NOT be allowed off leash in any area where
wildlife can be impacted -- and this seems to be the case in most areas of Golden Gate Park. If
there is any way you can barricade off a few acres to make, as it were, a marine dog park,
possibly where human recreational activity has already displaced the wildlife, I would be grateful.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2663
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195436
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my opinion that all off-leash areas should be
enclosed to protect park users, wildlife, and other dogs. Simply, limit off-leash recreation to areas
where it will not have negative impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats.
Corr. ID: Organization: Sierra Club et al
2739
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195595
Representative Quote: Require all off-leash areas to be enclosed to protect park users, wildlife,
and other dogs. This solution is perfectly all right for most if not all dog owners. They are grateful
that their dogs are enclosed and protected as well. By Limiting off-leash recreation to areas where
it will not have negative impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats, this will allow delicate
wildlife (hatchlings etc) to be protected during the time when they are small and vulnerable.
Corr. ID: Organization: ASPCA
3077
CommentOrganization Type: Non-Governmental
ID:
201290
Representative Quote: On behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (ASPCA) our organization has concerns about the Draft Dog Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement, and in particular the preferred alternative that is set forth in this
plan.
18

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
The preferred alternative includes only one fully enclosed off-leash dog play area (or as referred
to in the plan, a "regulated off-leash area"). This sole fully enclosed off-leash dog play area in the
preferred alternative was the product of a multi-year negotiated rulemaking process between offleash advocates, environmentalists, and other user groups. Yet despite this being the sole point of
consensus across these diverse groups, the National Park Service has not attempted to provide
additional enclosed off-leash play areas anywhere else in the GGNRA: all the remaining areas
proposed for off-leash dog play are not enclosed.
The ASPCA supports the development of dog parks. However, we believe it is imperative to have
secure fencing and gates. It is also best if the park enclosure incorporates double gates or an
interior "holding pen" at the entrance, so people and their dogs can enter and exit without
accidentally letting other dogs slip out of the park.
In the absence of physical barriers around an off-leash dog play areas, dogs may be lost, injured
or killed. This is why a cornerstone of good off-leash park design is to enclose the area: not
merely for the protection of other users, but also for the safety of our dogs. As mentioned in the
proposed plan, dogs continue to be lost, injured or killed at the GGNRA because the off-leash
areas at the Park presently are not enclosed. A simple enclosure would remedy this problem,
while ensuring that all park users get to choose the kind of experience they desire by choosing to
either enter, or not, these fully enclosed areas.
Outside of these enclosed areas, our organization supports the enforcement of leash laws in
general because such laws provide important safeguards for people, our pets, wildlife, and parks.
Enforcement of the National Park System's leash law and the creation of enclosed off leash play
areas for dogs would insure dogs have reasonable access to the Park without jeopardizing the
safety of anyone.
Corr. ID: Organization: Wild Equity Institute
3759
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
228505
Representative Quote: The Park Service seems to believe that only 6-foot high chain-link
fences, perhaps with barbed-wire along the top, are the only physical enclosure that can be placed
around off-leash dog parks. But this is far from the case. Off-leash dog parks can have a variety
of physical barriers, including features from the natural environment. Indeed, a fully-enclosed
off-leash dog park proposal for Lake Merritt included butterfly garden draped around the
enclosure. At it' core, this argument is simply a design problem, not a problem that is so
intractable that it is justify to exclude from alternatives analysis. If an area is inappropriate for a
physical barrier, than it is not an acceptable place to allow dogs to roam off-leash.
Corr. ID: Corr. ID: 3759
3759
CommentComment ID: 204627
ID:
204627
Representative Quote: Ensuring that dog play areas are safe is not rocket science: it is a simple
design problem with a basic, widely adopted solution. Safe off-leash dog play areas must be
fully-enclosed with a physical barrier-and preferably all entry and exit points double-gated-to
ensure the safety of park users and protect park resources.
Enclosed off-leash dog play areas ensure that our dogs do not fall off cliffs, run into traffic, or are
lost while visiting the GGNRA; they ensure, when properly located, that wildlife will not be
harmed or harassed by dogs; and they empower park visitors, giving them the power to choose if
and when to have off-leash dog experiences by entering an enclosed area, rather than having the
experience imposed upon them whenever they visit the GGNRA.
Ensuring that dog play areas are safe is not rocket science: it is a simple design problem with a
basic, widely adopted solution. Safe off-leash dog play areas must be fully-enclosed with a
physical barrier-and preferably all entry and exit points double-gated-to ensure the safety of park
users and protect park resources.
19

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements

Enclosed off-leash dog play areas ensure that our dogs do not fall off cliffs, run into traffic, or are
lost while visiting the GGNRA; they ensure, when properly located, that wildlife will not be
harmed or harassed by dogs; and they empower park visitors, giving them the power to choose if
and when to have off-leash dog experiences by entering an enclosed area, rather than having the
experience imposed upon them whenever they visit the GGNRA.
And perhaps most importantly, enclosed areas are solidly grounded in the non-impairment
mandate that governs the National Park System.
Corr. ID: Organization: Wild Equity Institute
3759
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
204635
Representative Quote: For all of these reasons, the Wild Equity Institute urges the GGNRA to
reject the preferred alternative and, in its place, put-forward a pet management plan that encloses
any off-leash dog play area that is permitted under the plan. If enclosures are inappropriate in a
specific area, than so is an off-leash dog play area, and alternative dog recreation opportunities,
such as on-leash walking, should be considered
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4592
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223782
Representative Quote: 2) Rather than restrictions to protect potentially sensitive areas, consider
landscape management. For example, create natural barriers by planting a border of coyote bush.
The south end of Fort Funston has introduced coyote bush (the higher, shrub-like variety) which
effectively discourages dogs and visitors from entering some areas.
Concern ID: 29687
CONCERN Loop Trails - Commenters suggest adding more loop trails both on-leash and off-leash.
STATEMENT:
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
183
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
182295
Representative Quote: Of particular disappointment is the fact that many of the trails designated
for on- or off-leash walking do not connect or do not create loops. It would be better to have a
designated series of trails from a centralized starting point (e.g. Rodeo Beach or Donahue) that
can provide owners with a variety of distances and terrain to walk their dogs. I urge you to
reassess the proposed dog-friendly trails.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1632
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223784
Representative Quote: Ensure that all off-leash trails provide a continuous round-trip hike,
eliminating arbitrary and confusing boundaries. E.g. Homestead Valley Land Trust trails should
segue into GGNRA trails, Oakwood Valley should provide a sensible loop.
Protect wildlife when it needs protecting.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1709
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
20

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
191140
Representative Quote: 3) We have so few trails as it is. Why restrict them further. It would be
nice to see some trails extended so you can go from point A to point B (ex Rodeo Beach to
Tennessee Valley) or in a loop (Oak Valley Trail). Instead the trails seem to go from Point A up
and back.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1930
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
192269
Representative Quote: Suggest re-evaluation of all proposed dog areas to have a loop trail. For
instance, Pedro Point Headlands has one small strip near the highway - all Pedro Pt. residents (or
most) would need to drive to walk their dogs on the legal area? Not good for the earth! Please
expand on-leash trails in Pedro Point & elsewhere.
Suggest re-evaluation of all proposed dog areas to have a loop trail. For instance, Pedro Point
Headlands has one small strip near the highway - all Pedro Pt. residents (or most) would need to
drive to walk their dogs on the legal area? Not good for the earth! Please expand on-leash trails in
Pedro Point & elsewhere. Thx.
Expand dog walking areas on San Mateo County lands. There is not enough areas available.
Restrict dog walking in and around wildlife habitats. For San Mateo County, and cities - add dog
parks that are owned and managed by municipalities where they are located.
Corr. ID: Organization: 3rd Supervisorial District of the County of Marin
3934
CommentOrganization Type: County Government
ID:
205847
Representative Quote: 1. Continuous trail loops will encourage more active engagement with
the environment while exercising. Many people, especially those who are aging, walk their dogs
on trails such as this as their main exercise. We are all working towards similar goals of a
healthier and more vibrant community and loop trails would serve those goals
Concern ID: 29688
CONCERN Enforcement - Instead of reducing areas for dog walking, monitoring or enforcement of the
STATEMENT:existing and proposed rules/regulations is needed at the park. Enforcement should include issuing
more citations and fines or even banning those that continue to be non-compliant with
regulations. Fines should increase with each violation one person receives. Volunteers should be
allowed to issue citations or should be on site to monitor and call enforcement when needed. In
addition, a tip line or reporting system should be established for visitor's to report offenders.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
63
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181807
Representative Quote: Any plan that includes possible increased interaction, (ie enforcement),
between park officials and dogs MUST include a comprehensive training plan and rules of
engagement. This MUST include when it is acceptable to use lethal force versus pepper
spray/mace or some other solution.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
79
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181843
Representative Quote: 1. The existing laws should be enforced and dog walkers with dogs off
21

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
leash should be ticketed.
Corr. ID: Organization: California State University, Sacramento
97
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181927
Representative Quote: This plan removes a recreation opportunity (off-leash dog use) from the
spectrum of offerings at GGNRA and this approach is overly restrictable and regrettable,
particularly as dogs are becoming more and more common as companions, and norms for
acceptable dog behavior are improving.I would simply suggest that the plan be implemented with
triggers for increased restrictions (e.g. reports of incidents/injuries) similar to the Limits of
Acceptable Change planning process.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
307
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181051
Representative Quote: I think you can do this without the extreme and rash measures of banning
off-leash access. I favor fines and expulsion of owners that abuse the rights of others. I don't feel
that the park service should be abusing the rights of compliant dog owners and tax payers that use
the park off-leash and respectfully.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
631
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223781
Representative Quote: There should also be a fine for harrassment of people who do not like
their off leash dogs in on leash/no dog areas. This maximum fine for breaking leash rules and
harassment should be $5,000 (minimum $500.)
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
694
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
182680
Representative Quote: The current leash laws and the proposed leash laws must be enforced.
Park police should ticket any dog walker with a dog off leash. Also, civilians will call to report
leash violations and the violators should get heavy fines. These fines should increase (double)
with each violation. First violation $50, second $100, third $200, fourth $400, fifth $800, sixth
$1600, seventh - 2 year ban from the park and $10,000 fine for each violation of this ban.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
753
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
185431
Representative Quote: b) implement a citation fee for dog owners not carrying the permit,
exceeding dogs per person ratio, and valid dog tags (rabies) and licenses for county of residence.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
969
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191648
Representative Quote: I support dogs on leash everywhere in the GGNRA. Dogs should not be
allowed to disturb wildlife in their natural habitat. Every time I go into the GGNRA, I see dogs
off leash and destroying the park. In order to enforce these rules, volunteers should be utilized to
give offenders tickets. If you decide that it is not appropriate for volunteers to actually give the
tickets, they can volunteer to monitor the GGNRA and call the park police to report offenders.
22

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
Then the park police would give the tickets.
Corr. ID: Organization: GGNP Conservancy & Golden Gate Audubon Society
1026
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223786
Representative Quote: 3.) Leash and voice control requirements must be strictly enforced
throughout the life of the policy. Otherwise proposed on-leash areas will become off-leash areas,
as has already happened under the old rules.
Corr. ID: Organization: Pacifica Beach Coalition
1058
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
192159
Representative Quote: I am completely opposed to the plan to ban dogs from some of the
GGNRA sites and require leashes on others. I am for ticketing irresponsible dog owners who do
not pick up their litter or who allow their dogs to chase birds or animals in the parks.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1335
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195108
Representative Quote: Existing Park Rangers could easily enforce already existing rules such as
picking up pet litter or no chasing of birds. These enforcement actions are all that are needed to
ensure responsible dog walking and minimal impact on natural resources and other park visitors
from off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1483
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223790
Representative Quote: 5. Use ticketing fees to deter irresponsible behavior. Put fees towards
management.
6. Establish a complaint line.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1850
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223797
Representative Quote: ii. Provide a tip hot line for dog walkers to call in to report those chronic
offenders in terms of leaving pet waste, disturbing habitat and wildlife, etc. The Park Service
personnel would be better able to focus efforts on dealing with chronic offenders.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1854
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200599
Representative Quote: The solution here is not limiting places people can walk their dogs offleash, but rather imposing stricter penalties on people who don't control their dogs and cause
injury to other people, regardless of whether they are in the GGNRA or not.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1987
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
193166
23

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
Representative Quote: In Rocky Mt. National Park, Volunteer Rangers are stationed near
entrances to provide maps of dog-friendly areas. Those who ignore the rules are informed that a
ranger will be called if rules are ignored
Corr. ID: Organization: SF DOG, Save McLaren Park
3733
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
204580
Representative Quote: Enforcement of already existing regulations should target irresponsible
dog owners who create the few problems documented by the GGNRA, while allowing
responsible dog owners to continue
their traditional off-leash recreation without harassment.
Corr. ID: Organization: Wild Equity Institute
3815
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
226965
Representative Quote: Repeat dog rule offenders should always be cited and chronic offender's
fines should increase with the number and severity of the offense.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
3906
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
205562
Representative Quote: These are my personal comments and observations regarding this plan:
wilderness protection and conservation is important, but a few irresponsible pet owners should
not spoil the rights and experiences of all dog owners. perhaps the parks could institute a
volunteer "watch dog" group?
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4043
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
207320
Representative Quote: Instead better compliance could be achieved through enforcement of the
rules already in place. Park rangers should cite owners who do not exhibit voice control of their
animal, and also those who do not clean up their dog's excrement. With the policies in place and
the proper enforcement, there will be no actual or perceived threat to the natural habitats the
GGNRA consist of.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4372
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
209538
Representative Quote: I was responsible for the signs at Aquatic Park that state No Dogs on
Beach. Yet when seeing the signs many continue to off leash their dogs onto the beach. I have
never witness proper enforcement or the issuing of citations. A telephone number to call when
violations occur is absent from all postings. A suggestion is to have a visible number for reporting
dogs on the beach.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4584
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
210021
Representative Quote: A simple and effective reporting system should be established. The dog
management plan should include a means by which park visitors can easily and effectively report
non¬compliant behavior. Park visitors are sometimes reluctant to report observed violations due
24

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
to the time involved in making the report. A public reporting system should be incorporated into
the plan that will be user friendly and workable. Such a system should require only a few
moments of time and be an effective documentation of the violation.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4592
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
210005
Representative Quote: Suggestions for management of off-leash recreation
1) Enforcement of the existing regulations. There are already regulations against pet litter,
aggressive behavior, etc. I have rarely seen a ranger on the trails at Fort Funston, and never seen
anyone get a citation for dog litter. It's almost as if the GGNRA has intentionally let misbehavior
occur so that they will have an excuse to get rid of dogs.
Concern ID: 29690
CONCERN Dog Size - Commenters suggest having on-leash and off-leash areas for small dogs separate from
STATEMENT:those areas containing large dogs. In addition, intact dogs should be required to be on-leash at all
times.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
202
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
180621
Representative Quote: The only problems I see are with dogs who have not been spayed or
neutered. Perhaps a less restrictive alternative would be to require that all intact dogs be on leash
on GGNRA property.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
236
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
180767
Representative Quote: PLEASE like other places in the bay area and thruout the country,
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, reserve some off leash spaces for SMALL dogs only and have them
enclosed. There is no such area in san francisco.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
421
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181604
Representative Quote: Please consider an enclosed off-leash dog area, ideally with large and
small dog sections, and keep the remainder of the park areas for on-leash use only. Sadly the
actions of the few make off-leash dog use incompatible with high density mixed uses; no one
should have fear of using the park. Yes the number of incidents is small statistically, but their
impact and the cost of enforcement is great.
Concern ID: 29691
CONCERN Service Dogs -The park should require service dogs to be registered with the park and to wear a
STATEMENT:jacket or leash that identified the service dog.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1493
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191301
Representative Quote: Over the last few months I have had several encounters with able-bodied
25

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
hikers on the main Tennessee Valley trail that claimed that their pets were "service animals" or
therapy dogs and therefore, permitted on the trail. I am aware that service animals exist for
disabilities other than visual or hearing impairment. However, there seems to be no system to
prevent persons from abusing the privilege and claiming that any old mutt is a "service animal."
Disabled persons requesting special parking accommodations are required to register with the
DMV after obtaining written verification of need from their physician. They must then display
the special blue hangtag to utilize the special parking areas. It seems that a similar system of
registration with physician verified need could be adapted for service animals. Once registered,
the animal could wear a special jacket or leash that clearly identifies the animal as a service
animal. Such identification of these animals would relieve the disabled person from the burden of
having to justify the presence of their dog in a restricted area. It would also prevent non-disabled
dog owners from thinking that it really is ok to have their pet there despite what the signs say.
Please consider implementation of a program to register and identify service animals in the
GGNRA. If that is not possible, then consider posting signage defining acceptable service
animals (ADA definition) and that it is illegal to misrepresent an animal as a service animal
Corr. ID: Organization: Wild Equity Institute
3815
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
226963
Representative Quote: There are a surprising number of fraudulent representations of dogs as
"Service Dogs"
Concern ID: 29692
CONCERN Dog Waste - Commenters suggest that the park provide dog waste bags, compost areas, and a
STATEMENT:means to convert dog waste to methane energy.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1324
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195071
Representative Quote: If the rules and expectations are clearly posted and enforced, I do not
think there will be any big problems. As a suggestion, the Park Service may want to consider
having trash cans and plastic doggie mitts available for pet owners to use to pick up after their
dogs. San Rafael provides this service and I never see any dog "droppings" on the streets or in the
grass at the parks where these mitts are available.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1483
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223787
Representative Quote: 2. Require and enforce people to clean up after their dogs.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1696
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191111
Representative Quote: People should be held responsible to the rules that already exist
regarding picking up poop. Perhaps supplying more bags - biodegradable would be best - & more
can would help.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2096
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
26

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
ID:
193337
Representative Quote: (1) Dog "Poops" in compostable bags
(2) Dispose in containers which will convert to methane = energy for power - i.e. -light posts, etc.
(as done in dog park in Boston!)
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2101
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
193348
Representative Quote: Provide public compostable poop bags in Park Areas.
Concern ID: 29693
CONCERN Leash Type - Commenters stated that the park should require dog walkers to carry a leash with
STATEMENT:them at all times even when walking in a ROLA. Commenters also suggested the use of
electronic leashes, remote training collars, and 12-foot leashes be allowed in lieu of the 6-foot
leash.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
458
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181732
Representative Quote: Consider the leashes bring their own risks for mixed use (tripping,
falling, etc) and consider technological solutions as part of this. I urge you to consider remote
training collars for dogs as the equivalent of an electronic collar that can achieve the benefits of
control but allow greater freedom of movement for dogs and avoid some of the risks of leashes
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1483
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191258
Representative Quote: Here are several alternative solutions to closing trails and beaches. They
are less expensive solutions for land management and people management:
1. Require and enforce people to CARRY leashes for their dogs. Monitor for voice control.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1935
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
192604
Representative Quote: - Consider electronic leash for on-leash areas.
-The same number of dogs in less space is a public danger
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4318
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
209423
Representative Quote: My suggestion is that the GGNRA require all dogs to be on-leash, but
that you request a waiver from the National Park Service from the current six foot leash
requirement, and allow dogs to be on leashes up to 12 feet long, to allow more freedom to dog
owners and their pets. A 12 foot leash permits a dog to run a little while still being under control
by their owner. I also believe that the GGNRA should designate or develop two or more fenced
off-leash dog areas on GGNRA lands in Marin County and in San Francisco, much like other
27

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
jurisdictions, so owners who want to run their dogs off-leash can do so in these areas. Examples
of these fenced off-leash dog areas exist in Golden Gate Park and in my own town of Alameda.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4380
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
209544
Representative Quote: The GGNRA could develop partnerships with community, animal
welfare, and conservation organizations to make this work. These partner groups could bring
additional resources to limited federal resources. For example, in partnership with dog-associated
businesses, perhaps it would be possible to create an annual permit system that includes modest
education requirements in order for regular off-leash dog use. I could see that something like this
could generate revenue for the National Park Service or the Golden Gate Parks Conservancy.
Concern ID: 29694
CONCERN Certification/Tag System - Commenters suggested establishing a certification that would allow
STATEMENT:visitors to show that they can control their dogs under voice and sight control. Visitors proving
they have control over their dogs would receive a voice control tag to attach to the dog's collar
which would allow them ROLA access. Training classes should be available to teach dogs how to
behave within the park. This would eliminate unruly dogs at the park.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
113
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181982
Representative Quote: I just wanted to request that you please allow for some beach access for
dogs off leash.Another though I had was - perhaps you could partner w/ a dog trainer that could
give classes to teach dog (and person) how to act responsible and considerate in the park. &
maybe give certificates that would extend the off leash area for those specific certified dogs &
person.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
377
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181163
Representative Quote: I am fully supportive of an off-leash licensing program which could be
run by animal control. Off leash licenses could be given to responsible dog owners. Responsible
dog owners do the following: 1)license their dogs. 2) Have their dogs take all the required shots.
3)Have their dogs complete a certified (could be by animal control) obedience program. 4)Spay
their dogs. 5) Dog owners could be required to carry liability insurance for their dogs. 7) Of
course responsible dog owners pick up their dog waste. 6) Dog owners would have to pay a fee to
NPS for the privelege of walking dogs off leash. Those who have the license to walk off leash
would have to carry proof of such licensing at all times.
I think this would reward responsible dog owners.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
407
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181573
Representative Quote: Instead of punishing the dogs that do behave on the trails why not set up
a special license thru the Audubon Society or Humane Society. Dog owners could pay a small fee
for a tag after they can prove their dog is under control by voice command. Dogs that can't pass
have to be leashed.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
658
28

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
181513
Representative Quote: We urge that you require all dogs in areas where they are not explicitly
allowed to be off-leash, to be always on-leash. If some dog owners are insistent that their animals
can be fully controlled by voice commends, they should be required to demonstrate this by
testing, under realistic conditions. (The owners of dogs should bear the full cost of the tests, and
dogs that pass should be required to carry some form of identification, renewable annually for a
fee.) The going-in assumption should be that voice-control does not work unless contrary proof is
provided.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
753
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223798
Representative Quote: c) implement a voice control recall policy based on the honor system.
(dog owners watch a short video online or at a local library, nps kiosk, station, city hall portraying
voice control protocols). owners watch the video, agree that their dog abides by the recall system
protocol, and pays annual fee (video will have ot be watch annually before registration can be
completed and fees paid) . dogs would be required to wear a voice control tag in addition to
rabies and animal license or a citation, warning or actual will be given. boulder, colorado has a
voice control/recall video and the program has been successful.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
913
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191323
Representative Quote: Another option would be to enforce dog licensing, and even charging an
additional fee for screening dogs'/owners' behavior before issuing a "national park license", which
could be required for use of these areas. I am a dog trainer and a psychiatrist and have been
interested in developing guidelines for licensing service animals (particularly the largely
unregulated "psychiatric service animal"). Something like this would also make sense for
National Park use, charging a fee for a training session that would notify the dog owners of the
rules and help ensure that they are followed, which would also weed out a lot of the destructive
dogs and dog owners, who would be ticketed if they did not have their "national park license".
Corr. ID: Organization: Self
1445
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
199685
Representative Quote: I think dog walkers need to be licensed and required to attend classes on
how to manage dogs in large packs. Limiting dog walkers to no more than 4 dogs would be a
good first step plus requiring licenses and permits.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1632
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200215
Representative Quote: My principal source of exercise is walking my dogs off leash twice a
day, so I have a very strong vested interest in retaining access to off-leash fire roads and trails. I
am also, of course, seriously interested in maintaining the habitat of wildlife and the integrity of
the environment.
Here are my recommendations:
Establish a "Voice and Sight" program that is in place in Boulder, CO, to give special
identification and licensing to dogs that are under voice control.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
29

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
1850
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
192067
Representative Quote: Comment: The Compliance-Based Management Strategy should be
removed from the DEIS. It should be replaced with a strategy that rewards responsible dog
walkers and bans irresponsible dog walkers, as follows:
i. Set up a permit/color tag system that would be partnered with local Animal Care and Control
Departments. Dogs that have licenses from local ACC could be issued a permit, renewable
annually, to walk in GGNRA sites. A small fee could be charged to help pay for processing. This
would help with getting dogs licensed locally and support GGNRA efforts as well. A brightly
colored collar tag for dog and ID for owner could be provided and required for visits to GGNRA.
Only dogs/dog walkers with these permits would be able to use off leash play areas, as well as on
leash areas. Dog walkers/dogs visiting for one day could obtain one day only permit from Gift
Shops and Ranger Stations with different color tag allowing them on leash only access to
GGNRA sites. Failure to observe restrictions would result in loss of permit for dog walking in
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1879
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200475
Representative Quote: We need to consider that education is the solution to any conflict
regarding dogs recreating off leash in the parks. The dog owners and the general public would
benefit from education regarding dog safety both on and off leash and understanding of the
statistics with regard to same.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2229
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200841
Representative Quote: Rather than spend so much $ to enforce and create the amended off leash
areas, why not educate and ensure that people have well trained dogs? For dogs to be off leash
anywhere at any time, they should have a rocket recall. If you call them, they will come away or
off of something ie. people, picnics, flora and fauna and back to you.
In addition to a dog license, dogs can be issued a tag which indicates that have passed a Canine
Good Citizen test, which means the dog/human have been trained/passed a number of tests to
ensure appropriate behavior in public. This would make for better managed, happier dogs and a
happier community.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4651
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
209010
Representative Quote: Offer special licensing for off-leash access. I understand that having
dogs off-leash creates unique demands for the National Park Service. I am looking for ways to
help you deal with them. One way to help fund the extra training, maintenance, and effort it puts
on your organization is to have dog owners like me pay for it. I would happily pay a subscription
fee to let my dog play off leash at Funston.
Concern ID: 29695
CONCERN Additional Alternatives - Commenters have suggested a new alternative which balances the
STATEMENT:recreational needs of the Bay Area with the protection of natural resources, and/or adds more on30

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
leash and off-leash areas for dogs. The A+ alternative would include the 1979 Policy, with
enforcement, and the addition of more dog walking areas available.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1002
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
191731
Representative Quote: I believe that the GGNRA is not truly taking into account what an off
leash site means to dog owners. I am including what I think should be down. I do not agree with
this plan at all!.
The GGNRA should develop a new alternative, the A+ Alternative, that will better balance the
recreational needs of the Bay Area with protection of natural resources.The DEIS calls the "No
Change" Alternative "A". This is the 1979 Pet Policy with some restrictions, particularly
restrictions on off-leash at Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and Crissy Field because of the snowy
plover and native plant restorations. More than one-third of Bay Area residents have dogs and we
now know the importance of off-leash recreation for dog's physical and mental health, as well as
the importance of the significant social communities that develop where people recreate with
their dogs off-leash.The A+ Alternative would include everywhere that is currently off-leash, plus
sufficient off-leash opportunities in San Mateo County to meet the demand, and more trails offleash throughout the GGNRA. In addition, new land added to the GGNRA would include offleash areas, especially in those areas where it has traditionally taken place. There would be no
compliance-based management strategy in the A+ Alternative. Any dog management philosophy
in the GGNRA, like that for any other recreation use, should be based on Bay Area values of coexistence, shared space, collaboration among park user groups, and education where problems
arise. Enforcement of already existing regulations should target irresponsible dog owners who
create the few problems documented by the GGNRA, while allowing responsible dog owners to
continue their traditional off-leash recreation without harassment.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1267
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
194978
Representative Quote: After reviewing the DEIS, none of the alternatives are appealing. A new
alternative must be created. One that creates more off leash areas for dogs. It only seems fair that
both sides of the issues are presented to the public. By leaving out a pro-dog alternative, the
public is forced to choose between bad and worse. Please create a new alternative that champions
off leash dog recreation. Then let us comment once again.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1391
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195297
Representative Quote: Instead I would suggest increasing off-leash dog areas in the GGNRA to
more than 1% not reducing them. Currently the GGNRA's limit deters dog owners and their
friends from visiting these lands, which we ALL pay for in taxes, and should have right to access.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2213
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200741
Representative Quote: Currently less than 1% of the GGNRA allows off-leash recreation, and
now the GGNRA wants to reduce that even further. Is it too much to ask that we retain the usage
of this small amount of space as it has been for many, many years? I propose the GGNRA should
develop a NEW alternative, that would not only KEEP the current areas off-leash, but also lead to
development of ADDITIONAL off-leash areas in new land obtained by the GGNRA. The
31

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
GGNRA should be expanding not reducing off-leash locations.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
3885
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
206015
Representative Quote: I support a modified Alternative A (the "No Action alternative") that
codifies the 1979 Pet Policy as it was originally written, and that includes off- and on-leash
access on GGNRA lands in San Mateo and on new lands that become part of the GGNRA,
especially those areas in both that have traditionally had dog walking.
Concern ID: 30111
CONCERN Time Restrictions - Commenters suggest requiring time restrictions throughout the park for when
STATEMENT:ROLAs, on-leashing dog walking, and no dog walking would be allowed. Time restrictions could
be based on week vs. weekday hours, season hours, or hours for morning and night use.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: California Parks Association
1227
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
194877
Representative Quote: 2.Dogs allowed only before 10 A.M. and after 5 P.M.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
1277
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195001
Representative Quote: We want part of the beaches to be off leash every day. I am open to the
dogs being leashed at certain times (like peak use times) and say between 8am to 11am it is off
leash. 11am to 5pm on leash and 5-7 off leash.
Concern ID: 30116
CONCERN Signs - Commenters suggest posting signs/guidelines to educate visitors when and where offSTATEMENT:leash dogs are allowed at the park.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2654
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
195448
Representative Quote: How are people to know which areas to avoid if there is no guidance?
Many fences signs are currently deteriorating or covered up by sand dunes or non-existent. This
leads to what I see as one of the biggest problems with the destruction of restored habitat, which
is mostly people entering existing restored areas where they should not be. I see families set up
with on restored dunes and watch as two and four-legged creatures dig into the dunes or trample
over the native plants. People would be less apt to do this if there were signs letting them know
the work that has been done to such areas and how sensitive the landscape is.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2888
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
202936
Representative Quote: Therefore, regardless of what actions and changes are made, There
should be several large signs placed with clear "magic" language stating usage guidelines at all
GGNRA park locations. Specifically, at the highly populated multi-use areas, there could also be
a "you are here" map & some directionals as to access to the spot's treasures
Corr. ID: Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
32

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
4223
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
208947
Representative Quote: The draft plan has the effect of punishing many people because a very
small number are uneducated, insensitive, or irresponsible and because the current signage of off
leash areas is unclear. The reasonable response to this problem is to educate visitors, improve
signage and help park visitors follow the rules and learn how to respect the environment, not to
ban the rest of us with dogs from the GGNRA. I wish that the DEIS would include an alternative
along these lines.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4592
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
223783
Representative Quote: 3) Provide better website information, and signage at the park.
? Inform people there is off-leash dog recreation at specific parks. Although dogs are prominent
at Fort Funston, one would never know that by reading the NPS website on Fort Funston. Based
on the website information, a dog-phobic person would be unpleasantly surprised when he arrived
at Fort Funston. By setting realistic expectations, visitor conflicts could be reduced.
Concern ID: 31337
CONCERN Split the beaches- Commenters suggested that half of the beaches in the plan be set up for those
STATEMENT:who enjoy dogs, and half be set up for those who do not like dogs
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
2056
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
193310
Representative Quote: This is an all or nothing plan. Why not just dedicate 1/2 the beaches to
those scared of dogs and 1/2 the beaches to dog lovers? - or drop this plan all together Concern ID: 31395
CONCERN Commenters suggested that if dog walkers would like to have 1% of the GGNRA open to dogs,
STATEMENT:conservationists would be allowed to pick what 1% of the lands would be open to dogs.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
3606
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
203954
Representative Quote: I see that the Dog Owners Groups are calling for "Their 1%" of access to
recreate their dog's off-leash. One minor point here is that of the entire park only about 3% is
open even to humans so that would be about 1/3 of space shared with off-leash dogs. Indeed it is
practically every trail. While I strongly disagree with the entitlement mentality of their demand I
suggest an easy solution: let the conservationists pick which areas that 1% can be. There won't be
much beach access.
Concern ID: 31412
CONCERN The GGNRA should release the General Management Plan and GGNRA foundation statement to
STATEMENT:allow for the public to understand the intent of the project by NPS.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
3945
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
227091
Representative Quote: Before publishing the revised Dog Management Plan, complete and
33

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
publish the GGNRA Foundation Statement and the GGNRA General Management Plan to
provide full disclosure of the Park Services' understanding and intent for the GGNRA and to
allow for meaningful communication to the public about the full extent of the GGNRA's plans for
recreation.
Concern ID: 31533
CONCERN Commenters suggested that NPS provide an exception that would allow those with disabilities to
STATEMENT:have their dogs off-leash in areas where dogs are allowed on leash, assuming they were under
voice control.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4660
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
227441
Representative Quote: Provide special compensations for people with disabilities by allowing
them to have well- behaved, voice control dogs on any trail that allows on-leash dogs
Concern ID: 31543
CONCERN Areas formerly opened to off-leash dog recreation in the GGNRA should be reopened for user
STATEMENT:access. These areas need to be reexamined, and only remain closed if an adverse impact is shown.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4697
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
227449
Representative Quote: All areas identified in the GGNRA Pet Policy brochure as existing in
early 2000 as off leash areas should remain off leash. To the extent any of those areas are deemed
currently closed to dogs, they should be opened. The Crissy Field beach area between the Coast
Guard pier and the rock area that is the current boundary for dog use should be reopened to dogs
consistent with the Mitigation Matrix of the Crissy Field NSI finding.
The closure areas at Fort Funston should be reopened for user access including dog walking
access absent a well founded showing of significant adverse environmental impact. The
traditional off leash area on the Lands End road and path leading along the coastal cliffs should
be reopened, subject to closure of certain areas away from the roadway in the event of a well
founded showing of adverse environmental impact. The Ocean Beach off leash restrictions from
Stairwell 21 to Sloat should be reexamined and remain restricted only if there is analysis showing
a substantial basis to believe that the restriction will aid the Snowy Plover population. Any such
restriction should be limited to the seasons when and areas where the Snowy Plovers are
ordinarily present.
Concern ID: 31772
CONCERN The alternatives that have been dismissed should be reconsidered.
STATEMENT:
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4035
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
227704
Representative Quote: All "Alternatives Suggested and Dismissed from Consideration" need to
be re-evaluated considering the recreational value of the park, valid scientific monitoring and
measurement of incremental impacts from dog recreation, and the recognition that some impacts
are justified to support the recreational mandate and to maintain recreational opportunities for this
and future generations.

34

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements

Concern ID: 31855
CONCERN It has been suggested that [regardless of the alternative selected] clear signage, better fencing,
STATEMENT:and/or more enforcement will still be required to protect listed species at GGNRA.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4584
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
210026
Representative Quote: Crissy Field WPA ' The DEIS indicates that the east boundary fence will
be relocated 200 feet eastward at a position 900 feet from the NOAA pier (p. 60). The language
of the plan should allow the National Park Service flexibility in determining the exact location of
the fence and consideration should be given to the visual penetration effect as well as the
geographical conditions of the immediate area.
Under the preferred alternative, off-leash dog activity directly adjacent to the east boundary fence
will pose a visual threat that will penetrate into the Wildlife Protection Area, effectively rendering
a portion of the eastern WPA as non-viable habitat during daytime use hours. Given this concern,
the fence should be placed a reasonable distance eastward, beyond the actual 900 foot border line,
to allow for an adequate buffer zone.
Additionally, the geography of the area of fence placement is somewhat complicated by nonuniform conditions which include a variety of substrates, varying elevations, several lobes of
fenced dune habitat areas, and a variety of pedestrian pathways. Consideration should be given to
all of these conditions and fence placement should be such that will accommodate ease of
pedestrian traffic flow while maintaining adequate protection of the WPA.
When installed, the fence should extend to the water at extreme low tide
Concern ID: 31864
CONCERN Dogs should be leashed year-round in snowy plover protection areas to avoid confusion that leads
STATEMENT:to non-compliance. These leash requirements will require good enforcement, as no laws are
currently enforced.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: San Francisco State University
1902
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
200433
Representative Quote: I would like to see the requirement that dogs must be on leash all 12
months of the year in the Snowy Plover Protection Areas. This will avoid the current confusion. I
have talked to many people who were confused as to what time of year there was a leash
requirement on Ocean Beach and who did not leash their dogs because of the confusion. The
leash requirements must also be enforced, as they are not currently enforced in any adequate
manner.
Concern ID: 31919
CONCERN It was suggested that a volunteer rescue crew could be assembled as part of the mitigation at Fort
STATEMENT:Funston to relieve park staff of commitments to rescues in the area.
Representative Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
4666
Quote(s):
CommentOrganization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
ID:
227791
Representative Quote: The DEIS uses the fact that dogs and people have to sometimes be
rescued as a reason to limit dogs, say ing the rescue attempts can cause injuries to park law
35

AL1000 – Suggest New Alternative Elements
enforcement (p. 19). It does not discuss an option for allowing a volunteer rescue team to be
formed that could be called first, to relieve law enforcement from this obligation. This should be
discussed and explored as mitigation in the FEIS. Now that I know that it's such a burden on law
enforcement, I will avoid calling them for any assistance I might need when on GGNRA lands.

AL1010 - Suggest an Alternative that has Been Dismissed
31367
Commenters suggested that rather than banning dogs for the entire day, dogs
should be allowed in restricted areas during certain times of day, such as non-peak
times. Another suggestion was seasonal restrictions, which would help protect
sensitive areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2941
Comment ID: 202408
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My 1st concern is that most people do not use the areas at
all times and therefore there are periods of the day and week off-leash dog walking
could be allowed and should not be banned for ALL periods. Currently, I walk my
dog several times a week in the GGNRA. I often do this at non-peak times in the
evenings during daylight savings at Land's End and on Friday Morning at Chrissy
field. Often times, my dog and I are the only users or of the few users of these
places.
Corr. ID: 3560
Organization: Golden Gate National Parks
Conservancy
Comment ID: 203487
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Overall I am not a supporter of banning dogs out right
from the GGNRA. It is a park for all of us and for the most part dog owners are
responsible. While I understand a plan to have the GGNRA inline w/other NPS
sites- the GGRNA is different from almost all other NPS sites. It is a collection of
different parcels- some urban so rural that have been patched together. My wife and
I are supports of the GGNRA through the Parks Conservancy because we want to
support a park for all.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I do believe that most dog owners are responsible, and I can understand restrictions
on so many dogs per person as one way to help out with the concerns of this EIS. I
also would support seasonal closures of sensitive sites (i.e. during breeding
seasons) but not full closure.
As for trail use, and we are avid trail hikers with our dogs in the Marin Headlands.
If there are concerns about trail use, I would argue that horses and mountain bikers
cause more damage to trails than dogs ever will.
I understand your daunting tasks, but I hope that you will preserve the concept of
the parks for all users.

AL5000 - Comments on Dog walking Permit System
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29674
No Change - Keep existing regulations and permitting requirements for individual
and commercial dog walkers as they are now. There is no need to alter the
restrictions on commercial dog walking. Alternative E also provides beneficial
rules regarding commercial dog walking.
36

AL1010 – Suggest an Alternative that has Been Dismissed
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1210
Comment ID: 194855
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Commercial dog walkers should be allowed. I strongly
prefer Alternative E for dog walkers because it offers good, solid rules for what
they can and cannot do and the rules are restrictive enough.
Corr. ID: 1598
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190834
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk with dogs and I am a dog walker. The happiest time
in our day is when the dogs & I are recreating and playing at the beach and
GGNRA! Without our park area- we would not have exercised- socialized mellow
dogs. We are a true community of people who live for our dogs. To limit the
amount of dogs would take way my liveligood and people rely on me to care for
their loving pets when they work or travel. We are wondering why you must take
back what you gave to us and why put a limit when all is going just fine for the last
15 years.
Corr. ID: 2104
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193359
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you are going to enforce leash laws why not just enforce
the more narrow laws we have now. Increase fines for not picking up after dog.
Enforce walker license laws & restrictions on # of dogs they can take.
Corr. ID: 2108
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193368
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Rules + regulations that are already in place should be
enforced (as a helpful solution) instead of curtailing use to all- mostly responsible people. I am a dogwalker + I am for requiring permits, requiring picking up poop &
dog behavior management.
29675
Commercial Fees - Commercial dog walkers should pay some kind of use fee for
walking dogs at the park. This use fee could be implemented through daily permits,
monthly permits, or yearly permits. Amounts suggested ranged from a small daily
fee to several thousand dollars for commercial dog walkers. This would help raise
revenue for enforcement and maintenance. Commercial dog walkers should also be
required to be registered, insured, and bonded if using the park for their services.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 631
Comment ID: 182497
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

37

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
Representative Quote: Finally commercial dog walkers should be required to
have a permit ($500/month) to walk dogs in the GGNRA. They should also be
required to wear identifying clothes such as a shirt with the dog walking company
name or their own name if they are self-employed.
Corr. ID: 694
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182682
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All professional dog walkers should be required to have a
permit to walk their dogs off leash or on leash. The must pay per dog. If they wish
to get a permit to walk 2 dogs this means they pay $3,455x2 a year. If they wish to
walk 4 dogs (should be the max), this means they pay $3,455x4 a year. Could
consider increasing the cost given that they are a business. Also if the park decides
that they want to let commercial dog walkers have more than 4 dogs, the cost for
each additional dog over 4 should be $4982 an extra dog.
Corr. ID: 1232
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194887
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Commercial dog walking--which has become a most
lucrative venture at around $20 an hour per dog -- has impeded our family's ability
to enjoy our public space. Some walkers are 'in charge' of 10-11 dogs, who are off
leash and galloping along madly, easily able to tackle and topple little kids. A
further concern for health and safety is the urine and feces that is halfheartedly
picked up. Understandable, because how can one walker meticulously clean up
after 10 dogs, no matter how conscientious? [even if they are making $200 an
hour.] Management of this situation is absolutely crucial. I support the proposed
regulations but would beg for more stringent ones: a) limit the number of dogs to
the walker, to 3 dogs per walker; b) certify/license dog walkers; c) enforce IRS and
State income tax requirements, and SF City&County business license fees; d)do not
allow dogs to roam free at any point on the Crissy Field beach, for the reasons
stated above [Crissy beaches are the safest beaches for children; children should be
provided priority access and protected from dogs.] e)fence in other non-beach area
selected for dogs to roam off-leash; f)conduct close monitoring of dog walkers and
ticketing walkers who fail to meticulously clean up after the dogs.
Corr. ID: 3918
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205688
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All professional dog walkers using the parks should be
licensed and bonded and be ready to show proof when asked by a ranger. No
professional dog walker should have a group of off leash dogs with them with a
dog/person ratio higher than 4:1. All professional dog walkers should apply
annually for a license to use the GGNRA parks. At that time, they should present
their state license and bond and pay an annual user fee of $100. This money should
go toward the maintenance of the parks.
Corr. ID: 4070
Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207680
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2)Commercial Dog Walking-On most public lands, any
commercial entity making money off of use of those lands usually has to pay a
permit or lease fee to the agency responsible for those lands (BLM- OHV races,
Livestock grazing, mining, etc.; US Bureau of Reclamation-houseboat rentals, jet
ski rentals, marinas, campsites, etc.). It seems that an entity bringing multiple dogs
to NPS lands and making money off of that without having to assist in the upkeep
of that area (financially or otherwise) is unfair to the rest of the general public using
those lands and strains agency resources. This should be a general requirement on
commercial dog walking in all GGNRA lands for all Alternatives (including the No
Action alternative).
Corr. ID: 4408
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206411
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
38

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
Representative Quote: In my opinion, commercial dog walkers need to be
licensed, and should pay a business tax. I know that this is being considered by the
supervisors in SF. They should be able to walk only a limited number of dogs. In
my opinion, I think 6 dogs should be a maximum. (Picture trying to pick up the dog
waste from 10 dogs.) Looking on the web, commercial dog walkers in San
Francisco charge between $350 to almost $400 per month for walking one dog on
weekdays (20 clients at $370 per month =$89,000/yr). Food trucks in our public
parks in SF pay for being there. It seems that dog walkers using our public spaces
for their businesses should also.
Corr. ID: 4436
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209344
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Professional dog walkers need to be registered, insured and
bonded for public safety. Paying a user fee is not off the table. Special Bright
collars for registered dogs and pin on visual permits for walkers may be useful.
29676
Dog owners and commercial walkers should be licensed issued by the park, a
separate entity, or the city in order to take dogs off-leash. Suggestions for this
included that dogs would need to have all appropriate shots and other city
requirements, would need to take a dog training or obedience class, a class on dog
walking and park education, and tests for voice control proficiency. It was
suggested that commercial dog walking is a business and needs to be regulated in
the same manner as other vendors in the park, including taxation and fees.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4642
Comment ID: 208836
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Proposal for Permitted Off Leash Dog Access
Within Selected Areas of GGNRA
1. Individuals would obtain an annual permit that would allow them to have up to
three dogs off leash in the areas of GGNRA where ROLA is currently allowed.
2. Obtaining a permit would require demonstration of acceptable voice control for
at least one dog and payment of an annual fee ($100 suggested). This fee would
offset the permitting process as well as support the trail maintenance in GGNRA.
3. Demonstration of acceptable voice control would require that the applicant be
able to call their dog away from two leashed stranger dogs before contact has
occurred. This "test" could be performed by licensed pet dog trainers or other
professionals designated by GGNRA.
4. Those individuals who have obtained an off leash permit would be required,
when accompanied by their off-leash dogs, to wear a nylon vest issued by GGNRA.
This vest would have a large identification number that could be noted by others on
the trails.
5. An infraction of off-leash rules (unwanted dog or human interaction, not picking
up after their dog) would be grounds for a significant fine and/or suspension of the
permit. Note that infractions could be reported by anyone on the trail, not requiring
the presence of a Park Ranger.
This policy would have a number of positive consequences, including:
1. Continued access by those individuals able to demonstrate standards of
responsible dog ownership
2. Ability to hold permitted individuals accountable for their dog's behavior without
the need for patrolling by Rangers.
3. Encouraging awareness, training and control of dogs by those wishing to obtain a
permit
4. Financial support for trails and park maintenance by those who actively use the
parks and who have a vested interest in their welfare.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

39

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
29678
Increase in Number of Dogs - The number of dogs that commercial dog walkers are
allowed to walk in the parks should be increased. The proposed limitations will
negatively impact the income of dog walkers, who depend on this as their
livelihood.
Organization: Tailblazers Dog Walking & Pet
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 58
Services
Comment ID: 181791
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do, however, NOT agree to limiting dog walkers to 6
dogs. If we have to pay for a permit, we should at least be legal at 8 dogs. There
essentially putting a cap on what we can make. I'll lose well over $30K per year
with this change.
Corr. ID: 191
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182303
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding the limit of dogs for the Professional walkers
(licensed, trained, insured walkers), I strongly support that up to 8 dogs per walk is
fine for those licensed professionals. I am fine with any additional licensing for
each individual dog.
Corr. ID: 1376
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195249
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Allowing only 3 dogs per dog walker would apply a
tourniquet to to the income of these valued local, small businesses. If a number must- be applied to limiting the amount of dogs to ease the burden of their
environmental impact, I suggest the limit be increased to at least 6 dogs.
Corr. ID: 1607
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190847
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a professional dog walker I am happy to apply for a
permit and am in favor of some regulation! But please reconsider the number of
dogs to 8 at the very least. It would be economically unfeasible to stay in business
walking only 6 dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Also, please allow us to walk from the parking lot to the beach with the dogs offleash. There is no way we could safely walk to the beach with all the dogs on leash.
Corr. ID: 1611
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190851
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -Puts an unfair burden monetarily on dog walkers and
those that own more than 3 dogs.
-Your commecial dog walking Alternatives will put a lot of people out of work IE- 6 dog limit. This will impact the local economy- which I see is not noted
anywhere
Corr. ID: 3565
Organization: Self
Comment ID: 203559
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are indeed a few who spoil the sitation, but the
proposed new Plan severly regulates (punishes) thousands of dog lovers who are
very considerate with their pets. I have lived in major parts of the United States,
and the Bay Area is fortunate to have organized dogwalking groups that host
monthly clean up activities in major park areas. Please note that there is not the
same level of attention for Horse riders, beach- and park- attendees who damage
grounds with inconsiderate trash (and horse remains) throughout Ocean Beach, GG
Park, and various Marin beaches.
If the GGNRA was most concerned about environmental impact, it would severly
40

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
fine those who litter (this is not enforced today) - ; invest in more trash recepticles
and disposal management; and perhaps consider a for-fee membership system for
dog areas to help maintain and preserve the areas. For those in the dog-walking
profession, a limit of 8 dogs (not 3) is a proven management number where they
can keep an eye on dogs for refuse cleanup.
To encourage more environmental protection, areas can be (are, and have been)
cordoned off to allow for regrowth; this has proven an effective measure, and this
could continu. Sections could be rotated for regrowth throughout park areas. Dog
owners would stick to cordoned off or restrictive areas if more signs were posted.
Again, fines or violations help enforce this, and noting this on your signs would be
a very blatant way of ensuring enforcement. Should you accept these suggestions as
a compromise, you could meet with the dogwalker community to encourage
dogwalkers to self-regulate (call out violaters) -- which I know they would do. We
want to curb the "bad apples" in the bunch as much as you do.
Corr. ID: 4567
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209913
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The following comments are with regards to the Alta Trail,
Orchard Fire Road and Pacheco Fire Road:
It is true that this area is visited by many commercial dog walkers, some of whom
walk many dogs off leash at the same time. I believe that it is reasonable to cap the
number of off-leash dogs per person but turning this area into on-leash only with a
maximum of 3 dogs (or 6 dogs with a permit) per dog walker is too drastic and
erpunative. What is the goal? Getting rid of commercial dog walkers on the fire
roads between Marin City and Oakwood Valley?
29679
Decrease in Number of Dogs - The number of dogs that commercial dog walkers
are allowed to walk in the parks should be decreased. The proposed restrictions
would not provide adequate protection of resources or result in changes to current
issues. Another option suggested was that the size of the dog should be factored
into the number of dogs allowed.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 928
Comment ID: 191387
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Also, there should be a limit of 3 (or 2)dogs per person, or
even different rules based on size (consider the relative impact of two 15-pound
dogs as compared to two fifty-pound dogs). It is not appropriate for the Park
Service to create commercial permits for professional dog walkers. The laxer the
GGNRA and other agencies are about the numbers of dogs per walker, the more
people are encouraged to bring multiple dogs.
Corr. ID: 1829
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191953
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The idea of dog walkers having 6 dogs "under control"
even on leashes is an illusion, and of course he excrement left in their wake is a
detriment to the environment, not to mention an annoyance to non-dog owning
walkers who follow.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Please tighten up on the restrictions for dog owners and dog walkers in the
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3196
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203845
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please protect our precious San Francisco ecology by
requiring dogs in the park to be on leash and by limiting the number of dogs a
single person can bring into the park.
41

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System

I feel Strongly that commercial dog walkers are abusing our parks. As a frequent
visitor to the Presidio, I encounter many groups of six to twelve off-leash dogs in
all areas of the park, "led" by dog walkers who in reality have no control over the
animals.
Although I love dogs, and have four of my own ranging from 80-100 pounds, it
does not seem fair or appropriate for commercial operators to allow their paid-for
charges to run rampant in public parks where they threaten native wildlife and
plants, as well as adults and children.
At the very least, these commercial operators should be limited to four on-leash
dogs (the maximum one person can truly manage) in specific areas of the park.
Also, it should be stressed that these pets should be on-leash, not under voice
control in most areas. In real life, "voice" is not control, especially when the voice
is not the owner of the pet, but a daily or weekly friend.Dog walkers, and possibly
their employers, should be held accountable for infringements of park policies.
Also, like other park vendors do, dog walkers should have to purchase a license to
operate in the park.
These funds could be used to enforce the regulations and maintain the dog-access
areas.
Corr. ID: 4001
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206241
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At the very least, these commercial operators should be
limited to four on-leash dogs (the maximum one person can truly manage) in
specific areas of the park.
They should be held accountable for infringements of park policies and, as other
park vendors do, should have to purchase a license to operate in the park.
These funds could be used to enforce the regulations and maintain the dog-access
areas.
Corr. ID: 4224
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208959
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support efforts to reduce the number of dogs that 1
person can walk at a time. I have seen some professional dog walkers with 12 dogs
at a time. In recent years the number of professional dog walkers using the areas
has greatly increased and I do not believe that they can possibly keep more than 4
or 5 dogs in their sight and under voice control at all times. Nor do I find it credible
that they are picking up all the dog poop.
Corr. ID: 4584
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210018
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Park visitors should be limited to one dog per visitor. On
trails, visitors with more than one dog have a wider space requirement and have the
potential to impact other park visitors by impeding their progress along the trail. In
ROLAs, it is not practical to allow voice control of more that one dog per person.
With few exceptions, dog handlers are not capable of managing more than one offleash dog at a time.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29680
Applying these restrictions will not improve current issues with commercial dog
walking in the GGNRA. In fact, the proposed limitations would actually aggravate
the negative impacts of commercial dog walkers in the parks. Restrictions would
42

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
require unnecessary management and it would be difficult to ensure compliance.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 843
Comment ID: 186220
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Also, the pack size limits are going to increase the number
of walkers/packs, and some of the really good walkers will find other ways to pay
the bills when they can no longer make ends meet because of the size restrictions.
This will make room for more inexperienced, low wage employee walkers. With
experienced owner operators dropping in number, and inexperienced employees
taking their place. Quality of care is not likely to be going up as a result of the new
plan. I'm not in favor of huge groups, but making a living with 6 dog groups is
going to necessitate a raise in rates that will most likely be unworkable, since there
will be large operations with underpaid employees who are able to run enough
trucks to do things at the old rates
Corr. ID: 1104
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192288
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am deeply disappointed by this effort to severely curtail
off leash dog walking areas by the GGNRA. If the GNNRA draft dog management
plan is passed, there will be a number of serious negative impacts... 1. My dog
walker, although he does not go to the beaches on a work day basis, will be directly
impacted because the many dog walkers who do take their clients to the beach will
no longer be able to do so, and will therefore go to the already limited enclosed dog
park areas. As a result, his normal parks will become overcrowded. 2. My local dog
park area will become increasingly overcrowded, thus increasing the likelihood of
an possible incident, as well as noise and management difficulties.
3. If there are limitations of 3 dogs/dogwalker, walkers will be forced to limit their
time and schedule with their clients. As a result, each dog will receive less time
outdoors, and possibly be scheduled at increasingly unreasonable times. This will
lead to less exercised, more neurotic dogs in the neighborhood, and will be
detrimental to everyone.
Corr. ID: 1621
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190865
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The regulation of dog pack numbers will not decrease
traffic at the Parks. It will only encourage more dog walkers doing more walks per
day, not to mention the dog owners that cannot afford to have their dogs walked
professionally. This, I believe, will lead to dirtier parks and more chaos and
confrontation than less.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192049
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS fails to provide any support for limiting the
number of dogs per walker to six. The DEIS should be changed to permit up to
eight dogs per walker, Most responsible commercial dog walkers can and do handle
up to 8 dogs.
- Restricting number of dogs per walker unreasonably will result in higher fees
charged by dog walkers and potentially fewer responsible, well trained dog walkers
to handle the demand.
- Comment: The DEIS fails to provide support for limiting the space for
commercial dog walking, particularly since the DEIS lacks any numerical
assessment of number of dogs affected. The DEIS should be changed to give
commercial dog walkers adequate dog exercise areas. The Plan provides very
limited space for commercial dog walkers, contributing further to the overcrowding
issues.
The DEIS fails to address the severe effects on the local community from its
commercial dog walking plan. The DEIS should be changed to address and to take
43

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
into account the effects of its policy on local residents.
? Commercial dog walking is an important business in San Francisco employing
many residents
Access to commercial dog walking is also extremely important for many residents
who work and cannot get home to exercise a dog(s) confined to an apartment
and/or small back yard.
Corr. ID: 4017
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206851
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am in favor of any plan which:
3. Contains no restrictions or permits for dog walking within the GGNRA. This
would require too much management and would be difficult for visitors to comply
with.
29681
Restrictions to commercial dog walkers should be aligned with the local city and
county regulations, rather than with separate regulations implemented by the Park
Service.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 288
Comment ID: 181014
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The same goes for commercial dog walkers that have too
many dogs for one person to control. Try limiting the number of dogs per person to
whatever the county limit per household is - that way you don't have one person
with 10 dogs that aren't necessarily under control.
Corr. ID: 3219
Organization: Portuguese Water Dog Club of
Northern California
Comment ID: 226943
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: * Enable professional dog walking and align any
professional dog walking rules with county or city regulations.
Corr. ID: 3931
Organization: The Whole Pet
Comment ID: 205808
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding professional dog walkers, San Francisco
Animal Care & Control already has an existing list of guidelines for professional
dog walkers in terms of the maximum number of dogs per walker, maintaining
voice control or leashes, scooping poop, preventing digging & chasing etc. Most
responsible dog walkers have already voluntarily agreed to follow these guidelines
& are in favor of regulation, but there is not enough education or enforcement
about these policies either.
Corr. ID: 4406
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205577
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Park Service should revise the dog management plan
to:
- Enable professional dog walking and align any professional dog walking rules
with county or city regulations.
Corr. ID: 4700
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227460
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: [Comment was originally presented at BOS committee
hearing 4-11-11 by Sarah Ballard, Parks & Rec]
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The EIS ' the, the environmental study of the proposed management plan ' also
references limiting the number of dogs that professional dog walkers are allowed to
have with them at any time, and floats the idea of creating a permit program or
44

AL5000 – Comments on Dog walking Permit System
training for dog walkers. The city does not currently have either of those, either of
those things in place. And while they are ideas that, that have been discussed at a
variety of points in time at our commission and elsewhere, it could be problematic
if there were ' for, for residents and citizens ' if there are different rules in different
jurisdictions. And so it is our hope that as a part of this, presents an opportunity for
the department and the city to work, to continue to work collaboratively with the
GGNRA to make any of those proposals as seamless as, as possible.

AN1000 - Comments on ANPR
There were no comments on AN1000
AT1100 - Alta Trail: Support Preferred Alternative
29722
Commenters support the preferred alternative for Alta Trail. While visitors felt offleash dog walking may be appropriate at other sites, the Preferred Alternative at
Alta allows visitors to recreate (i.e., running) without encountering off-leash dog
walking.
Organization: Golden Gate National Parks
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1260
Comment ID: 194961
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm sure it is wonderful for people with dogs to let them
run free. I'd like the same freedom, and to be able to run without being harrassed by
dogs. As I said, voice control is a joke. I think it's great to have designated off-leash
areas, but I think Alta Trail should not be one of them. I support Alternative C.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

AT1200 - Alta Trail: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29723
Concern ID:
CONCERN STATEMENT: The preferred alternative for Alta Trail is unacceptable because it does not allow
off-leash dog walking. Most of the visitors who use Alta Trail go there for
exercise, which includes exercising their dogs off-leash. These visitors questioned
the justification for changing to on-leash dog walking, as dog owners and walkers
who use the trail are very responsible and respectful of both the environment and
the wildlife in this habitat.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29237 (OV1300), Comment
190785 and Concern 29235 (OV1200), Comment 201098.
29724
Concern ID:
CONCERN STATEMENT: The preferred alternative for Alta Trail is unacceptable because it is not based on
actual data. The environmental impacts are largely unfounded, and are not the
result of off-leash dog walking, but other factors. The plan/EIS did not look at the
impacts of mountain bikers and hikers at Alta Trail.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29237 (OV1300), Comment
190785 and Concern 29235 (OV1200), Comment 201098.

AT1300 - Alta Trail: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29725
Commenters supported alternative A at Alta Trail so as to maintain current access
and opportunities. They prefer alternative A because the primary recreation activity
45

AT1300 – Alta Trail: Desire Other Alternative
at Alta is off-leash dog walking.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29237 (OV1300), Comment 190785.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2126
Comment ID: 193409
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Why not make Alta Trail off-leash. It seems appropriate.
Corr. ID: 4687
Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
Open Space
Comment ID: 227454
Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The Alta Trail is well used and much relied upon for
residents of Marin City and Sausalito. Its proximity to these communities makes it
an important destination for daily exercise for people and pets. Historical use from
these populous and topographically constrained areas has had an adverse impact on
the natural resources. However, these attributes make this trail a candidate for
continued off leash use. Comments to the county about the proposed change to
leash- required have been pointed and frequent. The county requests that this trail
remain designated off leash to serve these communities.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29726
Alternative D should be chosen at Alta Trail.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29551 (FB1300), Comment 29551.

AT1400 - Alta Trail: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29727
Commenters suggested a plan that connects Oakwood Valley Fire Road with Alta
Trail to better accommodate more users by the creation of a loop. A longer, more
vigorous loop would allow for more exercise for both humans and dogs.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29241 (OV1400), Comment 193288.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29728
Have commercial dog walkers limited to 6 dogs off-leash on Alta. Otherwise other
areas of the county will be affected.
Corr. ID: 2126
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193410
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alta --> make commercial dog walkers permitted to 6 dogs
off-leash. Otherwise the proposed regulation will push this to another area (of the
county, etc).

29729
More education, better signage, and more fencing could improve the Alta area for
humans, dogs, and the Mission blue butterfly. The current signage and restrictions
are mostly followed, but and any problems could be addressed by more signage or
better fencing.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3215
Comment ID: 202570
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Another loop of key importance to our neighborhood is
accessed through the Fernwood Cemetary and comes out at the fire road near the
water tank on the Alta trail. This historically has been a great source for walking
dogs off leash along the Alta trail and then connecting to the upper portion of the
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

46

AT1400 – Alta Trail: Suggest Change in Alternative
Oakwood Valley Trail, then continuing down through Oakwood Valley fire road
and out to Tennessee Valley for the return.. This longer, more vigorous loop is
ideal for getting good exercise for both humans and dogs. It is consistently used,
but I would not say it is overused. I am aware there is Mission Blue butterfly
habitat along a stretch of the Alta trail and it is marked off and signed. Most people
respect and pay attention to this. Perhaps a few don't. Again, education, better
signage and perhaps more fencing could improve this for both humans and dogs
and the butterfly. But in my 25+ years of experience walking these trails, I haven't
seen any negative impact from dogs on lupine plants in this area. I have seen
negative impacts from humans, and certainly from Scotch Broom. Is there any true
science that shows negative impact from dogs in this area? Or is the impact from
other sources?
My main concern is with the closing of these two key loops in the Oakwood Valley
area. I highly recommend that these important loops be kept open and available to
people with dogs. I have not seen any evidence in the DEIS that shows why these
areas should not be open to dogs as currently used.

AW1000 - Animal Welfare: Impact on/to dogs
29709
Commenters oppose off-leash restrictions because their dog will not be able to
enjoy the park the same if leashes are required or if fenced in play is the only
option (which is sometimes stressful for dogs).
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1155
Comment ID: 192901
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I dog not take my dogs to fenced-in dog play areas. My
dogs find them stressful and I see more problems in those areas then I have ever
seen at Fort Funston. I strongly believe that is what would happen at Fort Funston
as well if the dogs are forced to stay in smaller, confined spaces.
Corr. ID: 2354
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195373
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: But we visit not only the GGNRA lands in our
neighborhood, but also Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, Rodeo Beach, Muir Beach and
many of the trails in the bluffs and hills above those places. I can't begin to imagine
the huge negative impact the Preferred Alternative will have on my enjoyment of
these areas. My dog is very active and requires at least some off-leash running to
enjoy life. To keep him on-leash *all* the time, or to be forced to drive to small,
crowded, enclosed off-leash areas in the SF city parks would seriously curtail my
enjoyment of the GGNRA recreation areas as well as my dog's health and wellbeing.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29710
Commenters suggest that requiring leashes as suggested in the DEIS, creates more
aggressive behavior in dogs.
Corr. ID: 215
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180676
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mandatory dog leashing at dog parks is not an alternative
"solution" to the problem. In fact in creates more tension, more potential for
aggressive behavior and deters from the enjoyment of both dog and owner.
Corr. ID: 1150
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192887
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: When dogs are on leash, they naturally act more
47

AW1000 – Animal Welfare: Impacts on/to dogs
agressively toward each other because they can't negotiate in their natural way.
This is the best part of my day because it's so beautiful there at the shore. I would
be dismayed if this was taken from me. This ability figured into my decision to live
in the Bay Area. I support many , pet related, businesses including pet supply
stores, veteranarians, groomers...at one time... dog walkers....so...my pets and I
contribute to local economies.
29711
Commenters support off-leash areas because it affords greater mental and/or
physical health for their dogs, provides for socialization, or better behavior (vs. on
leash requirements).
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 931
Comment ID: 191404
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Providing for off-leash access makes our dogs and our
families healthier, happier, and safer.
Corr. ID: 989
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191704
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In recent years I have been struck by how fewer and fewer
areas in the Bay Area are being made available for off-leash dogs. It has been
proven that dogs that receive proper exercise and socialization with other dogs are
better behaved, happier, healthier and bring greater joy to the lives of the people
that own and love them. Restricting more areas from being off-leash will directly
imfringe upon this. Dogs need vigorous exercise. Walking alongside an owner
while tethered to a leash is not adequate exercise by any reasonable definition.
Additionally, dogs need to interact with other dogs and other people to remain wellsocialized. By removing more and more opportunities for dogs to exerecise
properly and be socially acclimated to other dogs and other people breeds a vicious
cycle that results in dog "events" such as fights or bites. Ironically, a plan to remove
off-leash areas due, in part, in an attempt to reduce dog events such as a fight or
bite will only ensure more such events.
Corr. ID: 1317
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195060
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog trainer in the Bay Area and believe that off
leash dog play and exercise is a huge part of a behaviorally well dog. Without off
leash areas to roam and interact with other dogs and people, dogs will most likely
develop many behavior concerns due to lack of contact, frustration from leash
restraint and this may escalate to aggression. As a dog owner and someone that
interacts with hundreds of dog owners every week, we need off leash areas in order
to live harmoniously in this city.
Corr. ID: 1417
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195355
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Again, as a vet I've sutured up my fair share of dog fight
wounds, and it's interesting to note that none of my cases have come from off-leash
dog parks: they've all happened while on leash and on sidewalks, many times even
in yards. Not to say that the risk of dog fights isn't higher in areas with higher dog
density, just that the majority of owners who take the time to walk their dog offleash in the areas in question are responsible and conscientious, and this leads to
more happy, healthy, and mentally stable pets.
Corr. ID: 1674
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191073
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If our dog wasn't allowed off lead at Baker or Ocean
beach, he would be depressed. I love my dog, and it would hurt me to see him on
lead for 45 minutes around our house rather than out for 1:45 at a beach. It is our
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

48

AW1000 – Animal Welfare: Impacts on/to dogs
responsibility as dog owners to protect our dogs, and by letting these new
regulations occur, it will only worsen our dogs lives, and frusterate their owners.
Corr. ID: 1897
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200387
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As an owner of a certified Service Dog, I am particularly
upset at the prospect of having her off-leash running activity curtailed or
eliminated. For her to run unbridled is her only opportunity to be "off work," and is
essential for her well-being. Obviously, this leads to my own well-being, as she
takes care of me all day, every day. I must suggest you take into consideration the
impact this management plan will have on the many of us who rely on the
assistance of their service animals.
29712
Commenters believe that restricting off-leash areas at GGNRA will cause
overcrowding of other dog parks and a negative or unsafe experience for their
dog(s).
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 549
Comment ID: 182018
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are very few areas in San Francisco where dogs can
run off leash, and taking these few areas away will have a wide reaching negative
impact. The already overcrowded, small, and poorly maintained "dog parks" will
only worsen. Dogs will suffer - they will not get the level of exercise that they need
to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Corr. ID: 1114
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192354
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs require sufficient levels of physical exercise and
socialization in their daily regimens that cannot reasonably be attained unless they
are permitted to be off leash in outdoor environments that support positive
interaction with other dogs and people. Dogs lacking in sufficient exercise and
socialization skills are at greater risk of developing poor behavior and social skills
that runs counter to the animal's and the public's interest.
Corr. ID: 1591
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190818
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -Plan is too restrictive in off leash areas it will result in too
many dogs in too small a space- danger for the dogs + humans. Also possibly more
communicable diseases amongst the dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29713
Commenters suggest that removing/restricting the off-leash areas as suggested in
the DEIS will make it harder for the SPCA to perform their goal of "no kill" at
animal shelters and/or more dogs will be given up at shelters or less dogs will be
adopted.
Organization: San Francisco Professional Dog
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 578
Walkers Association
Comment ID: 182094
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: San Francisco has a "No Kill" goal that no potentially
adoptable animal in a city shelter (SF Animal Care and Control, SF/SPCA, Pets
Unlimited). Representatives of the SF/SPCA have said that the Preferred
Alternative will make it harder for the SF/SPCA to perform their mission to reduce
surrenders to city shelters and make San Francisco a truly No Kill city.
Corr. ID: 1337
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195122
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs that are not adequately exercised can develop
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

49

AW1000 – Animal Welfare: Impacts on/to dogs
behavior problems such as barking, destroying property in the home, etc. Behavior
problems are one of the primary reasons that people surrender dogs at shelters.
Corr. ID: 1855
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200313
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: High energy dogs need to exercise far more than many of
these people are capable of doing on leash, especially our growing numbers of
elderly and handicapped citizens. Without adequate exercise and socialization
opportunities, some people will have to give up their animals and others will find
their dogs less calm and harder to handle.
Dogs ARE our recreation. We want to continue the partnership with them that we
have enjoyed for years. The quality of life of our dogs and our people will suffer
greatly if off-leash play is banned. Do not pass that restriction. Follow your
mandate for recreation. Keep our dogs and people healthy.
Corr. ID: 1915
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192593
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The trickle down effect of the GGRNAs plan would result
in more dogs being dropped off at shelters, as dogs desperately need to learn social
skills from each other and they need an outlet for their energy.
Corr. ID: 2147
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193443
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Marin County has one of the highest adoption rates - For
this reason, the shelters are able to rescue many dogs from all over California +
even Mexico that would otherwise be euthanised! One of the main reasons that
enables this invaluable service to continue is the Bay Area's love + compassion for
dogs (animals). Many people are motivated to adopt (save) shelter dogs fro the
animal's benefit + quality of life AS WELL AS their own - i.e. outdoor activities,
social networking, fresh air on beautiful Marin County trails!! Dog-walking has
become an important facet of managing depression, personal isolation + lack of
social resources available. Being restricted from having a dog in some areas
entirely as well as off-leash enforcement will, undoubtedly, affect that social bond
+ freedom we feel we must maintain at all costs.
Corr. ID: 3185
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203822
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Animal rescue is part of San Francisco's spirit. Please
continue this unique tradition of our city's by maintaining the meager 1% of open
space for off-leash dog exercise that has allowed SF residents for many years to
rescue and rehabilitate these amazingly adaptable and forgiving animals (that we,
as humans, are responsible for domesticating)
San Francisco has always set the standard in this country on its fearlessness for
taking a stand on social justice issues - one of which has always been its advocacy
for animal welfare. SF's city animal shelters have far lower euthanasia rates than
any other city country-wide and hundreds of privately run animal rescue groups.
This is a standard that SF has set that we can be proud of, as a liberal and
progressive city, and a model for other cities to follow.Much of this is due to
people's access to 'multi-recreational' usage land that allows them to adopt dogs and
properly exercise them, or have them properly exercised by dog walkers/trainers,
which can often off-set a dog's previous life of abuse or neglect. Dogs are
amazingly adaptable creatures.
What the Proposed Plan doesn't take into consideration is that many 'rescue dogs'
need to slowly acclimate to socialization with other dogs, and Option A (current
plan) allows this by making good use of the 1% of GGNRA land (that will be taken
away in the Proposed Plan) to exercise and socialize these special dogs. This land
50

AW1000 – Animal Welfare: Impacts on/to dogs
enables them to, with training and guidance by the hundreds of passionate dog
professionals in the city, eventually and gradually become fantastic canine citizens
of responsible SF residents who see potential in these neglected and forgotten
animals.
The Proposed Plan, restricting a drastically reduced amount of land to off leash dog
interaction, will compromise how dogs learn to live in a city. If there is no space to
properly exercise dogs, these dogs will continue to exhibit behavior problems in the
more densely populated areas available to them, pose risks and probable law suits,
or simply not be adopted or be surrendered, and subsequently euthanized. We will
become like every other city. This is a waste of perfectly fantastic dogs who
basically just need a chance to learn the rules.
Corr. ID: 3208
Organization: Rocket Dog Rescue
Comment ID: 202513
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a passionate dog rescuer, I can tell you that the
preferred alternatives in the Plan will make the Bay Area's homeless animal
problem worse. Less people will be able to or likely to keep their companion
animals if they are stripped of places in which they are able to properly exercise
their animals. The Plan is akin to putting more burden on our shelters and sending
more dogs to needlessly die.
Not to mention that, in years of walking Ocean Beach or Crissy Field every single
day, sometimes with dogs and sometimes without dogs, I have yet to see any
wildlife or sensitive plant habitats harmed or infringed upon by companion animal
dogs. Dog owners that use this RECREATION area are inherently responsible and
value all life.
Corr. ID: 3466
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203297
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please reconsider. These are two of the reasons there are so
many dogs in the shelters. People need a place to take their dogs, especially living
in the city, where many do not have access to a yard. Dogs need to run, or often
they have behaviour issues, stemming from built up energy and boredom, and
guardians need a place to take them.
This hurts everyone. The shelters will be even more overcrowded.
Those who adopt should be rewarded, not made to feel as though no one wants
them to succeed.
This also affects the dog-walkers and they provide a much needed service to all of
those who work long hours, and are unable to give their dogs the outigs they need
to be healthy.
Corr. ID: 4224
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208975
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog behaviorists, including Ian Dunbar, Trish King, Jean
Donaldson, and Veronica Boutelle, have said the loss of off-leash exercise will
cause an increase in problem dog behaviors, including bites. This resulting increase
in problem behaviors will lead to an increase in surrenders at city shelters, which
cannot handle the increase. This is another impact on surrounding communities that
was not considered in the DEIS.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29714
Requiring leashes is not an adequate form of exercise for dogs and that lack of offleash space is cruel or inhumane to animals.
51

AW1000 – Animal Welfare: Impacts on/to dogs
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1259
Comment ID: 194957
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are better behaved, less anxious, and happiest when
they get appropriate exercise. I know that without appropriate off-leash activity I
will not be able to properly exercise my dog.
Corr. ID: 1351
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195199
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As I am sure you are aware, it is very important for a dog's
mental and physical health that they get plenty of exercise. Some dog breeds
require more exercise than others and it would be difficult for those breeds, such as
the Vizsla, to get the proper exercise they require if they can not run and play off
leash. Exercise and socializing is critical to a dog's health and well-being.
Corr. ID: 1939
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192661
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The nature of a dog's need to run in free space has not been
addressed. This constricting of areas amounts to cruelty to animals.
Corr. ID: 4453
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208497
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: People and dogs require fresh air and exercise for health;
sufficient exercise simply cannot be provided to dogs that are unable to play since
they are perpetually on-leash.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29715
Some dogs do better socially on-leash and these on-leash areas are better for their
(small, older, disabled) dogs.
Corr. ID: 1551
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200012
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm commenting to encourage the GGNRA to both
designate some on-leash areas and to enforce leash laws in these areas. A lot of the
accessible hiking areas are either legally off-leash, or the bulk of people who go
there flagrantly violate leash laws.A lot of dogs have special needs. Besides leashreactive dogs who need some extra help and training, there are older dogs, disabled
or physically challenged dogs, and even small breeds that can benefit from on-leash
areas where approaches by other dogs are more controlled.I support off-leash areas
for dogs that are comfortable in these spaces. But please, ensure that there is some
space for dogs that do better when everyone is on leash, and make sure the laws are
enforced so that everyone can have a good experience.

BB1100 - Baker Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
There were no comments on BB1100

BB1200 - Baker Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29260
The preferred alternative for Baker Beach should allow off-leash dog walking. The
Preferred Alternative restricts recreational access to visitors with dogs and as a
result visitor use in this area would decrease dramatically by dog walkers and may
increase at Ocean Beach, Crissy Field, and Fort Funston. In addition, dogs would
not receive adequate exercise or socialization. Management of the land, which
includes off-leash dog walking, should continue as it did prior to the NPS taking
52

BB1200 – Baker Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
over the land.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 361
Comment ID: 181141
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Now, regarding the preferred alternative proposal for the
Baker Beach unit, I find the proposed changes to be most unacceptable, and feel
that they will basically end the use of this area for recreational use by dog owners
and their companion animals.
Corr. ID: 1489
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191291
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing regarding the proposed resolution to ban all
off-leash dog recreation at Crissy Field, Baker Beach, Ocean Beach and Fort
Funston. I am thoroughly opposed to the proposed revisions to almost eliminate
off-leash dog use.
This land was turned over to the GGNRA from the City of San Francisco with the
intent that the recreational use would continue as it did under the management of
the City of San Francisco. This included off-leash dog use.
Corr. ID: 1755
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191226
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing this letter in response to the discussion about
no longer allowing dogs to run free at Baker Beach and on the Land's End trail. I
am against this proposal.
My dog and I have gone to Baker Beach twice daily for the last five years. It has
been a lifesaver not only for me because of the opportunity to exercise and
socialize.
Corr. ID: 1774
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191567
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Baker Beach, I suggest that you reconsider "the 1979
pet policy" as the Preferred Alternative for Baker Beach. Eliminating a Regulated
Off-Leash Dog Area at Baker Beach would have the effect of limiting Regulated
Off-Leash Dog Areas in San Francisco to Crissy Field, Ocean Beach, and Fort
Funston. These three areas could then have increased density of people with dogs,
and that could result in increased environmental degradation at these three areas
due to overuse.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29262
The environmental benefit of the preferred alternative for Baker Beach is not
explained or justified in the DEIS.
Corr. ID: 941
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191460
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Baker Beach: What is the environmental benefit of the
"Preferred" Alternative? Certainly there is not one that can be justified. The report
calls for restrictions just to be restrictive with no justification. Same could be said
for Muir Beach.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192061
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: b) Baker Beach:
The DEIS fails to provide support for the need to ban dogs from the northern
section of the beach and fails to address the overcrowding and inherent conflicts
from restricting dogs to the more populated areas of the beach. The DEIS fails to
consider adequately the potential for increased dog walking at Baker Beach as a
53

BB1200 – Baker Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
result of the sharp reduction of space available for dog walking at the nearby Crissy
Field and other GGNRA sites due to increased restrictions on dog walking
mandated in DEIS. The DEIS should be changed to analyze the above effects, and
the DEIS should be changed to continue to allow off leash dog play on the northern
section of the beach while requiring on leash walking in the more heavily used
areas down from the parking lots.

BB1300 - Baker Beach: Desire Other Alternative
29263
Commenters support Alternative A, the 1979 Pet Policy for the Preferred
Alternative for Baker Beach. The existing off-leash dog walking areas should
continue to be available to dogs and responsible owners.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 796
Comment ID: 186025
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a daily user of the Marin Headlands, Crissy Filed, and
Baker Beach. I would like to support alternative A in all these locations.Please keep
the existing off leash areas open and available to dogs and their responsible owners
Corr. ID: 1243
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194924
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a frequent user of Baker Beach and would like to
voice my support for Alternative A for Baker Beach (Map 12-A:Baker Beach). I
believe Alternative A takes into account the needs and interests of the majority of
recreational users of Baker Beach without having a negative impact on any of these
users, or perhaps more importantly, the environment.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29265
Commenters stated that if current conditions are unlikely, alternative E would be
the best compromise since the southern portion of the beach would contain a
ROLA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1554
Comment ID: 190742
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My preference for Baker Beach is to leave it as is,
however, I realize that is highly unlikely. One proposal seems to have
approximately 1/2 the beach designated off leash. I feel that is an acceptable
compromise.
Corr. ID: 1774
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191571
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you cannot reconsider "the 1979 pet policy" as the
Preferred Alternate for Baker Beach, then "Alternative E" for Baker Beach should
be chosen.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

BB1400 - Baker Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
29267
ROLAs - Allow ROLAs on the southern portion of Baker Beach and on trails
(specifically Coastal Trail) and allow on-leash dog walking within the picnic areas
and the northern portion of Baker Beach.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417
Comment ID: 181588
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Baker Beach (proposed Alternative D): The current
proposal is for dogs leashed on most trails, banned from North Baker Beach.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

54

BB1400 – Baker Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Instead, dogs should be allowed off-leash on the trails and old battery nearest the
parking lots, as they aren't sensitive habitat and not too high traffic. On leash in the
picnic area and all other trails, as well as North Baker Beach (ie: not banned, but
leashed). South Baker Beach, near the stream's run-off, should be designated as offleash. This provides concern for habitat (leashed) without banning dogs, and
encourages dog owners to walk their dogs on the southern portion, which would
limit dogs in other areas (again, if the alternative is there, most dog walkers would
prefer that area), as well as concern for picnic areas.
Corr. ID: 1949
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192689
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative 'A'+
The entire "Coastal Trail" needs to be a regulated off leash area..particularly since
the trail is sparsely populated much of the day + night....
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29268
Time of Day Restrictions - Allow ROLAs during "quiet periods" during the day at
Baker Beach, specifically in the early morning and evenings on weeknights.
Corr. ID: 2024
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193239
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Why not have TIMED sessions for dogs to be off leash at
Baker Beach - say 7-10 A.M. only? Then maybe no dogs. That would give dog
owners a chance to exercise their dogs, and then the beach is free of dogs the entire
rest of the day. China Beach, next door, allows no dogs at all, so birds can go there.
Better screens could easily be installed to keep dogs out of the vegetation next to
parking lots
Corr. ID: 2045
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193289
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Baker Beach
Morning & evening weekday only off-leash would not conflict the visitor
experience (busiest tourist time)
Corr. ID: 2131
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193423
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Baker Beach is very quiet during periods of the day. Please
put up good signage for off-leash times. Not weekends or holidays of course.

CB1000 - Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
29651
Commenters oppose Compliance-Based Management Strategy because it is
unfair/unclear and/or omits critical information that is not clearly defined in the
DEIS. Commenters find the strategy unfair because it only allows changes to be
more restrictive, does not include an opportunity for public comment if changes are
made, and does not define what or how compliance will be determined.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 606
Comment ID: 182193
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have serious concerns about the GGNRA's off-leash
proposal, particularly, the "poison pill" of the Compliance-based Management
Strategy. A management plan should not come with a built-in nuclear option, which
is what this is. This strategy is fundamentally unfair and unbalanced since it Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

- Allows the off-leash status to be changed in only one direction (toward more
restriction) with no possibility of increased access in the future.
- Circumvents the legal requirement that management changes that are either
55

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
significant or controversial must have a public process before they can be made.
- Omits critical information about how compliance will be determined, allowing
room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
- Permits the GGNRA to change the status of off-leash areas to on-leash or no dogs
without additional public comment if there is not 100% compliance with the new
restrictions.
- Makes the change permanent.
While there should be, and are, enforced penalties for bad actors, the vast majority
of people who do not act badly should not be penalized for the bad actions of a few.
No number of responsible dog owners will stop what will become the inevitable
removal of all off-leash access in the GGNRA if this strategy remains part of the
plan. This component MUST be removed from the proposal.
Corr. ID: 772
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 185693
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The compliance-based management strategy is by
definition too vague. How will the total number of dogs be determined without
some kind of license or permit that also designates how often the dog uses the area?
Most of the time I am exercising, I never see park personnel. If I walk my dog daily
for an hour along the prominade and some out-of-town visitor has their dog offleash in the same area, will that count as 1 violation out of 8 "dog uses", will it be
50% of the dogs on the path at that time, or will there be some accommodation for
the length of time I have been in compliance and the deminimus time the visitor is
not compliant? And for those who object to dogs being in the space they feel
should be dog free (but has been designated ROLA), will there be an easing of
restrictions if there is less that 75% compliance with the dog-adverse being in a
ROLA area?
Corr. ID: 1326
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195075
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Compliance-Based Management Strategy must not be
allowed! This poison pill that will allow the GGNRA to change the status of offleash areas to on-leash or no dogs without additional public comment if there is not
100% compliance with the new restrictions will not work. This strategy is unfair
because off-leash status can be changed in only one direction (toward more
restriction). It circumvents the legal requirement that management changes that are
either significant or controversial must have a public process before they can be
made.
Corr. ID: 1339
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195134
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I find the adaptive management provision of the regulated
off-leash areas (ROLAs) to be unacceptable. This provides the NPS with a
mechanism to further erode dog access to on-leash only and even to prohibit dogs
entirely without further consultation. The plan further states that under no
circumstances will the reverse be true - once dogs are banned the park will never
consider opening up access again.
Corr. ID: 1565
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190769
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All areas: Compliance of 75% after 12 months this needs
further definition. What is compliance? How do you measure it? Does it apply to
tourists? Is that fair to Bay Area residents?
Corr. ID: 1694
Organization: Not Specified
56

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
Comment ID: 191101
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) The Compliance-Based Management Strategy is unfair
and needs to go. It allows a relatively few bad dogs owners to determine how the
rest of us get to use the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 2911
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202577
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS includes a "compliance-based management
strategy" that says that, if there is not enough compliance with the restrictions
imposed by the Preferred Alternative, the GGNRA will change the management of
the various areas to the next more restrictive level - an offleash area will become
on-leash only, an on-leash area will become no dogs at all. This change will be
permanent, with no chance to go back to less restrictive levels at any time in the
future. This section must be removed from any final Dog Management Plan.
a) This compliance-based management strategy is decidedly unfair, because it can
only be changed in one direction - toward more restrictive levels of access for
people with dogs.
b) There is no provision for public comment in the case of a change in status of an
off-leash or on-leash area because of the compliance-based management strategy.
The GGNRA has already lost two court cases (and one appeal) when it tried to
make a significant and controversial policy change without going through a public
process. The federal courts have routinely told the GGNRA that they have to hold
public meetings and take public comments before making such changes. Clearly, a
change in status of an off-leash area to leash-only would be both significant and
very controversial, and therefore should require a period of public comment and
public hearings before being implemented. The poison pill in the DEIS is an end
run designed to allow the GGNRA to make such changes without having to go
through a public process (they can claim the public process was the public
comment on the
DEIS itself, not on the changes it allows at a future time).
c) How will compliance be monitored? Who will do the monitoring? The GGNRA
has
repeatedly relied on poorly trained volunteers with a deep-seated bias against dogs
to monitor the interactions between dogs and snowy plovers. Why would we expect
these compliance monitors to be any less biased? Will their claims of noncompliance be valid? Will the GGNRA resort to the use of surveillance cameras to
monitor compliance? While noting that there is no mention of surveillance cameras
in the DEIS, GGNRA staff have refused to say they would never be used.
Corr. ID: 3110
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201513
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan for dealing with non-compliance is a trap! 12
months with average 75% compliance is severe, but more importantly the plan that
an area not in compliance would shift to the more restrictive alternative with no
chance to ever get dog privileges back again later is unacceptable. (Do I have this
right! Seems very bad.) I urge some plan where more restrictive enforcement is for
a probational period, followed by return to the baseline alternative. It seems clear
that the enforcement plan proposed can only move one way, and thus will gradually
shift all areas to more restriction or exclusion of dogs, inevitably. That is totally
nuts!?
Corr. ID: 4010
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206756
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If implemented well, adaptive management is an important
and desirable approach to managing natural resources. However, the compliancebased management approach proposed for GGNRA is uni-directional and thus not
adaptive. As described in DEIS pp. xiii-xiv, the GGNRA will only be adaptive in
57

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
terms of further restricting access. Any steps toward further restrictions will be
permanent. This approach does not reflect adaptive management or any other good
management principle that I'm aware of.
Corr. ID: 4017
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206853
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am in favor of any plan which:
4. Contains no poison pill which would permit the GGNRA to outlaw dog walking
due to noncompliance. It is patently unfair to have a plan which allows the rights of
law abiding dog walkers to be dependent on the compliance of other people.
Corr. ID: 4089
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208381
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Draft Plan/Draft Plan/DEIS states (page 1725) that
"the compliance-based management strategy is an important and effective tool to
manage uncertainty when proposing new action" and "has been created" to assure
successful implementation and long-term sustainability. However, the detailed
description of this critical element has not been conveyed and is not included in the
document (as noted on page 64).
Corr. ID: 4452
Organization: San Francisco SPCA
Comment ID: 208467
Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: We are concerned with the lack of detail on how the new
rules will be monitored, how compliance will be tallied and the one-way direction
further restricts our access to the GGNRA if compliance is not at 75% or greater.
29652
Commenters have stated they are in support of Compliance-Based Management
Strategy as they have seen multiple dog walkers in non-compliance with current
regulations. Citations should be issued to non-compliant dog walkers.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 585
Comment ID: 182110
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support the concept of a
compliance-based management strategy, wherein lack of compliance means a
permanent change to a more restrictive management classification. Again,
if I thought this was enforceable, I would support it. The enforcement
records indicate that most non-compliance with dog-owners resulted in a
warning rather than a citation. Warnings don't produce the same results
that citations do, so I would hope that any enforcement strategy would
allow a window of adjustment wherein warnings are issued (maybe a year),
but then go to an all-citation based policy
Corr. ID: 2701
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195550
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In any event, I would strongly urge you to implement the
compliance program you propose. The advocates for off-leash repeatedly make
statements that suggest only a tiny minority of owners dont' comply with relevant
rules, but my experience at parks and other locations where dogs are prohibited or
are required to be on-leash is that a large number of owners do not obey the rules. I
think the advocates should encourage the responsible owners to self-police the less
responsible, and this is a good way to do it.
Corr. ID: 4070
Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207696
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 12)Compliance Based Management Strategy (pg. xiii last
paragraph)-Need to address noncompliance in ROLAs (e.g. not picking up waste,
more commercial dogs than permitted per handler, etc.).
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

58

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29653
Compliance-Based Management is opposed because there would be no public
process, including no public comment period and/or no public hearing.
Corr. ID: 740
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182693
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This is particularly concerning since the Compliance-based
Management Strategy component of the proposal allows the GGNRA to change the
status of off-leash areas to on-leash or no dogs without additional public comment
if there is not 100% compliance with the new restrictions. The fact that the
GGNRA can unilaterally circumvent the legal requirement to have a public hearing
for any future changes is seriously concerning - it is not the way we do things in
America!
Corr. ID: 1828
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191943
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also strongly object to the "Compliance-Based
Management Strategy". I feel it is a self serving attempt to circumvent the legal
requirement of a public process when management changes that are significant or
highly controversial are made. We are supposed to be a government by the people
and the people are objecting to the preferred alternative so this is a way to ignore
the citizens of this community
Corr. ID: 2230
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200849
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also oppose the GGNRA's proposed Compliance-Based
Management Strategy which will change the status of off-leash areas to on-leash or
no dogs without a chance for me to comment. This is unprecedented and just unAmerican.
Corr. ID: 2274
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201063
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Furthermore, as an environmentalist, I believe there should
be (and are) penalties for bad actors and these should be enforced. But the vast
majority of people who do not act badly should not be penalized for the bad actions
of a few. This strategy is unfair because off-leash status can be changed in only one
direction (toward more restriction). It circumvents the legal requirement that
management changes that are either significant or controversial must have a public
process before they can be made. Critical information about how compliance will
be determined - by volunteers biased against dogs? by surveillance cameras? - is
not included in the DEIS.
Corr. ID: 3737
Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204244
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Compliance-based Management Strategy cannot be part of
any plan. It changes status of areas (off-leash becomes on-leash; on-leash becomes
no dog) automatically and permanently if GGNRA claims not enough compliance
with new restrictions. No evidence of impacts from non-compliance are necessary,
only the fact that there is non-compliance. This will potentially end off-leash access
without giving people a chance to comment on the change.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29654
The Compliance-Based Management Strategy should be higher than 75 %
compliance since this would still allow disturbance within the park sites.
Corr. ID: 944
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191499
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

59

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
Representative Quote: 4. The goal of achieving 75% compliance with the leash
and voice control requirements is far too low. The Park Service should not be
creating a system that expects and tolerates failure by 25% of the dog walkers.
Golden Gate Audubon recommends a goal of 95% compliance with leash and voice
control requirements.
Corr. ID: 1522
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190688
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4) Compliance for areas where dogs are allowed should be
95%. At 75% compliance, a significant amount of damage still can be done.
Monitoring must be given priority, as well as clear signage.
Corr. ID: 1546
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190736
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4) Compliance should be 95%. The 75% allows too much
disturbance. Dog walkers (owners) on their web site admit 75% at some point
disregard the on-leash signage.
Corr. ID: 2675
Organization: NPCS
Comment ID: 195493
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Endangered species wildlife habitat deserve a higher level
of protection from human disturbance; the compliance rate should be 95%, not 75%
as outlined.
Limit off-leash recreation to areas where it will not have negative impacts on
sensitive wildlife and habitats.
Corr. ID: 3759
Organization: Wild Equity Institute
Comment ID: 204633
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Park Service admits that it's preferred alternative, a
compliance management program, will only strive for 75% compliance-a far lower
standard than the standard the Park Service apparently applied to physical barriers
when they were rejected from the alternative analysis. This is a blatant failure to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Corr. ID: 4683
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210180
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 75% compliance: The idea of 75% compliance is
unrealistic and unacceptable. With current closures to off leash dogs on most of
Ocean Beach. we only have less than 30% compliance with leash laws during the
period of mid July 2010 and mid May 2011. Success cannot be measured at a level
of poor compliance. We believe the Park Service should establish a success goal of
85% for the first year or the area should be closed to dogs all together. The rate for
the following years should be at the 95% level for all beaches and other sensitive
habitat areas. Compliance might be supplemented by education and warnings, but
that has not worked in the past. It is a simple fact that compliance must be enforced
with citations on a daily basis until the desired compliance rate is achieved.
29655
Commenters oppose or questions Compliance-Based Management and how the
park will monitor or demonstrate the level of compliance or how the park will
measure non-compliance [without baseline conditions]. It is recommended that the
park monitor to determine baseline conditions and then measure impacts to
resources rather than monitor for compliance. A detailed monitoring plan with
clear, enforceable standards and metrics should be written.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1210
Comment ID: 194853
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

60

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
Representative Quote: Compliance-Based Management Strategy: As described in
the draft, it is unclear how GGNRA staff would be able to demonstrate with valid
data that "compliance has fallen below 75 percent (measured as the percentage of
total dogs/dog walkers observed during the previous 12 months not in compliance
with the regulations. . .). This strategy has the potential to create a lot of law suits
and acrimony between GGNRA staff and dog walkers.
Corr. ID: 3733
Organization: SF DOG, Save McLaren Park
Comment ID: 204574
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed "compliance-based" approach punishes
many for the perceived transgressions of a few. It is a set up for failure and should
be modified to create a baseline of current conditions and then measure impacts vs.
compliance. The GGNRA should partner with the community to make the plan
work, not assume an adversarial relationship with failure the goal.
Corr. ID: 3745
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204607
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The compliance based management system has got to be
removed. It will not be implemented in a fair way. There is no way to measure
compliance as a number reliably, and it will be done subjectively, by a 3rd party
who will have no interest in being accurate anyway. There will be some level of
non-compliance, and that level will be called excessive, and off leash will become
leash, and leash will become no dog.
Corr. ID: 4223
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208949
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed "compliance-based" approach should be
modified to create a baseline of current conditions, then measure impacts rather
than compliance. It should include a robust public educational component and an
objective, long-term monitoring program designed and carried out with the
community. The GGNRA should develop partnerships with community, animal
welfare, and conservation organizations to make this work. These partner groups
could bring additional resources to limited federal resources. GGNRA should be a
partner with the City of San Francisco and other communities, not an adversary.
Corr. ID: 4533
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209689
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no indication of how compliance would be
measured and by what standards or who would measure it, and the consequences of
non-compliance (for which there is not necessarily any or significant negative
impact on natural resources) are rigid and biased. Change the Plan/DEIS to instead
provide for management of areas driven by an adaptive management policy that
assesses the impacts of non-compliance and provides regulation based on the
impacts, with the ability to reinstate dog walking policies as previously enjoyed in
areas where they may be restricted because of negative impacts if those impacts can
be remedied. The current ROLA regulations in the Plan should be thoroughly
revised to add clarity and allow for such flexibility and fairness to responsible
citizens with dogs.
Corr. ID: 4685
Organization: Marin Conservation League
Comment ID: 209984
Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The proposed Compliance-Based Management Strategy
will be based primarily on monitoring and recording the behavior of users by
observation, but the Plan does not include a detailed monitoring plan. The Draft
Plan establishes 75% as an acceptable level of compliance. However, the
management response (i.e., changing ROLAs to on- leash areas, and -on-leash- to
`",:no dogs') would not be implemented unless the compliance rate dropped below
75% Given the size of GGNRA, the limited number of personnel. and this inexact
measure of compliance, it will be difficult to develop an adequate monitoring plan.
61

CB1000 ‐ Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy
Implementing the monitoring plan in a way that produces reliable results and is
legally defensible will be even more difficult. Particularly in ROLAs, the
assessment of compliant -voice control" will require nuanced measures. The Plan
and EIS must assure the public that compliance will be consistently monitored by
establishing defensible, understandable, easily measured, and enforceable standards
and metrics.

CC2000 - Consultation and Coordination: Reg-Neg process
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29834
The plan should include more than one fully enclosed ROLA since this was one of
the items that resulted in consensus of the multi-year Negotiated Rulemaking
Process. In the absence of physical barriers around an off-leash area dogs may be
lost, injured, or killed.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29686 (AL1000), Comment 201290.

29840
The Reg Neg committee should have included representatives from Marin County.
More than three areas in Marin County should have been discussed by the Reg Neg
committee.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4005
Comment ID: 206271
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One general point that I find particularly disturbing is the
lack of participation allowed
to Marin County in creating the Reg Neg committee itself. To exclude such an
extensive
natural area from even being at the table as a stakeholder to me seems patently
absurd.
Agreement or disagreement with concepts or proposals is one thing; exclusion from
participation in the discussion about them is quite another.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29841
Local citizens (including dog owners) should have been able to participate in
regulation drafting; however, the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee was a good
effort to include the local public in designing regulation.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29833 (AD1100), Comment 206813.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29845
Commenters were disappointed that in almost two years of negotiating very little
was accomplished by the Reg Neg committee. Other commenters commended the
NPS for the Reg Neg process given the controversial nature of this project.

For representative quotes, please see Concern 29706 (LU2000), Comment 208875.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4639
Comment ID: 208788
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I served on the committee that was supposedly charged
with "negotiated rulemaking". I agreed that there might have to be compromises, as
did the representatives of all the other dog friendly groups. Apparently, that
requirement (compromises) was not a requirement for many of the other folks that
served on this committee. I went to each and every area that the GGNRA manages.
I walked/hiked. I photographed each area. I assumed we'd be talking about specific
62

CC2000 ‐ Consultation and Coordination: Reg‐Neg process
areas and how they were being used
currently and how to manage them better. I thought we might be able to discuss
access (Milagra Ridge, for example, is basically a neighborhood park because the
parking is extremely limited & the access without an automobile is difficult). We
suggested discussing timed use (successful in a number of areas). We were told that
timed use was too difficult for people to understand! We suggested a tag system,
similar to one being used by Boulder Open Space in Colorado (with people actually
going to Boulder to investigate the use). That, too, was dismissed. So, in two years
almost nothing was accomplished. I was disappointed in the facilitators and
disgusted that a few people made sure that nothing was ever really discussed. And
yet the Park Service managed to come up with a huge plan that is NOT a result of
any negotiated rulemaking.
31540
The negotiated rulemaking process did not take into account all important factors
and circumstances. Negotiated rulemaking was undertaken despite objections to the
options presented for discussion, and does not satisfy rulemaking requirements.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4697
Comment ID: 227448
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: (A) The Crissy Field development plan was based on a
finding of no significant impact based on an assumption that the additional off
leash areas then existing in the dog management plan were to be continued. If the
assumption on which the Crissy Field development FONSI relied is arbitrarily
removed, or retroactively determined to be false as implied by the DEIS, it is
arbitrary and capricious to proceed inconsistently overruling the prior finding
without analysis.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

(B) After the issuance of the rulemaking on the Fort Funston closure, recreational
users requested reconsideration of the ruling. Some of the requests for
reconsideration received no response, and therefore are still pending. Director
Mainella's eventual response to one of the requests for reconsideration included a
promise that the scope of the dog walking at the closed areas would be part of the
subject matter considered in the later planned consideration of overall dog walking
management in the GGNRA. Director Mainella was correct in concluding that the
traditional dog walking use of those areas is indeed a proper subject of
consideration concerning the overall dog walking management plan. Recreational
users had a right to rely on the representations of the Director. It is arbitrary and
capricious to preclude consideration of those areas in the current DEIS.
(C) It is arbitrary and capricious to fail to consider the social and environmental
impact of the creeping closures of dog walking areas initially allowed in the 1979
Pet Policy. Closures of those areas have significant impact on the important impact
factor of the concentration of the recreational use in limited areas. Offsetting
mitigation replacement areas should be considered as part of any impact analysis,
as should the impact of the closures.
The preferred alternative plan adopts an improper hostile compliance based
management scheme calling fo further limitation if there is not 75% compliance
with the change. In essence, the plan replaces the requirement of future rulemaking
over any significant change with a plan allowing the GGNRA to make future
changes administratively. That switched procedure violates the rulemaking
requirement.
Corr. ID: 4697
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227446
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

63

CC2000 ‐ Consultation and Coordination: Reg‐Neg process
Representative Quote: Negotiated rulemaking protocols generally call for
considering all potential solutions and allowing the public process to paint on a
fresh canvas. Although the NPS received objections to the negotiated rulemaking
process proceeding based on constrained options, the NPS went forward with the
drastically curtailed approach precluding full consideration of the relevant factors.
Reliance of such an approach in the face of notice of the clear insufficiency of the
approach is arbitrary and capricious and does not satisfy the 36 CFR 1.5
rulemaking requirements. The same procedural impropriety is employed in the
current management plan alternatives in the DEIS.

CF1100 - Crissy Field: Support Preferred Alternative
29441
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it allows a no-dog area at
the East Beach of Crissy Field so visitors can have a park beach experience without
dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2
Comment ID: 180044
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a frequent user of the Crissy Field East Beach area,
near the north end of the main Crissy parking lot by the concrete bathroom building
and the windsock. I am fully in agreement with the Plan's recommendation that this
area be made a no-dog area. Please register another SF native and 40-year resident
in support of this plan.
Corr. ID: 85
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181890
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field
The preferred alternative is a good balance. When the east beach is busy there can
be far too many dogs and people competing for space.
Corr. ID: 170
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182282
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the plan's proposal to require dogs to be
on-leash in the East Beach area of Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 653
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181488
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Hello, l am in favor of the preferred alternative in the
proposed dog management plan especially were it prohibits dogs on or off-leash at
East Beach at Crissy Field.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The problem is out of control with Dogs chasing wildlife, poop everywhere,
digging wholes, peeing on personal property, biting and knocking people over.
Also I am disappointed with that lack of enforcement of the current rules;
specifically keeping Dogs out of the out door shower and bathroom at Crissy field.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29442
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it requires on-leash dog
walking on the promenade at Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 1485
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191266
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing in support of the proposed Dog Plan for the
Fort Mason/Crissy Field area.
As a dog owner who frequently walks our dog on Crissy field, I believe that
64

CF1100 ‐ Crissy Field: Support Preferred Alternative
requiring leaches for dogs walking on the Promenade is a plan that protects both
dogs and other visitors. Also, I believe that allowing, dogs off lead on the center
beach, provides a necessary, adequate and beautiful area for dogs to run free. I also
agree that at least a portion of the eastern beach closest to the parking lot should not
allow dogs off lead. This particularly true when in the summer months many
families with small children use that beach.
Corr. ID: 4354
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209529
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: CRISSY FIELD, east, west, and central
The most uncaring, self-centered dog owners I have encountered walk on the
Golden Gate Promenade. Many of them do not keep their dogs under voice control
so that others can walk without being bothered. My grandson froze against my leg
several times in the course of the three Tuesday mornings we were there, (I have
not tried the area on a weekend or holiday.) My instinctive reaction is to suggest
that the Promenade is no place for unleashed dogs because it is too narrow and
because of the attitude of the dog owners. Also, I think the Promenade with its
splendid views of the Golden Gate is an area that should welcome visitors from
outside San Francisco, and I don't think it does at this time.
The dogs and their owners seem to do better along the beach, probably because the
dogs have room to roam and seem to be more interested in the other dogs they meet
and the balls or sticks their owners are throwing. However, the owners also seem to
be more aware and respectful of other people on the beach that their dogs move to
encounter and to call them off.
My grandson may also feel he has more room to avoid them.
There are certain areas along the beach favored by the commercial dog walkers'
two or three may congregate together. There may be 12 - 18 dogs at a time in one
place. In general, these dog walkers seem to keep relatively good control over their
dogs. Not having a dog with me, I don't really know how these small packs of dogs
relate to single animals coming down the beach but I have not seen any incidents.
Therefore, I support maximum leash restrictions on the Promenade, while favoring
a broad area for off- leash on the beach, consonant with wildlife protection. I
haven't been able to observe the interactions of dogs with people on the former
airfield.
Having written the above, I checked the Plan maps and find I support the Preferred
Alternative.
An additional note: A friend told me that she and her husband unwittingly
wandered into the wildlife protection area on the beach side because the signage
was not clear enough on that side so that they didn't realize they had entered it. If
this has not been mentioned before, I hope someone will check this out at both high
and low tide to make sure the signage is very observable along the beach.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29443
Commenters support the beach ROLA or Airfield ROLA proposed at Crissy Field
because it is proposed in a preferred location.
Corr. ID: 1917
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192599
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field - The beach ROLA in the Preferred alternative
is the safest place for dogs to swim (compared to the beaches on the ocean).
Corr. ID: 3937
Organization: Not Specified

65

CF1100 ‐ Crissy Field: Support Preferred Alternative
Comment ID: 205878
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the use of the Airfield at Crissy Field as a ROLA,
as that is an area where dogs will not interfere with wildlife or other users.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29444
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it does not allow dogs in the
Crissy Wildlife Protection Area or the Tidal Marsh (wetland area).
Corr. ID: 1159
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193461
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly recommned rules requiring that dogs be on leash
or banned completely from Crissy Field Wildlife Protection Area. Dogs frequenlty
jump on strangers trying to enjoy that area, they run wild on the beaches, they
climb through or jump over the fences and dig up the new planintings, and they
chase birds. Crissy Field Wildlife Protection Area is at risk for being over-taken by
dogs like has happened at Fort Funston. The most important parts that need to be
protected are the walking paths and the beaches. These areas are used heavily and
are not condusive to dogs off leash. Protecting Crissy Field Wildlife
Protection Area from dogs is critical to the success of GGNRA. Letting dogs run
off leash harms the ability of users to enjoy GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4265
Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209122
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: CRISSY FIELD WILDLIFE PROTECTION AREA. Dogs
should be excluded from the Crissy Field Wildlife Protection Area because the
presence of dogs is not compatible with protection of wildlife. As stated above,
dogs disrupt wildlife and reduce wildlife use of areas.
Corr. ID: 4541
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209716
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are not appropriate for the Crissy field wetland area.
Corr. ID: 4584
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210027
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Central Beach ' The Central Beach ROLA should
be fenced and gated. Fences at the west and east ends should extend to the water at
extreme low tide. Adequate buffer zones (-300ft) should be included beyond the
west and east boundary fences to protect the WPA and the lagoon outlet from the
influences of excessive dog play activity. Access points from the promenade should
be gated. Signs should be posted clearly identifying the area as an off-leash dog
play area and stating the voice and sight control rules.
Crissy East Beach ' Fencing should be installed to protect the lagoon outlet zone.
Outlet areas from bodies of water into bays or oceans are of high habitat value. The
outlet zone should be included as part of the protected lagoon area and similarly
fenced.

29445
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it has less off-leash dog
areas for visitors who want a no-dog experience at Crissy Field and/or provides a
balance of on-leash, off-leash, and no dog areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2197
Comment ID: 200695
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I wanted to take a moment to voice my support for the
recommneded changes to the current dog walking rules at Crissy field. I love
Crisyy field, but I dont like the dog owners and their dogs for turning into one big
off leash extravaganza. Instead of smelling like ocean air, the place smells of dog
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

66

CF1100 ‐ Crissy Field: Support Preferred Alternative
urine. My son has been scared multiple times by a wandering off-leash dog, with a
surprised owner saying he wont bite, he's friendly. Not every body wants to know
or be bothered by their animal. if dogs can come to Crissy field without rules, why
cant horse owners do the same. Make rules and enforce them without hesitation.
Corr. ID: 2293
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201174
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to voice my support for dog management at
Chrissy field. I write a a dog-owner and lover; however, Golden Gate National
Recreation area is adversely impacted by large numbers of dog running off-leash.
Visitors are often accosted by dogs. I have also witness many incidents of dogs
chasing other wildlife and plants.
Corr. ID: 4526
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209611
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk Crissy Field most days of the week from the Golden
Gate Bridge to the St. Francis Yacht Club and back. I am writing in support of your
organization's plan to require leashed dogs on all sidewalks and paved roads in the
GGNRA and limited, regulated off-leash areas as indicated on your Map 10,
Preferred Alternative: Crissy Field. This plan appears to offer balanced solutions
for dog owners, dog-less walkers and out-of-town visitors. I would love to take that
walk without concern for free-running dogs while enjoying the protected plantings,
wildlife and the amazing scenery.

CF1200 - Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29448
Commenters do not support reducing the off-leash areas at Crissy Field as part of
the Preferred Alternative because limiting these areas would reduce their enjoyment
of this site that is an important recreation area, and would result in the
overcrowding of dogs in proposed off-leash areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 163
Comment ID: 182274
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am opposed to the proposal of limiting off leash dogs on
many historically dog friendly recreational walks, particularly on Crissy Field's
East Beach.
Corr. ID: 221
Organization: Personal Use
Comment ID: 180693
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly oppose creating any restricted areas for dogs at
either Chrissy Field or Fort Funston. As a dog owner, those areas are vital (and
rare) spaces where my dog is free to interact with the environment. A contained
space is simply not the same for a dog, or a dog owner. It would also significantly
hinder my use and enjoyment of the space. In fact, although I am a frequent visitor
to both parks now, I would be unlikely to go at all if the only option was a penned
in space.
Corr. ID: 233
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180739
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a responsible dog owner, I feel that that dog
management plan draft is far too limiting for the large number of us responsible
dog owners. Looking at the map with the proposed dog areas at Crissy Field, half
the main areas where dogs have the most fun will be off limits. While I do feel off
leashdogs must be under strict control by their owners, cutting the few areas where
dogs can RUN, is a terrible direction for the GGNRA to take.
Corr. ID: 272
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180880
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

67

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Representative Quote: I go to Ft. Funston and Crissy Field because of the wide
open spaces and freedoms it affords allowing dogs to be dogs. My dog is never sick
after playing at Ft. Funston or Crissy Field. My family has accepted the contained
dog play areas in our neighborhood but please don't eliminate the privilege of
largely unrestricted off leash play areas at Ft Funston or Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 344
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181117
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Fields and Fort Funston must be kept for the
enjoyment of off-leash dogs, their owners, and everyone else! With the dwindling
space left for dogs to run free (as it is in their nature to do),we can't lose these
beloved spot. Limiting their use is awful.
Corr. ID: 396
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181188
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Basically, it seems entirely unnecessary to me to restrict
dog use at Chrissy Field. There is enough room for everybody. I am a bird lover as
well as a dog lover and an environmentalist. I love Chrissy Field and I hope that it
can continue to be the recreation area I love so much, inclusive of dogs and their
happy owners.
Corr. ID: 1202
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194829
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We pay our share of tax for public schools, please let us
continue to have the opportunity to play with our 'kids' off-leash. I'm looking at the
proposed map of Chrissy Field--hundreds of dogs and their owners enjoy this beach
every day. If this regulation is approved and we are only allowed a little strip of
beach, it will be grossly congested and not enjoyable for anyone.
29454
Site Accessibility - Commenters do not support reducing the off-leash areas at
Crissy Field as part of the Preferred Alternative because accessibility of the ROLA
is an issue, including parking areas for disabled (or mobility impaired) persons or
for families since leashes are required at parking areas (at East Beach) or the walk
to the beach ROLA from the parking area would be longer than the current walk to
the beach that allows dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 988
Comment ID: 191701
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Have you been to Crissy Field? Many people who bring
their dogs to the beach use the parking lost west of the tidal marsh. All of your
plans make that part of the air field "leash required" so, there is no place that you
can go from the parking lot to the beach that is all off leash. Even if they use the
larger parking lots to the east, there is no off leash areas near the beach so we all
have to deal with leashes no matter what with your plans.
Corr. ID: 1627
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190935
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred alternative for Crissy Field fails to consider
the shortage of parking near + adjacent to the field where dogs would be permitted
off leash. The lack of parking would prevent many people, especially the disabled
and seniors (like me) who cannot walk far, from exercising our dogs (e.g., throwing
balls with Chuck-its). Our dogs badly need their exercise and cannot get needed
exercise by extremely limited on-leash walking, because we cannot walk very far.
We must have convenient off-leash areas. Please change the Preferred Alternative
so we can exercise our dogs on the Crissy Field East Beach, where we can park our
automobiles and not have to walk far.
Corr. ID: 2219
Organization: Not Specified
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

68

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Comment ID: 200789
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposal suggests that Crissy Field separate the family
area and dog area by banning dogs from the beach located in front of the parking
lot. When you visit Crissy Field today, the beach front at the parking lot is full of
families and their dogs. Banning dogs from the area will also bann families from
the area. This is unfair to our families who will be pushed away from the bathrooms
and be forced to lugg our family picnic supplies and strollers to a greater distance
away from the parking lot. Banning dogs from the fore-beach area takes away from
the purpose of the park as a city recreational space. This is unproductive and unfair
Corr. ID: 2815
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201121
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Due to a serious accident I can no longer skate or engage
in strenuous activities and therefore the ambiance of Crissy Field has become even
more important to our family Our sons often bring our grandchildren to enjoy the
space'
As the proposed areas of elimination at Crissy field appear it would be almost
impossible for a handicapped person with family and dog to get onto the beach.
This has not been thought through.
There are thousands of people who would be asked to use this cramped area!
We support Alternative A, but suggesting leashing be required in the parking area
which would be advantageous for visitors, other users, safety of children and dogs
as well.
Corr. ID: 3707
Organization: PHRA, NAPP (speaking on behalf of
myself in this case)
Comment ID: 202246
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The comments that follow refer only to the Crissy Field
area, because I am most familiar with it.
The two areas selected for off-leash dog walking in the Preferred Plan discriminate
against people with disabilities:
Central Beach is, of course, sand, and that is a very difficult surface for people who
have walking or pulmonary problems. Walking on sand takes a lot more energy
than walking on a firm surface. For people in wheel chairs, it probably precludes
them for using it.
Similarly, the grassy areas of the former landing strip are lumpy and difficult to
walk on.
At both areas, there is insufficient access to adequate parking close by to
accommodate handicapped dog owners who have come to Crissy Field to exercise
their dogs.
I have pulmonary problems and enjoy off-leash dog walking on the Promenade. On
the Promenade, bicyclists are a problem because most of them ignore the posted 5
MPH speed limit. The riders with dogs are the most egregious abusers of disposing
of their dogs' feces because they ride far ahead of their sniffing, social pets.
I could be somewhat satisfied with access limited to Central Beach + the southern
half of the former airstrip -- IN ADDITION TO THE PROMENADE AND
BEACH ACCESS BEGINNING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BRIDGE TO
THE WESTERN END OF CENTRAL BEACH. This suggestion does not address
the added burden to City open space by limiting off-leash walking as much as you
have suggested.
69

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative

I would also like to point our that on rainy and/or winter days, dog walkers are the
main users of Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 3756
Organization: Can't delete check in "member," an
error. Sorry
Comment ID: 204615
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred proposal for Crissy Field is unworkable. The
off leash area is ill-defined with little parking. it seems designed to create
infractions and makes no rational sense as it will only concentrate a greater number
of dogs (particularly from adjoining areas where they are even more restricted) on a
smaller space virtually guaranteeing problems. Further, from the maps it appears
that the dog area will be the same area as is used by the increasing number of big
events from which dogs are necessarily excluded. THis is short sighted and unfair.
Corr. ID: 4615
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206362
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have reviewed the maps you have presented and am very
concerned that your proposed alternative where dogs are restricted to a very small
area of Crissy Field is unfair to people who own dogs and unfair to those of us who
cannot walk to those areas where you are telling the dogs to go. These areas are a
significant distance from the parking lot and I would not be able to participate with
my family in playing with and watching the dogs.. This would take away my
enjoyment of Crissy Field. I have also noticed that when I am with a friend with a
dog or we have with us a dog that a friend has let us take out people are much
friendlier to me and do not notice my disability but talk to me about the dog. I
makes me feel like I am part of the community. I think that people with dogs are
friendlier and nicer in general.
29457
Commenters do not support the Preferred Alternative because it does not allow
dogs on East Beach, or because dogs are not allowed in the Tidal Inlet, or because
it limits the off-leash dog area at the Crissy Field Airfield.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 773
Comment ID: 185695
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field. Although I do appreciate the potential need to
separate dogs from some areas, given the usage in the area during the week, I don't
believe that you need to adopt an absolute no-dog zone for the East Beach area.
Corr. ID: 1661
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191061
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Chrissy Field- The East beach is a favorite for families to
bring their dog - don't penalize them
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192053
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In banning dogs from the East Beach, DEIS fails to take
into account the negative effects and other factors outlined below. The DEIS should
address these factors:
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

- Many families that have children also have a dog and would want access to
nearby facilities at East Beach.
- Elderly or more handicapped individuals that want to take their dog to the beach
would have access through East Beach.
- East beach sees a lot of activity from windsurfers/kite surfers who drag equipment
across beach, making it less suitable for families with small children and beach
picnics.
- In practice, fog, rain, and wind make beaches in San Francisco inhospitable for
70

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
family beach play and picnics for much of the year. Among major U.S. cities San
Francisco has the coldest daily temperatures (mean, minimum and maximum) in
June, July and August. As a result, dogs would be banned from East Beach for no
real purpose.
- Visitors seeking a dog free beach experience with nearby facilities will have
access to the beach in the WPA near the Warming Hut.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192058
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS restricts off leash dog play to the center portion
of the Airfield and requires leashes on the eastern portion of the Airfield.
Comment: The DEIS provides no scientific or other support for restricting off leash
dog play on the eastern portion of the grassy Airfield. The DEIS fails to take into
account the following factors that support maintaining the entire Airfield as a off
leash dog play area.
The DEIS should address these factors and should be changed to permit off leash
dog walking on the entire Airfield.
- The Airfield is presently used primarily by dog walkers for on and off leash play
and is not suitable for picnics and most other activities because it is often wet (poor
drainage) and a distance from bathrooms, etc. It is also characterized by uneven
ground with many gopher/vole holes and dirt mounds, patchy uneven grass
reflecting impact of many events on natural grass planted at time of restoration of
Airfield.
- During the spring, summer and fall months, many events are held on the central
portion of the grassy field, making this area unavailable for off leash play. Under
the Plan during these events, dogs would have no off leash play area on the entire
northern side of the City except the central beach at Crissy Field.
- With a major reduction in other off leash play areas, keeping the entire field
available makes sense.
Corr. ID: 2204
Organization: Crissy Field
Comment ID: 200715
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am saddened by the changes proposed for Crissy Field. I
can live with most of them but the worst one is no dogs in the INLET between
CENTRAL BEACH and EAST BEACH.
Corr. ID: 2235
Organization: Crissy field dog group
Comment ID: 200866
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Map 10-Crissy Field. It is my fervent wish to support
Alternative A - that map which continues to allow maximum access to beachfront
off-leash activity, especially continued use of East Beach.
Corr. ID: 3633
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204194
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my opposition to the preferred
alternative in the DEIS. I have been a resident of the Marina for 21 years and daily
user of Crissy Field and an weekly user of Baker Beach and Fort Mason. For the
community of local dog owners, walking at Crissy is an important part of our daily
lives and a way to stay in touch with friends and neighbors. The preferred
alternatives for all these areas seem unnecessarily restrictive, excluding large areas
(such are the airfield) which are rarely utilized by other park users unless there is a
weekend event. Although I can understand restrictions on heavily trafficked areas
such as the promenade, the proposed restrictions seem excessive. Also concerning
is the "poison pill" provision where the NPS reserves the right to rescind all 'off
leash' dog walking based on a single infraction. This is absurd! Are you also
similarly proposing to ban all cyclists in the GGNRA if one cyclist exceeds the
speed limit or ban all cars if one driver rolls through a stop sign? I doubt it. An anti71

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
dog bias is clearly evident throughout the document. This process is not about
finding a compromise, it is about imposing a solution that brings the GGRNA rules
in line with existing NP properties, not withstanding the existing mandate to
preserve recreational uses that is the foundation of the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3652
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204124
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I drive to the city on a regular basis to walk with my dog at
East Chrissy Field beach. Please don't take this away or the other dog friendly
venues. There are countless numbers of venues that are not dog friendly that
families and individuals who do not wish to share their space with dogs having fun
to frequent. These open spaces are far safer than small overcrowded
"dog parks" that are can be measured in square feet. Furthermore, for destination
dog friendly venues, most people also spend money in that community. So the
potential for lost revenue to local business is real.
Corr. ID: 4412
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207001
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Chrissy Field
AIRFIELD: It is both impractical and illogical to limit the proposed ROLA to the
center section of the airfield.
1) The east section of the airfield lies between two proposed ROLA's which will
cause confusion and require the park service to put up signs or fence off the area.
2) The walkways along and through the east section of the airfield provide access to
the Central Beach proposed ROLA
3) It is impractical and illogical not to have a contiguous ROLA
4) The east section of the airfield is not a high traffic area for either people, dogs or
wildlife (unless you count gophers)
5) Corralling all dogs into one section of the airfield will overtax that section of
land
6) If the concern is simply to craft a compromise between those who wish to allow
dog access to the airfield, and those who don't, then time restrictions, rather than
area restrictions, would be a more sensible way to do so. (The area would only need
to be patrolled for a portion of the day, which would, of course, result in some cost
savings to the government.)
29458
Commenters do not support the Preferred Alternative because they support less offleash or on-leash areas at Crissy Field or think dogs should be banned entirely to
allow the public to enjoy the site or to protect wildlife at the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1556
Comment ID: 190746
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field:
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

No dogs at waters edge of Crissy Field. "Dogs allowed" in any area means "off
leash" to owners.
Preferred 10B if must allow. Forget Map 10, 10A, 10C, 10D, and 10E
Picnic areas are at 2 far ends of C.F. + are extremely crowded. Enhance that
experience by increasing indiv. tables and group picnic areas on 2/3 of Crissy Air
Field + reduce that area for dogs by that 2/3. This is an entirely too large area for
off leased dogs + will mean they will cross Promenade + dominate the coastal area
on both sides of Pier with uncontrolled dogs.
Corr. ID: 2862
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202695
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not allow dogs on Crissy Field or the East Beach
72

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
there
Corr. ID: 3404
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203230
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge the GGNRA to adopt the policies for each site that
would be most protective of natural resources and wildlife, especially endangered
or threatened species. I believe the top concern for national parks should be
preservation of the environment and of wildlife.
I also am concerned about the many times I have been approached, touched, or
jumped on, whether playfully or aggressively, by off-leash dogs in some areas,
especially Crissy Field. Off-leash dogs represent some amount of injury that is just
waiting to happen. I would prefer that leashes be required in all of Crissy Field, but
if off-leash areas are permitted, I believe they should be fenced. It is plain that
neither dogs nor many of their owners or walkers will voluntarily obey leash laws
at Crissy Field. Furthermore, the Park Service should vigorously enforce full
compliance, not just compliance at a 75 percent level.
Corr. ID: 4295
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209018
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very opposed to the recommendations that allow dogs
off- leash on the Crissy Field beach and on-leash on the walking path. My children
have gotten frightened by dogs and one of them was traumatized by a vicious dog
fight nearby. My kids wander around and like to pick up pebbles and sand. There is
sometimes dog poop that is not cleaned up. It is not a safe environment for small
children.
I urge you to consider changing the proposed plan. Dogs should not be allowed off
leash on the beach. Indeed, I think that dogs should not be allowed on the beach at
all unless it is a designated, fenced area.
And dogs should not be allowed on the path. It is too crowded, full of adults, kids,
bikes. Children are vulnerable and must be protected.
Corr. ID: 4315
Organization: State of California Department of Fish
and Game
Comment ID: 209391
Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Crissy Field
The NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) differs from the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative in the designation of a ROLA along the shoreline of Central
Beach. Under Alternative D, dogs would be prohibited in this area. As stated in the
draft EIS, the adoption of Alternative C at this site is likely to result in minor
adverse impacts to coastal dune vegetation; long-term moderate adverse impacts on
shorebirds, gulls, terns and marine mammals; and long-term adverse impacts to the
federally threatened western snowy plover. DFG recommends that Alternative D be
selected as the adopted alternative as it, by prohibiting dogs from the Central Beach
shoreline, would avoid impacts to coastal dune vegetation which may result from
trampling, digging, and dog waste; impacts to birds which may result from repeated
flushing; impacts to marine mammals which may result from biting, barking, or
physical contact; and impacts to snowy plover which may result from harassment,
including interruption of foraging and roosting behavior.
29459
Commenters do not agree with the Preferred Alternative because the changes
proposed are either not justified, not based upon sound science, or they do not agree
that wildlife and listed species are negatively affected by off-leash dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4038
Comment ID: 207209
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

73

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Representative Quote: I strongly disagree with the GGNRA's preferred
alternatives for Crissy Field, and for the other GGNRA dog areas, because all these
alternatives greatly restrict and eliminate off-leash dog walking. I conclude that the
author(s) of these alternatives are biased against off-leash dogs. Worse still, the
proposed changes to the existing conditions (1979 Pet Policy) at Crissy Field are
not based upon sound science or long-term monitoring of the site-specific
conditions. The DEIS simply fails to justify its preferred alternative that would
exclude off-leach dogs at the East Beach at Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 4058
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207563
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I write again to add another fatal criticism of the DEIS for
the so-called preferred alternative for Crissy Field. I have years of firsthand, eyewitness experience at Crissy Field with off-leash dogs, beach users, picnickers, and
the protection of the vegetation, as well as the snowy plover (to which a section of
the west beach is dedicated, without dogs, for a period of time each year).
This DEIS and Plan doesn't recognize that environmental values include both
recreation and nature. In far too many places, the DEIS treats the environment and
recreation as adversarial values: the DEIS erroneously assumes that recreation only
harms natural resources. That document utterly fails to acknowledge that people
care about both recreation and natural resources, and that most all of the people
with off-leash dogs at Crissy Field and the East Beach are responsible, careful
stewards of our environment.
This bias in the DEIS is especially salient in the discussions relating to Crissy
Field; the false justifications for the so-called preferred alternative pits recreation
against natural values and erroneously assumes that harm "could" result to the
environment, when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. To the extent
that any fix" is needed for something that is definitely not broken, the DEIS fails to
identify or explore reasonable alternatives where nature and recreation can and do
thrive together.
Not only is there no specific evidence of any significant PAST degradation at
Crissy Field and East Beach. The proposed broad limitations in the DEIS for the
East Beach and Crissy Field as a whole are largely without site-specific science
demonstrating that the ANTICIPATED degradation of the quality of the natural
resources would actually be attributable to off-leash dogs as opposed to other
factors. There are so many other users of that area (e.g, children with inattentive or
irresponsible parents; sail boarders; alcohol users; picnickers; sports participants;
beach litterers) that the DEIS fails to consider as potential causes of any anticipated
degradation.
Corr. ID: 4581
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209698
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Moreover, there is inadequate consideration of the impact
of restricting off leash dogs on east beach at Crissy Field on the families that gather
there for recreation. Both of my children grew up sharing Crissy Field east beach
with their first dog. During many months of the year central beach is not safe
because of the high tides. The proposal does not adequately investigate the impact
on families of having to use Central Beach year round rather than east beach. There
is also no science based explanation for moving off leash dogs off east beach.
Please evaluate these alternatives and impacts. Major urban areas such as San
Francisco need more places to recreate with dogs off leash, not fewer.
The GGNRA was created with the purpose of providing recreational opportunities
for people. This includes off leash walking at sites like Crissy Field. The citizens of
74

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
San Francisco benefit greatly from these opportunities. Please do not restrict off
leash walking on these sites.
Corr. ID: 4645
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208967
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned with the GGNRA's Preferred
Alternative plan as it severely limits and affects the off leash dog walking areas at
both Crissy Field and at Fort Funston. The Preferred Alternative slashes off-leash
areas by nearly 90% - including areas that have traditionally been off-leash, voice
control areas - including Fort Funston and the East Beach at Crissy Field.
The Preferred Alternative is too restrictive. There is no justification in the DEIS for
major changes in access and upon that basis I oppose it.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29460
Commenters are under the impression that dogs will be banned from Crissy Field
entirely, not allowed on the beach at Crissy Field, or not allowed in off-leash areas.
Corr. ID: 3556
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203463
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As it stands, the Draft Dog Management Plan for GGNRA
will bring about many more problems than the minor ones it hopes to alleviate.
Here is my own personal example:
I live near the Panhandle, and I walk my dog to the Presido (Crissy Field)at least
twice a week. Since I can walk my dog through the Presidio to get to Crissy, I walk.
If the Dog Management Plan is accepted I will be forced to drive to the Presidio.
Since thousands of local dog owners do the same thing, they will be forced to drive
as well.
Consider all the extra car traffic and gridlock that will be caused by this plan - a
very serious (unintended) environmental consequence of changing the current
policy. I suggest that the dog policies as currently enforced remain in place.
Corr. ID: 3645
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204547
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These are my personal comments and observations
regarding this plan: As a native San Franciscan, I am reminded daily of how
fortunate I am to have a home town that some people can only dream of visiting. A
huge part of that great fortune is the time I am able to spend in the GGNRA with
my dog, Joe. He's really at his happiest on the beach, and I am so grateful that we
can enjoy that together. We're at Fort Funston and Crissy Field at a couple of times
a week It would be such a great loss to so many if we lost access to these areas as
places to walk our dogs.
Corr. ID: 3897
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206418
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I first came to the Presido of San Francisco as a Soldier in
1987. I have returned since leaving active service many, many times. Walking
Crissy Field beach with my dogs where I used to run on duty or in the woods
around the old Magazine. The opportunity for my dogs to run in the surf or play in
the long grass are some of my best memories with pets now gone and some of my
favorite photos of these lost friends and members of my family. The majority of pet
owners, the majority of all park users, are responsible. We carry bags to clean up
dog waste. We monitor our dogs when off leash and ensure they are behave
properly. Dogs need places to run. They need places that smell wild. Dogs that are
exercised properly are happy, well behaved and socialized. Please don't remove the
dog off leash areas. Because I lived there, because I kept the grounds as one of
many Soldiers there, I think of the park as my past home. I enjoy now returning
75

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
with my family which includes my dog to walk and remember my time there.
Removing the off leash or dog allowable areas would diminish the experience.
Keep the park accessible and enjoyable for all.
29461
Commenters state that the impacts included in the DEIS are inconsistent with the
FONSI for the Crissy Field development that concluded that there was no
significant impact in maintaining the 1979 Pet Policy off leash areas and was based
on a condition that any limitation in off leash access would only be made after a
public hearing before the Advisory Committee.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2061
Comment ID: 193318
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -Crissy Field FONSI needs to be reconciled with
inconsistent process used in DEIS for environmental impact analysis.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

-Crissy Field FONSI promises that no derivation from the 1979 policy will be made
without a public hearing.
Corr. ID: 4659
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209076
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I appreciate the incentive and noble effort to attract
wildlife to some areas, and enjoy seeing the progress in the lagoon area of Crissy
Field, I believe pushing such goals over beach access results in a substantial
improper deviation from the recreational mandate. For that reason I oppose the
portions of the Preferred Alternative that further limit off leash access at Crissy
Field. I note that the FONSI for the Crissy Field development concluded that there
was no significant impact in maintaining the 1979 Pet Policy off leash areas and
was based on a condition that any limitation in off leash access would only be made
after a public hearing before the Advisory Committee. That FONSI conclusion
appears inconsistent with the DEIS.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29462
Commenters oppose portions of the Preferred Alternative because the limitations
placed on the grassy area of Crissy Field in connection with events should be
described in more detail because, as written, GGNRA could potentially always
have events planned in the area and the Airfield could potentially always be off
limits to people with dogs; it is suggested that there should be limits placed on the
number and frequency of the events if they are to cause limits on access with dogs.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 209228 (MH1200), Comment
209695.

31868
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative becasue they feel Crissy Field is not
a pristine area, and does not contain important vegetation. The impacts from dogs
in these areas are small, as they are already largely degraded.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2926
Comment ID: 203438
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Since the Army left the Presidio, there have been many
changes and despite the fact that the Haas Foundation stipulated that off leash dogs
would be allocated some 70 acres (I believe it is) for this purpose, this is being
totally ignored and ever since there has been an ongoing battle to change this.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

There has been for some time an anti dog movement resulting in the situation we
76

CF1200 ‐ Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative
now find ourselves, by people who do not understand that dogs are members of the
family by those who own + love them.
I do understand the need for an area for families to enjoy without dogs and the East
Beach is a logical choice being close to the car park. A number of families combine
dogs + children which means they will have to find an alternative.
I do not understand why the Airfield should be reduced to the scale suggested. The
Air Field is a swamp inhabited by gophers. Events are rare + should there be one, it
surely would not be difficult to keep the public away temporarily.
Most of the fence protecting the Berm is almost none existent and getting worse.
On otherhand the fence separating the West Beach is under constant discussion,
should it be back to a few yards or not? I have never seen more than six snowy
plovers who are not in leash bit troubled when we walk there with our dogs on
leash!
I worry about the constant shrinking of space for dogs. This can only result in more
people flocking to Crissy which also is being reduced giving those who only
require any excuse to be rid of us all together.
Crissy is a joy to many, its true it can get crowded at peak hours and at week ends,
on nice days, but frequently is very quietI find it odd that nothing is ever said about people cycling in the promenade which
is no different from a sidewalk- particularly since so many bike lanes have been
made available to them.

CF1300 - Crissy Field: Desire Other Alternative
29463
Commenters support Alternative A because there is no problem with the current
use of the area and no reason to limit the on-leash or off-leash dog areas at Crissy
Field; reducing off-leash areas would diminish the enjoyment of this site, cause
overcrowding in other off-leash dog areas or would not allow disabled (or mobility
impaired) persons or families easy access to ROLAs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 480
Comment ID: 181796
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The NPS has already increasingly limited the areas of the
GGNRA where voice control off-leash. Please do not limit them any further. The
GGNRA has vast amounts of land where no dogs at all are permitted. I have yet to
see anything put forward by the GGNRA which would provide reason to limit them
further at Chrissy Field or Fort Funston. Please leave these two areas as they are.
Corr. ID: 518
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181928
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog owner and use Crissy Field to exercise her quite
often. I think that carving up that area into on-leash and off-leash areas would
wreck the space and create more confusion. To that end, I think that the alternative
map, Map 10A, is preferable. There aren't many off-leash areas like Crissy Field,
with its large area and easy accessibility.
Corr. ID: 629
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181317
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

77

CF1300 ‐ Crissy Field: Desire Other Alternative
Representative Quote: Mr. Dean, please allow Fort Funston to remain as it is;
open to dog walkers, dog owners, sky- gliders, horseback riders, etc.
Please allow Crissy Field to remain as it is.
The idea of Muir Beach forbidding dogs to be off-leash entirely would be a tragedy
for people who live nearby.
Corr. ID: 758
Organization: Golden Gate National Parks
Conservancy
Comment ID: 185478
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My comments concern Chrissy Field,However, it would be
an unnecessary restriction to inforce leash laws on the beach. Up until now,
families and dogs have happily co-existed here and the quality of enjoyment would
be considerably diminished if that priviledge would be restricted.
Corr. ID: 815
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186073
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs should continue to be allowed to be off-leash at Fort
Funston at all times as this is a real asset and crucial to dog owners in the city.
Current leash restrictions for dogs off leash at Ocean Beach, Baker Beach and
Crissy Fields are fine as is.
Corr. ID: 1062
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192179
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk my dog at Ocean Beach in the area approved for
off-leash dogs. Out of all the miles of beach, this is a relatively tiny area and it is
much appreciated. I go every week at least once and sometimes 3 times a week. I
have never seen any misbehavior of any dogs over the past 4 years. Furthermore, it
helps socialize dogs so that they are not a problem in contact with other dogs and
people.
We now have more owners of dogs than parents of children. We pay taxes for
education and recreation for families...well our dogs are our families and they
deserve a place to play and interact, as well.
PLEASE do not revoke the current privileges of off-leash access for our dogs
where we can currently go...ie, Ocean Beach, Crissy Field Beach, etc.
If posible, please confirm receipt and acknowledgement of this message
Corr. ID: 2015
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193226
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have a well trained 10-yr old lab + I walk her almost
every day on Crissy Field. I pick up after her. She needs to run, so walking her on a
leash wouldn't do it. I am a senior citizen + can't access (mobility issues) the
proposed ROLA areas.
Corr. ID: 2830
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201147
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a frequent visitor to Chrissy field and I see no reason
to change the existing dog walking rules. On most days 80% of the beach goers are
walking/playing with their dogs and everyone has got alone just fine with that for
years. Why change something that is working so well?
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29464
There is support Alternative E because it provides a balance of use, including a
ROLA for the entire Airfield at Crissy Field and/or it provides a beach ROLA.
Corr. ID: 2342
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195386
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In regards to the Crissy Field site I respectfully submit that
78

CF1300 ‐ Crissy Field: Desire Other Alternative
Alternative E is the best compromise solution for this site. The open grassy area of
air field should remain available to dogs under voice control. I do not see where
restricting this area is justified.
Corr. ID: 2799
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201145
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a resident and dog owner in the City of San Francisco, I
have enjoyed hundreds of Saturday mornings walking my dog at Crissy Field.
Crissy Field is one of the few clean, safe and open areas where dogs can run and
play off leash in the City. Being able to run and play off leash is essential to a dogs
well being.
Over the years I have observed that most dog owners are responsible, maintain
control of their dogs and clean up after them. Thus I believe the current
arrangement works fairly well, and I prefer alternative A of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. However I understand the desire for a better
defined policy and greater restrictions and thus alternative E is my second choice.
Given how muddy the Crissy Field air field is in the winter and how many burs and
foxtails it has in the spring, a beach off leash option is important for dogs and
central beach makes the most sense since east beach and the promenade are used by
most other park visitors.
Corr. ID: 4061
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207610
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am supportive of Chrissy Field map option E this
provides the best balance of dog and non-dog access and usage.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29465
Commenters support Alternative D because it will provide protection for wildlife
and habitat as well as listed species, including the Western Snowy Plover.
Corr. ID: 2553
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200792
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As the mother of a small child, my family often uses the
West beach area near the Warming Hut. During the times of year when it is not
snowy plover season, and thus leashes required, we often have dogs running around
the beach without their owners closeby. The dogs frequently come right up to the
small children and sometimes scare them, and their parents. I have even seen dogs
fighting with one another around small children. Thankfully I have never seen
anyone hurt, but it is very disconcerting and frightening for children. There is also
the problem of dog poop on the family beach. Due to these reasons, I would
support the separation of dogs and the requirement for leashes in most areas. There
should be dog-free areas for those people, and of course for the endangered species,
who do not enjoy being around dogs that are not on leash. San Francisco has plenty
of dog-friendly parks
Corr. ID: 3858
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208907
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Chrissy Field I support Map 10-D. The main reason for
this is that this area is important to the western Snowy Plover, which is listed as a
threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Corr. ID: 4071
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207753
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Crissy Field and Ocean Beach I support Alternative D.
Absolutely no ROLA should be allowed anywhere near threatened or endangered
species habitat, including Ft. Funston.

79

CF1300 ‐ Crissy Field: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29466
Commenters support Alternative B for Crissy Field for reasons including the entire
Airfield is open to off-leash dogs and the WPA will not allow dogs.
Corr. ID: 1488
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191285
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Crissy Field, I prefer Alternative B for the East and
Central beaches because those beaches are currently receiving tremendous off-leash
dog pressure, and because on-leash restrictions are more consistent with the
preferred alternative along the promenade there. The decision to make the Crissy
Field Wildlife Protection Area off limits to dogs is correct, and will be easier to
enforce if dog use adjacent to this area is on-leash only.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30876
Alternative E should be selected for Crissy Field because it would allow one large
ROLA on the airfield and would be readily enforceable.
Corr. ID: 1210
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194849
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field, Airfield: Instead of Alternative C, which is
too complicated and very difficult to enforce, you should select Alternative E,
which allows dogs off leash on the whole airfield, except as dictated by special
events. Trying to enforce C, would be extremely difficult and very management
intensive.

CF1400 - Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
29470
No Dog Areas - Commenters suggest having more areas for a no dog experience
including the freshwater swale (east of the lagoon), on some of the paths/trails that
lead to the beach, path to the fishing pier, and the eastern portion of the airfield. In
addition dogs should not be allowed within building including the lavatories.
Reasoning for banning dogs from these areas included a need for a visitor
experience without dogs, multiple visitor use of the areas, natural resource
protection, and protection of restoration areas and efforts.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3080
Comment ID: 201299
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I think the preferred alternatives presented in the
dog management plan will help decrease the number of disruptive encounters that
children have with dogs, I believe there is still room for improvement in this area.
Specifically, it appears that there are several park areas where there aren't any trails
that will be "dog-free." An example of this is Crissy Field; the preferred alternative
calls for a beach area that doesn't allow for dogs but it seems that all the pathways
leading to that beach do allow for dogs. I would support some access points that
would allow families to reach the beach without having to deal with dogs. I believe
that there should be some trails and/or paths that do not allow dogs (on-leash or off)
in each area of the park. The park is a shared resource and adults who do not wish
to encounter dogs and/or do not want their children to encounter dogs during their
park visits should have that opportunity.
Corr. ID: 3608
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 220104
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The eastern portion of the airfield should be a no-dog area.
The Crissy airfield attracts a wide variety of bird species, including rare vagrants,
and is a popular venue for wildlife viewing. I often visit this site to view the
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

80

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
migrating hawks in the fall, the Western Meadowlarks each fall through spring, and
I had the opportunity to see a rare species - the Red-throated Pipit, at this site.
Corr. ID: 4244
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209217
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a frequent user of the GGNRA, especially Crissy
Field. My concerns are for the natural restoration. It is amazing. My worry is that
dogs loving, lovable, and popular + polulous as they are will undermine this huge
and successful endeavor. I see few birds there now which tells me they know dogs
are everywhere - some leashed + some not. This seems an incomplete restoration
because of dogs here.
I love dogs and dogs need parks and ocean areas to swim in. They need a big
designated dog park of their own - in SF. To be allowed here and there means they
go everywhere - due to signage problems and owners lacking respect or whatever.
My point- Crissy Field area should not have dogs at all.
Corr. ID: 4296
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209015
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am an older woman who lives near Crissy Field and that
is the only park I can get to easily. So, my comments are going to be limited to that
portion of the report.
Secondly, I am against the allowance of dogs on leash on the path that runs from
the near parking lot to the fishing pier. Very large numbers of people use this path.
The dogs, even on leash, jump, bark and poop. There are accidents with bikers.
Furthermore, if dogs are allowed off leash on the grassy airfield, who will patrol
their getting onto the path on-leash? The dogs will continue to run, as they do now,
between the field and the path, back and forth. In all the years I've been walking on
that path, I've never seen any enforcement, not once.
I am distressed that the one park nearest to the largest concentration of people will
be given over to the dogs. Let the dogs run free in a more remote area.
Corr. ID: 4526
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209612
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I ask also that you develop more rigorous enforcement
designed to keep dogs out of the public lavatories along Crissy Field. In spite of
adequate signage, too many dogs are taken into the stalls or are lounging inside the
buildings while the owners use the facilities.
Corr. ID: 4584
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220095
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy East of the Lagoon ' The Freshwater Swale should
be designated on the area maps as a no dog zone.
29471
Fencing - Commenters suggested multiple areas within Crissy Field to place
fencing around ROLAs. At Central Beach, fencing should be placed around the
Central Beach ROLA to protect the Wildlife Protection Area and lagoon outlet and
also along the dunes. Fencing should also be placed around Crissy East Beach to
protect the lagoon outlet area. A moveable barrier or fencing should also be placed
around the Crissy Airfield ROLA to set a distinguished boundary for off-leash dog
walking. Lastly, the east and west perimeters of the Wildlife Protection Area should
be fenced and a vegetative barrier should surround the tidal marsh.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1850
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

81

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
Comment ID: 220098
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field - - The Plan calls for making half the field
available for off leash and half for on leash only but contemplates no barrier
between the two areas. It will be very difficult for dog walkers to even see where
the separation point occurs much less observe it.
Corr. ID: 2680
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220112
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the park's preferred alternative for Crissy Field
with the following comments:
3. WPA -- both the east and the west perimeters of the Crissy WPA should be
fenced.
Corr. ID: 2905
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202641
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Central Beach - The Central Beach ROLA should
be fenced and gated. Fences at the west and east ends should extend to the water at
extreme low tide. Adequate buffer zones (~300ft) should be included beyond the
west and east boundary fences to protect the WPA and the lagoon outlet from the
influences of excessive dog play activity. Access points from the promenade should
be gated. Signs should be posted clearly identifying the area as an off-leash dog
play area and stating the voice and sight control rules.
Crissy East Beach - Fencing should be installed to protect the lagoon outlet zone.
Outlet areas from bodies of water into bays or oceans are of high habitat value. The
outlet zone should be included as part of the protected lagoon area and similarly
fenced.
The airfield ROLA should have some type of physical barrier along the boundaries.
A physical barrier will clearly define the ROLA area. Clearly defined boundaries
will maximize compliance and minimize conflict. Consider a movable barrier that
can be set up and taken down as needed. Signs should be posted clearly identifying
the area as an off-leash dog play area and stating the voice and sight control rules.
Corr. ID: 2905
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 219009
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field WPA - The DEIS indicates that the east
boundary fence will be relocated 200 feet eastward at a position 900 feet from the
NOAA pier (p. 60). The language of the plan should allow the National Park
Service flexibility in determining the exact location of the fence and consideration
should be given to the visual penetration effect as well as the geographical
conditions of the immediate area.
Under the preferred alternative, off-leash dog activity directly adjacent to the east
boundary fence will pose a visual threat that will penetrate into the Wildlife
Protection Area, effectively rendering a portion of the eastern WPA as non-viable
habitat during daytime use hours. Given this concern, the fence should be placed a
reasonable distance eastward, beyond the actual 900 foot border line, to allow for
an adequate buffer zone.
Additionally, the geography of the area of fence placement is somewhat
complicated by non-uniform conditions which include a variety of substrates,
varying elevations, several lobes of fenced dune habitat areas, and a variety of
pedestrian pathways. Consideration should be given to all of these conditions and
fence placement should be such that will accommodate ease of pedestrian traffic
82

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
flow while maintaining adequate protection of the WPA.
When installed, the fence should extend to the water at extreme low tide.
Corr. ID: 2965
Organization: Urban Estuary Network
Comment ID: 220128
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Wildlife Protection Area at Crissy Field needs to be
stoutly fenced off all the way around it and down to the low tide line. LARGE signs
with a plover logo need to be plastered along the fence right down to the littoral
zone. People walking along the beach often just do not see the signs down there.
Creating a ROLA in the center of the Airfield might bring more dogs down to the
WPA. The ROLA needs to have fencing to mark its perimeter.
Corr. ID: 3195
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220124
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think the GGNRA should provide better signage and
create more environmental barriers where necessary, such as the vegetative barriers
surrounding the tidal marsh at Crissy Field.In all my time at Crissy Field, I have see
very few incidents of dogs going beyond the fences that enclose the dunes or the
marsh, and even fewer incidents of dog aggression. I have never seen a dog be
aggressive to an adult or a child. With the many dogs that are there on weekdays,
and the hundreds that are there are weekends, I think that is quite remarkable, and
certainly does not justify the restrictions being put forth in the GGNRA's preferred
alternative.
Corr. ID: 3608
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 203972
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Crissy airfield regulated off leash area should have a
distinct demarcation along the boundaries. A clear fence or other boundary is
necessary to clearly maximize compliance and minimize conflict. Signs should
clearly identify the area as an off-leash dog play area with posted regulations.
Corr. ID: 3937
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205875
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Generally, when I visit the SPWPA there are numerous
off-leash dogs, even though the SPWPA is signed for on-leash use only during the
times of year when I am there. (The reports of the Snowy Plover census also show
significant non-compliance with the on-leash requirement.) As a result I generally
don't see any Snowy Plovers. One evening, I visited at a time when there were no
dogs present, and the Snowy Plovers were readily visible. I am afraid that if there is
not a significant barrier between the ROLA and the SPWPA, numerous off-leash
dogs will enter the SPWPA. Accordingly, if the ROLA and the no dog areas are
immediately adjacent to each other, it will be necessary to erect a barrier between
the two that dogs will be unable to cross. Before erecting such a barrier the NPS
will need to consider whether such a barrier will have any adverse effect on the
Snowy Plovers (e.g., by providing perches for bird predators).
Corr. ID: 4337
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209086
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have looked at the GGNRA dog management plan and I
am very concerned about the part pertaining to Crissy Field. The dogs run around,
some are aggressive. I don't feel safe with my children on the beach or on the
walkway.
I do not think that is right to allow dogs to run free on the beach nor should they be
allowed on the central path. I recommend that you fence in a portion of the meadow
' airfield and allow that to be used by dogs.
Corr. ID: 4410
Organization: Not Specified
83

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
Comment ID: 206946
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy East Beach ' Fencing should be installed to protect
the lagoon outlet zone. Outlet areas from bodies of water into bays or oceans are of
high habitat value. The outlet zone should be included as part of the protected
lagoon area and similarly fenced.
Corr. ID: 4527
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209613
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Generally, I have observed that dog owners at Crissy Field
are responsible and clean (thanks in large part to many strategically placed waste
bag dispensers which are filled every day by Crissy Field Dog Group volunteers)
and really do respect the "Wildlife Protection Area.". (SUGGESTION: The dunes
on the Central Beach at Crissy Field are in great need of a higher, dog-proof barrier
on the ocean side.)
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29472
Compliance - The compliance rate should be increased from 75 percent to 90 or 95
percent and a reporting system should be established.
Corr. ID: 2680
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195490
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the park's preferred alternative for Crissy Field
with the following comments:
1. compliance requirements should be higher than 75 percent. Something more in
line with 90 to 95 percent would make a better visitor experience and encourage
less cheating. I appreciate that it may take some time to get to that compliance
level, but it would help people like me work with the dog folks if it is that high.
Corr. ID: 2905
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220102
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Promenade - I support the Preferred Alternative
with the following changes: no commercial dog walking, one dog per visitor,
compliance rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective
reporting system.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29473
Site Accessibility - Commenters suggest that accessibility from the parking area to
the beach ROLA at Crissy Field and the Airfield be changed to be made more
accessible to disabled (or mobility impaired) persons or for families.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29454 (CF1200), Comments 202246,
190935, and 192053.

29474
Time Restrictions - Commenters suggested setting time of use restrictions for offleash dog walking. Suggestions included allowing dogs off-leash at East Beach in
the early morning and evening on the weekends to allow time for sunbathers to use
the beach without dogs. In addition, a temporary no dog restriction could be
implemented on "Good weather" days at East Beach. Commenters also suggested
making the leash restriction less strict during the weekdays when families are less
likely to use the site. Similar time restrictions should be implemented on the
Airfield.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1222
Comment ID: 194871
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have a dog -- she loves the water and Crissy Field.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

84

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
However, I am also a parent.
My suggestions are:
-- Ease up the proposed restrictions during the week when families are less likely to
be there.
-- If Central Beach is to be the main location then facilities for washing down the
dog, bathrooms, etc. should be put into place -- when one's child wants to use a
bathroom it is a long walk.
Corr. ID: 1574
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190788
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 10-E seems logical (Crissy Field)
It is preferable to have off leash time limits on East Beach:
Before 9: AM
After 5: PM
Dogs should NOT allowed in Wildlife Protection Area (WPA)
Corr. ID: 2685
Organization: Neighbor
Comment ID: 195485
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I understand there are a few relatively warm, relatively
windless days each year when sunbathers (not many swimmers!) like to use East
Beach - and yes, I appreciate that a sunbather may occasionally be slightly
inconvenienced by a discourteous dog and/or host. For these rare days (in my
experience, only 4-5/year), the GGNRA could easily implement a temporary
restriction on off-leash dogs on East Beach and redirect their hosts to the beach
west of the lagoon's outlet.
Corr. ID: 2813
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201115
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crowding will create problems
The Preferred Alternative at Crissy Field, by eliminating dogs from the East Beach
particularly during weekday hours, and the airfield also largely empty during the
week, will force greater interaction between a greater number of dogs and their
owners (especially during high tides) in a much smaller area. One reason that there
are relatively few problems with dog aggression is that there is enough space at
Crissy for everyone to interact when they wish to and not because density has been
forced on them. Solution: Make the East Beach and parts of the Airfield off limits
between 10 to 4 on weekends. Allow full use during the week.
29475
Wildlife Protection Area - Commenters feel that the Wildlife Protection Area
should be closed off to both dog walkers and other visitors. It has been suggested to
close the WPA to humans, close the WPA to both humans and dogs, create buffers
near the WPA, or place a fence in the vicinity of the WPA to protect and reduce
disturbance to the Western Snowy Plover.
Organization: GGRO
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1067
Comment ID: 192189
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to see Crissy field continue the way it has
been with
a loose leash law except in the areas where the snowy plovers spend the
winter. This area should be protected more and be closed to both dogs and
people.
I often go to Crissy field with my little dog and my binoculars. She
needs the exercise and loves being off leash. I fret about her loss of
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

85

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
freedom which she will feel as any person would.
Corr. ID: 1774
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220320
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed Regulated Off-Leash Dog Area at Crissy
Field is problematic due to its adjacency to a wildlife protection area.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192059
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: iii The DEIS bans dogs entirely from the WPA at Crissy
Field. Comment: The DEIS fails to provide scientific support for the claim that
dogs are the only factor disturbing Snowy Plover and other shorebirds in these
areas. The DEIS should examine the effects of human disturbance as well. The
DEIS should also ban humans from the portion of the WPA that lies between
Central Beach (where dogs are permitted) and the Coast Guard Station. Human
activity (children play, kite boarders practicing, etc) is regularly observed in this
section of the WPA. If we really want to give the Snowy Plovers a chance, we
should give them a place without human disturbance as well.
29476
ROLAs - Commenters suggest adding more off-leash areas or changing the
locations of the ROLAs at Crissy Field. Suggestions included changing the Tidal
Area from on-leash to a ROLA, adding a ROLA on East Beach, on the beach from
sewer pipe to the sand ladder trail, on the beach from the bridge to the warming hut
(including the large grass area), on the beach from the bridge to the St. Francis
Yacht Club, and along the airstrip. Fenced ROLAs should be established south and
east of the parking lots.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 5
Comment ID: 181404
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding proposal for Crissy Field:So for this area (again
the tidal area) I would respectfully request this be changed from leash only to
"voice control" or be off limits only to large dogs who are safer playing in the surf,
maybe allowing access only to dogs <20lbs who are less likely to have an impact
on children and families in the area. Otherwise the proposal at Crissy Field makes
sense.
Corr. ID: 235
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180755
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would keep the "no dog area", but make the beach (to the
South) between the access trail and the sewer outlet pipe an on leash area. The
beach from the pipe to the sand ladder trail could ROLA. This would provide a
landmark (the pipe) to define the two areas. It would also allow dogs to access the
"voice control" area from the North or South. I think it provides plenty of beach for
ROL.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Regarding Crissy Field; I don't think it is workable to have ROLA at the water line.
I think sections of beach have to be designated as I proposed for Ft. Funston.
Corr. ID: 863
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190031
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I can understand that non dog owners would like to enjoy
areas of the parks dog free, and I think that there is room for some compromise.
However, I am strongly against taking away large off leash areas. I take my dog to
Chrissie Fields weekly and the following is an example of what I feel would be a
good compromise:
If you are walking north/ west, off leash would be permitted after the small bridge;
all along the beach, all the way down to the warming hut and also the large grass
86

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
area on the left down to the warming hut. The first part of the beach (by the parking
lot) would give people a dog free environment as well as the picnicking area by the
warming hut, but dogs would still have ample space to run and play.
Corr. ID: 1622
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190918
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Let the dogs be off leash from the St. Francis Yacht Club
to the Bridge.
Corr. ID: 1812
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191796
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've read through the proposal and am unable to find any
reason for the recommendation of reducing the off leash use of the Crissy Field
airstrip. (The proposal recommends reducing it by two thirds.) My dog needs a
large space to exercise off leash and the airstrip is an ideal size and surface. I use
off leash facilities in the East Bay - the dog park at Cesar Chavez Park in Berkeley,
Point Isabel, and the East Bay Regional Parks. All of them have problems. In the
summer, the wild areas are hazardous because of foxtails and other grass seeds. In
the Regional Parks there are problems with ticks, rattlesnakes, and poison oak. I
can understand that the needs of wildlife are important, but the airfield is not a
wildlife habitat. It's irrigated and mowed and located in the middle of a developed
area. I see no reason to change its usage from the current arrangement.
Corr. ID: 2685
Organization: Neighbor
Comment ID: 195484
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As mentioned, I'm a neighbor and am fortunate to visit
Crissy Field several times a week. Although I normally hike on the main path, I
always see off-leash dogs on East Beach with their hosts and everyone is having a
great time. On the East Beach, there is very little vegetation and, to my knowledge,
no endangered wildlife, so I don't understand why you want to make East Beach off
limits to unleashed dogs.
In my rather extensive experience at Crissy Field on a year-around basis, dogs and
their hosts are easily the most frequent and enthusiastic users of East Beach. On
windy days, windsurfers put time in down there, but they seem to be pleased with
the company of other beach enthusiasts, including off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 4221
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220125
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field - A fenced dog run should be established
south of the parking lots for off-leash dog activity with a dirt surface (not sand,
asphalt or concrete) where dogs can run, socialize and defecate, with a gathering
area for the dog owners to congregate including benches. There should be a
substantial dog-run at the east end parking lot (perhaps 50' by 150'), and a much
smaller one at the west end of the Crissy area in close proximity to a parking lot.
29477
Commenters suggest a registration/license requirement or fee for dog use at the
site, ticketing for enforcement, educating citizens, creating a definition for "voice
control" (such as 30 to 60 seconds to respond to a command), or creating dog wash
down areas at Central Beach where the ROLA is proposed.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 332
Comment ID: 181097
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been using crissy field for the last two years with
my dog. I have always been respectful and so have the members of the community
that I see at crissy field.The best thing to do is license the dogs for off-leash use and
fine those that are not license.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

87

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
Corr. ID: 2318
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195273
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If current regulations continue, the NPS could consider a
day-use payment system to offset maintenance fees, if necessary, such as what's in
place at Muir Woods. I would certainly pay a $5 fee every time I used Crissy Field;
professional dog walkers could be required to purchase permits as well, as one of
the alternatives suggests.
Corr. ID: 4606
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210102
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mitigate Adverse Impacts in Alternative A without
banning off leash dogs.
1. Western Snowy Plover at Crissy Field.
Western Snowy Plover Monitoring at the Crissy Field Wildlife Protection Area of
the Presidio of San Francisco and the Relative Impact of Human Disturbance
2006/2007. Golden Gate Audubon, San Francisco, California (Zlatunich, M. 2007)
shows off leash dog disturbances of snowy plovers at Crissy Field dropped from
2.35 per survey hour to 0.62 per survey hour after minimal "outreach and
education." Signs were posted at the WPA and a brochure was passed out on-site
for one week, November 3 ' 11, 2006. That minimal effort produced a dramatic
decline in disturbances of the plovers by off leash dogs. Ongoing outreach and
education at the Crissy Field WPA (as well as on Ocean Beach) could alleviate a
great deal of the claimed adverse impact by off leash dogs on WSP. The DEIS
makes no attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of such mitigation when considering
Alternative A.
The drastic restrictions on off leash recreation proposed for Ocean Beach would
also be unnecessary if reasonable management were implemented there.
Corr. ID: 4664
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209142
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Signage needs to indicate an enforceable standard for
'voice control" such as 30 or 60 seconds. Ifthe NPS wants the off leash area to be
successful for us dog owners I would hope that tickets would only be issued on
very rare occasions and the rules be loosely enforced, especially at the Central
Beach and early mornings or late afternoons at the East Beach.
29562
On-Leash - Dogs should be leashed on the promenade from the parking lot to
Crissy Field to try to remove the dangers of having off-leash dogs in the same area
as runners, bikers, and other user groups. Other suggestions for on-leash areas
included the following: on East Beach east of the stream to allow both a dog and no
dog experience within this area, on-leash within Central Beach to prevent dogs
from accessing the tidal marsh areas, foot paths that cross the airfield, and multiuse trails.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417
Comment ID: 181587
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field (proposed Plan C): Under the current
proposal, dogs would be banned from East Beach and the Wildlife Protection Area,
but Central Beach would remain off-leash. Crissy Field is perhaps the most popular
beach in San Francisco for dog owners, and where the dog owner community (as
part of the greater community) is most prevalent. Therefore, Central Beach should,
in fact, remain off-leash. East Beach shouldn't ban dogs, but instead require they be
on-leash east of the stream, off-leash starting west of the stream (the course
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

88

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
changes, so this would be a changing boundary). This would allow families with
both children and dogs to have the East Beach for picnics, etc... enabling them to
have an undisturbed experience while still having their dog with them (on-leash), as
it can be a hindrance for families with both children and dogs to find a place safe
and accepting of both. However, those who are there with just dogs would, by
default, naturally forgo East Beach in favor of Central Beach (few would want their
dog on-leash when an off-leash alternative is just steps away, so even allow leashed
dogs on East Beach would provide a relatively dog-less experience for those who
choose).
Corr. ID: 900
Organization: Retired
Comment ID: 191256
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My comments are to encourage you to enforce a leash
law/requirement at Crissy Field. I have been attack or tripped during my walk
several times. I see dogs attacking other small dogs, running in the habitat area, the
lagoon, and generally ignored.
Corr. ID: 2025
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193242
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -Instead of no dogs on east beach please allow dogs on
leash - this will not disturb people on the sand + extend dog walks + joy!
Corr. ID: 4410
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206949
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Airfield ' The foot paths that cross the airfield are
multi-use trails and should be designated as on-leash areas. Allowing off-leash dogs
on the airfield trails will lead to user conflicts.
Corr. ID: 4589
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210036
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are, however, some improvements that a
modification could address for the positive, specifically as they relate to Crissy
Field:
1. The crushed gravel promenade from the parking lots west past the grassy
meadow is of particular concern. There are dogs on and off leash, bicycles, runners,
pedestrians, children learning to ride bikes, etc. Surely you have seen on weekends
it is a mob scene and recipe for accidents. Leashing dogs in this area and
eliminating bicycles would certainly cut down on the risk of injuries to all users of
the promenade.
30903
Signage - Instead of eliminating dog walking from certain areas within Crissy
Field, the park should design and install better signage stating regulations and
informing visitors of the Wildlife Protection Areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3195
Comment ID: 220123
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In many places, the DEIS treats the environment and
recreation as opposing values, i.e., that recreation only harms natural resources. The
reasonable response to this problem is to educate visitors, improve signage and help
park visitors follow the rules and learn how to respect the environment, not to ban
the rest of us with dogs from the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4581
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220099
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Instead of taking away off leash areas, I think the GGNRA
should consider adding new areas, and providing better signage and environmental
barriers like the ones at Crissy Field. The draft Dog Management Plan and the
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

89

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not evaluate the value of these
recreational activities and does not adequately consider alternatives such as
environmental barriers and providing better signage and education to the public.
30908
Commercial Dog Walking - Commercial dog walking should not be allowed at
Crissy Field. If commercial dog walking is allowed there should be few licenses
allowed and they should not be treated the same as an individual dog walker.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1222
Comment ID: 220130
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have a dog -- she loves the water and Crissy Field.
However, I am also a parent.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

My suggestions are:-- Dog walkers are a real problem: the last time I was there
three dog walkers accounted for 21 dogs. They tend to hang out and talk to one
another so they are like a tornado running down the beach. Basically they are a
commercial enterprise and should not be treated the same as an Owner with a dog
or two walking on the beach.
Corr. ID: 2680
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220111
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the park's preferred alternative for Crissy Field
with the following comments:
2. commercial dog walking activity should not be allowed. While I appreciate that
these folks are small businesses trying to make a living, the dogs beat up the
environment, spook wildlife, and don't contribute to the visitor experience. At the
very least, they should be licensed like any other business in the park and there
should be a limited number of licenses.
Corr. ID: 4584
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220096
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Promenade ' I support the Preferred Alternative
with the following changes: no commercial dog walking, one dog per visitor,
compliance rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective
reporting system.
30934
ROLA - Commenters support removing the ROLA or changing the location of the
ROLA on Crissy Beach to protect natural resources or to allow visitors who do not
enjoy dogs at the beach a dog-free experience.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 258
Comment ID: 180842
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a frequent park user and feel like dogs on leash on
large trails is a good thing. I don't think ROLAs belong in a National park. That use
is suitable at local parks set up for that use without significant natural and cultural
resources. I am particularly concerned with the ROLA on Crissy beach. So many
significant natural resources are nearby.
Corr. ID: 1020
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191791
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very unhappy at the ROMA proposed for Central
Beach - it is one of the best places in the city to walk in nature, and is already
marred by the large numbers of dogs and dogwalkers there, over 30 dogs last time I
was there. There would be even more dogs there under the proposed plan. The dogs
should be ON lease in this area!
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

90

CF1400 ‐ Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative
Corr. ID: 4071
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207751
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Western snowy plovers, Bank swallows, San Francisco
garter snakes, Red legged frogs, Mission blue butterflies and Hickman's cinquefoil
all the other endangered or threatened species need the best protection possible.
Wherever protected species exist, as at Crissy Field and Ocean Beach, NO on or
off-leash dogs should be allowed anywhere near sensitive habitat.

CO1000 – Coastal Zone Consistency Determination
There were no comments on CO1000

CO1100 - Comments Considered an Individual Concern Statement
For individual concern statements, please see Appendix A.

CR2010 - Cultural Resources: Affected Environment
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29401
The plan does not show the importance of the cultural resources, future cultural
resources, or detrimental effects from dogs.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192080
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With regard to the U.S. Coast Guard Station at Crissy
Field, the DEIS states: "In the past some of the individual juniper plantings within
the U.S. Coast Guard Station's perimeter hedge have died and dog urine is believed
to have contributed to the loss of at least one plant." Comment: The DEIS fails to
establish the materiality of one plant, the cause of death of one plant, and the
relevance of one plant as a "cultural resource." The DEIS should be revised to
remove the above reference entirely based on the following:
- The hedge is newly planted to replace the historic cypress hedge planted in 1915
that needed to be replaced due to age and effects of nearby remediation and
renovation of Airfield, etc. The new plantings, particularly one plant, hardly fit into
definition of a "cultural resource."
- Since more than one plant died, there were other factors at work than simply dog
urine which is only cited as a possible contributing factor in the death of one plant.
- One of the buildings of the Coast Guard Station adjacent to the hedge has paint
peeling down to the wood due to the weather effects'that is a much more material
problem with this cultural icon.
- There is ample evidence of "wear and tear" on grounds and facilities throughout
the GGNRA lands due to the high level of use by people engaged in a variety of
activities in this urban environment. The possible loss of one plant from dog urine
should more appropriately be included in the general maintenance requirements for
the area.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192045
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
91

CR2010 ‐ Cultural Resources: Affected Environment
Representative Quote: The DEIS fails to provide evidence for impact of dogs on
future plans for restoration and enhancement. The DEIS fails to demonstrate
relevancy. Please remove this from objective.
Comment: The DEIS fails to prove relevance of future cultural projects. The DEIS
should be revised to remove this as objective.
Comment: The DEIS fails to show any detrimental effects. The DEIS should be
revised to reflect lack of evidence.
29403
Commenters stated that many of the cultural resources described in the plan are not
within dog walking areas and that impacts to cultural resources cannot be attributed
to dog walking.
Organization: San Francisco resident
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4016
Comment ID: 206833
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: - In referencing Chrissy Field the DEIS states "original
buildings-hangars, barracks, guardhouse, etc." are included in the "Affected
Environment". Most of these structures are located on the south side of Mason
Street, geographically located across the street from the dog-walking boundary and
in visits to the hangar areas of Chrissy Fields, dog-walking is not an activity found
in this area where public and retail-oriented spaces are surrounded by parking areas.
Corr. ID: 4016
Organization: San Francisco resident
Comment ID: 206830
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: First, I am strongly opposed to GGNRA's inclusion of a
many cultural resources in the DEIS when, simply-stated, many of these cultural
resources are not within the dog-walking areas and some of the "negative activities"
cited in this section cannot be attributed to dog-walking activities.
Corr. ID: 4679
Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
Comment ID: 227552
Organization Type: Civic Groups
Representative Quote: The idea thatcultural resources such as buried missile silos
at Fort Funston require protection from dogs trampling, digging or urinating is farfetched at best. I would point out that the larger size and weight of humans would
be a greater threat to trample notable sites than would dogs. With respect to missile
silos at Fort Funston I would not assume all urine deposited would be that of the
canine visitors. The GGNRA still has not installed any permanent bathrooms for
the many human visitors at Fort Funston. In fact, it seems the GGNRA has little
regard for the enjoyment of these resources.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I would also point out the GGNRA has failed miserably in their restoration efforts
for facilities such as the Cliff House which are within the Recreation Area's
boundaries. The new facility is quite unaesthetic, and popular restaurants within
have been altered and have lost their popularity. I have talked to many visitors who
are familiar with the previous incarnations of the Cliff House. They always express
their disappointment and/or outrage as to its boxy appearance with the service
entrants in the most visible area. There used to be a line down the hill for the
Sunday brunch at the Cliff House, now it is empty. Our cultural resources are in far
greater danger from GGNRA management and their "restoration" plans than they
are from dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29404
Cultural resources within the Baker Beach dog walking area should be the only
resources included in the plan and potential damage from dogs should be more
92

CR2010 ‐ Cultural Resources: Affected Environment
clear. These areas should also be located on a map.
Organization: San Francisco resident
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4016
Comment ID: 206834
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: - In reference to "Fort Winfield Scott" section of the DEIS,
this section should be renamed to Fort Winfield Scott Seacoast Fortifications" or
entirely removed to itemize only embattlements that are contained within the Baker
Beach dog-walking areas. In addition these fortifications should be itemized within
the text and on the map in a consistent manner, and the "damage" that is caused by
dog-walking activities to these fortifications should also be realistically discussed.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29405
The reference to "headquarters" at Fort Scott should not be included in the plan
since they are located outside a dog walking area.
Corr. ID: 4016
Organization: San Francisco resident
Comment ID: 206835
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: - In addition, the mention of "headquarters" in the text of
Fort Scott implies that the "campus" including the headquarters building, barracks
buildings and parade grounds are part of the DEIS area of concern. These cultural
resources are geographically distinct from all of the dog-walking areas included in
the DEIS. The reference to the "headquarter" should be re-written clearly.

29406
Commenters believe that the World War II battlements do not need to be preserved
or protected since they had no actual involvement with the war. They should not be
included as a cultural resource and do not need to be protected from dogs or from
children playing on them.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2873
Comment ID: 202709
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed rule changes at Fort Funston are not
supportable by the document produced by the park service.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The park administration may wish that the park were different than it currently is
but it has become a major drawing point for San Franciscans to recreate with each
other and especially with their four legged companions
Restricting off leash use of the park to 10% of the land currently available is not
supported by the science submitted here, and is in no way consistent with the
historical use of this land.
The GGNR represents one of the last areas where inhabitants of the Bay Area can
allow off leash recreation of their canine companions and the other areas are small
fenced in patches of dirt distributed around the developed urban areas.
There are stated concerns regarding the preservation of rusting, rotting World War
II battlements (which of course have no actual involvement with the war other than
as visible tributes to overly rampant paranoia as they were never close to the war
front). These are referred to as cultural resources and presented as something to
protect although the real threat to their continued degradation are the children that
play in them not the dogs that pass by.
There are hundreds of pages describing soils, geological features, endangered and
unendangered wildlife and plants and a lot of speculation as to how dogs might
impact each of them - which on most counts is minimal even when theoretical; but
93

CR2010 ‐ Cultural Resources: Affected Environment
there is almost no real science regarding the measured impact of dogs on any of
these. The increasing presence of dogs is well documented and the authors of this
proposition express a concern that the park resources and "values":
"could be compromised to the extent that, without action, those resources and
values in some areas of the park might not be available for enjoyment by future
generations"
Of all the different benefits that the GGNRA can provide and promote, I would
submit that the nurturing of the ongoing health and happiness of the Bay Area
Canine population should be first not last in the list of aspirations for the park.
Last but not least dogs improve the quality of the lives of millions of regular folk in
the U.S. The use of the GGNR to maintain the health and well being of these
amazing creatures is a supportable and excellent use of the resource. Alternative
"A" is the way to go.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

31778
Cultural resources in the GGNRA should not just include physical resources, but
also the local culture, which is defined in part by dog walking.
Corr. ID: 4035
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227708
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Recreation Heritage and Culture: The Park Service seems
to attribute physical structures to Cultural Resources and is ignoring the important
cultural components. The military structures and Native American heritage is
important to preserve but so is the the development and maintenance of the local
culture. Nothing is more fundamental to the Bay Area or the GGNRA than the
community gatherings and bonding experiences that happen on beautiful days at
high visitation places such as Ocean Beach, Crissy Field, Muir Beach, Rodeo
Beach, Fort Funston, Mori Point/Sharp Park, etc.

CR4000 - Cultural Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29407
Commenters stated that off-lease dog walking should not be restricted to any part
of Ocean Beach from the Cliff House south based on cultural resources because
there are no significant cultural resources in that area.
For representative quotes, lease see Concern 29346 (OB1200), Comment 181130

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Representative Quote(s):

29408
It is not clear what is meant by "protect cultural resources from the detrimental
effects of dog use"? The plan does not clearly state how dogs actually impact
cultural resources (i.e., forts). Commenters believe that visitors impact the cultural
resources more than dogs.
Corr. ID: 377
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181164
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not actually see how dogs damage cultural resources.
What can a dog do to a fort? Erosion does more than the dogs can ever do. Is there
really some documentation about dog damage to cultural resources? You really do
not say how the dogs damage such things.
Corr. ID: 1957
Organization: Not Specified

94

CR2010 ‐ Cultural Resources: Affected Environment
Comment ID: 192710
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "Protect cultural resources from the detrimental effects of
dog use" - what does this mean? How many dogs "use" cultural resources? Aren't
people more likely to commit "detrimental effects"?

CR5000- Cultural Resources: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments on CR5000
CR6000- Cultural Resources: Impairment Analyses
There were no comments on CR6000

CS1100 - Cattle/Sweeney: Support Preferred Alternative
29311
Commenters support not allowing dogs at Sweeney Ridge as part of the Preferred
Alternative to protect wildlife, including the mission blue butterfly. In addition,
visitors want a no-dog visitor experience at this site and also because the City of
Pacifica is creating a new off-leash dog area for recreation.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3655
Comment ID: 204126
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support your proposal to only allow on leash
dogs on Pacifica trails and no dogs on Sweeney Ridge.Off leash dogs chase wildlife
and may bark at or threaten hikers.
Corr. ID: 3659
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204185
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would prefer to have dogs banned from Mori Point,
Malagra Ridge, and Sweeney Ridge altogether....no leashed or unleashed dogs. I
have done extensive hiking and biking at all locations mentioned and many dog
owners begin their walks with theri dogs on leash and then take the leash off when
they get away from parking areas. I have seen dogs chasing birds, squirrels and
other wildlife.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

If all dogs are banned it is easier to regulate. There is no way that rangers and other
law enforcement can make sure all dogs remain on leash. By eliminating all dogs
one doesn't have to follow everyone to make sure they conform to leash law. Just
keep all dogs out and don't worry about leash or no leash.
Pacifica is going to create a special dog recreation area where dog owner can run
their dogs without leash.
Corr. ID: 4265
Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209126
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: SWEENEY RIDGE. Dogs should be excluded from
Sweeney Ridge to protect the habitat of the Mission Blue butterfly and other
wildlife.

CS1200 - Cattle/Sweeney: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID:

29362

95

CR4000 ‐ Cultural Resources: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative because it bans dogs from Sweeney
Ridge and is therefore not a "balance" between recreation and protection of natural
resources at this site which is not highly used by the public and does not have
issues with dogs.
Organization: self - the program will not allow
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2079
unchecking the boxes
Comment ID: 200531
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "The Preferred Alternative is not "balanced."The 1979 Pet
Policy allowed dogs off-leash on less than 1% of GGNRA land. Given recent
additions of large tracts in San Mateo County to the GGNRA, this number is now
significantly less than 1%. Off-leash dog walking started from a position of great
imbalance. One-third of San Francisco households have dogs, yet they can
currently recreate with their dogs on less than 1% of GGNRA land. The Preferred
Alternative allows off-leash on even less, including no off-leash anywhere on
GGNRA land in San Mateo County. How is that balanced? By denying the
possibility of off-leash on any new lands that come into the GGNRA in the future,
the Preferred Alternative will ensure there is no balance between recreation and
protection of natural resources in the future. We need more off-leash recreational
open space, not less."
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29363
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative because it bans dogs from Sweeney
Ridge which seems excessive, especially because certain access points to the site
are paved trails or roads that allow bikes, horses, and truck traffic.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1741
Comment ID: 191206
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a Pacifica resident who walks her dog primarily @
Sweeny Ridge. I am unhappy w/ GGNRA preferred alternative which will BAN all
dog walking - even on-leash - at Sweeny.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The access from San Bruno is a paved trail with foot-bike-horse-dog and vehicle
traffic- seems unfair that those uses will continue but I won't be able to walk my
dog.
Please consider ALT E for Sweeny with the addition of the Baquiano Trl to
continue on-leash do walking at Sweeny.
Corr. ID: 2244
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200918
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I object to all currently proposed (new) restrictions
prohibiting off-leash dog running at Fort Funston and all GGNRA properties within
the Pacifica city limits. There are already too few areas in the San Francisco
Peninsula where off-leash dog use is allowed, and the new restrictions under
consideration are far too excessive.
At Fort Funston, the largest area proposed for off-leash use is on the beach, which
is simply the least accessible area to use given high tides and poor weather
conditions.
Corr. ID: 2784
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201134
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Points I want to make in regards to Sweeney Ridge.
1. The trails leading up to the nike site from Sneath at Sweeney ridge are paved and
have daily truck traffic to service the water towers and antenna. I would imagine
the environmental impact of the trucks would severely outweigh the small amount

96

CS1200 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Oppose Preferred Alternative
of k9 traffic.
2. The trails are very steep and there is no way for dogs to go off of the pavement.
3. The Sneath side of the park is very low foot traffic which is mostly locals, many
of which use the park to walk their dogs.
4. The majority of the paved lands at Sweeney ridge are owned by the water
company, and are excluded from the GGNRA boundary map. What effect will this
have on leash requirements.
What I want.
Ideally for the current leash required laws at Sweeney Ridge to remain unchanged.
Failing that, at least allow leashed dogs on the portion of the park that is paved.
Corr. ID: 2895
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202964
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I frequently visit the Sweeney Ridge Trail within the
Sweeney Ridge/Cattle Hill Area and strongly encourage No action or Alternative E.
I find the preferred alternative unacceptable and it would eliminate my ability to
use the area. I thought the need for open recreational space would surely be more
important then closing the whole area because of occasional dog leash violators. I
truly enjoy Sweeney Ridge Trail and eliminating my access to myself and my dog
violates the very principal of your mission. If preserving the natural resources of
the area is the top priority, then perhaps no one should have access.
Your preferred alternative is too extreme and would only server the purpose of a
very small minority. This trail is a paved road that has been ripped into the hill, the
vegetation has been highly altered around it. A couple of leashed dogs a day is the
least of it's challenges.
Corr. ID: 3708
Organization: Yosemite Conservancy, SIerra Club
Comment ID: 202248
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: First, in Yosemite National Park dogs are allowed on all
campgrounds, paved roads, paved bicycle paths, and sidewalks. That means you
can walk your dog on leash on bicycle paths or roads to Mirror Lake and over 4
miles in the valley floor. Dogs are also allowed on-leash on the one way 4 mile Old
Big Oak Flat Road from Hodgdon Meadow to Tuolumne Grove. I did part of this
hike with my dog in 2010 and 2011. This road is in the middle of the wilderness.
I am going into so much detail regarding Yosemite National Park dog regulations
to show you that your new draft plan is more restrictive than Yosemite National
Park.
Specifically, at present, dogs are allowed on leash at the Sweeney Ridge Trail. In
the new draft plan this will be prohibited. The first 1.8 miles is a paved road. It then
divides and continues one way as a paved road and the other way a dirt road. I have
hiked this trail with a leashed dog for over 6 years. The area is used by many locals
as a pleasant daily walk with their dogs. Recently I talked to everyone with a dog
on that trail and most people had no idea that their dog walking activity would be
prevented.
I have also hiked the Miwok-Wolf Ridge trail quite a lot. There are so few trails
one can take a dog on-leash that to prohibit dogs on Sweeney Ridge and MiwokWolf Ridge would be very sad.
I love the off-leash activity at Ft Funston. To get to the beach at Ft. Funston is an
ordeal and most people without a dog go someplace else where they can drive right
up to the beach.
I didn't see any horse restrictions in the GGNRA draft plan. Horses create much

97

CS1200 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Oppose Preferred Alternative
more erosion and the owners do not pick up after them.
Finally, I do agree with your plan to close the East Beach to dogs at Crissy Field.
The beach at Crissy Field is very convenient and has become over populated with
dogs and dog walkers. I do believe parents and children should have a place to go
without dogs.
29364
The Preferred Alternative is opposed because it bans dogs from Sweeney Ridge
without good reason and without sound science regarding impacts from dogs at this
site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 941
Comment ID: 191456
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Likewise why is the Upper Mori Trail now forbidden?
And the heavily impacted Sweeney Ridge, entirely off limits to leashed dogs with
no good reason.
Corr. ID: 2271
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201054
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I hope you reconsider your ban on dogs in certain areas of
your parklands especially Sweeney Ridge and Mori Point in Pacifica. I fail to see
how well behaved dogs on or off leash make such a negative impact when I see the
mess humans can make; for example, a soiled baby diaper in some bushes on
Sweeney Ridge
Corr. ID: 3943
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205957
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also take issue with the limitation on areas where dogs
are currently allowed but may no longer be able to go, such as Sweeney Ridge.
Frankly, there seems little support for the proposition that an on-leash dog on a
hiking trail would somehow cause more damage than the far more common humans
using the same trail.
Corr. ID: 4182
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208768
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I must also add that in the twenty years that I've been
climbing the ridge (with dogs), the trail and fire road has not degraded in the least,
in fact, as an intimately familiar, close observer of the trail, I must say that it has
improved over time. Honestly, I was rather shocked (and extremely disappointed)
to see Sweeney Ridge on the list. Clearly having dogs on the trail has had virtually
no impact on the environment. In fact, the trail couldn't be a more perfect
opportunity to walk dogs in nature and have almost no impact, as the great majority
of the trail is paved road.
Please reconsider your pending restrictions on dogs on Sweeney Ridge.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29365
The Preferred Alternative is opposed because it bans dogs from Sweeney Ridge
which would not allow dog walkers to access the best views of the site and would
therefore detract from their visitor experience.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 745
Comment ID: 185413
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: re: Sweeney Ridge
As the environmental impact on continuing to allow dogs would be minor to
moderate, please support option A - no change to this area. There are very few
scenic hikes in San Mateo County that my family can take with our dog - PLEASE
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

98

CS1200 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Oppose Preferred Alternative
DO NOT BAN DOGS FROM SWEENEY RIDGE!
Corr. ID: 1131
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192445
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have enjoyed using GGNRA sites at Sweeny Ridge,
Milagra Ridge, and Mori Point ... ...for the past two decades. I would be deeply
saddened to see adoption of any sort of "no dogs" policy in these areas (as at least a
few of the "B, C, and D" alternatives propose).

CS1300 - Cattle/Sweeney: Desire Other Alternative
29367
Commenters support Alternative A because on-leash dog walking is allowed at
Sweeney Ridge; some reasoning includes the lack of sound science regarding
impacts from dogs and the infrequent use of this site
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 35
Comment ID: 184005
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Specificaly I would like to see Sweeny Ridge, San Pedro
Point and Rancho Tierra Maintain current policy towards dogs on leash.
Corr. ID: 2295
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 226682
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a Pacifica resident who has been using the Sweeney
Ridge Trail System for over 3 years. I typically hike and run the trails 4 days a
week with my dog on-leash (6 feet in length) between the Mori Ridge trailhead and
Portola Discovery Site or SFPUC Portola Gate. I have also used the trail system for
regular hiking with my family without dogs as well as mountain biking. I am fully
in support of continued multi use of the Sweeney Ridge Trail System for all uses
including dog walking (leash only), hiking, trail running, mountain biking,
horseback riding, wildlife watching, etc. I am opposed to GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan's Preferred Alternative, which would ban on-leash dog walking
on the Sweeney Ridge Trail System. My preference would be for Plan adoption of
Alternative A (Map 19-A), which would allow continued multi use (including onleash dog walking) throughout the Sweeney Ridge Trail System with the exception
of the Notch Trail, which would allow hiking only.
Corr. ID: 4118
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208518
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: SWEENY RIDGE - I support Alternative A, No Action (in
harmony with 1979 Pet Policy). This area is relatively infrequently used. Even if
usage were to increase, it does not require a change in Policy.
Corr. ID: 4598
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210069
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: After much consideration, I support Alternative A, the No
Action alternative and would also include the Newly-acquired areas (such as Cattle
Hill, Sweeny Ridge, Mori Point, Pedro Point and Milagra Ridge and Rancho Corral
de Tierra) in San Mateo County.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The DEIS shows a bias against the No Action alternative or variations on that
alternative. There are other areas in the GGNRA such as Ocean Beach, where the
existing 1979 Pet Policy has been working and where sensitive species are not
present and visitor conflicts do not occur or are very infrequent. In addition, the
DEIS does not provide site-specific infounation that these areas are inappropriate
for continued dog walking.
Concern ID:
CONCERN

29368
Commenters support either Alternative A or E for Sweeney Ridge because these

99

CS1300 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Desire Other Alternative
alternatives provide the most on-leash dog walking at the site and therefore meet
the need for open recreational space.
Organization: University of San Francisco
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1893
Comment ID: 200620
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is a severe shortage of open-space where I can walk
with my dog in San Mateo County. Loss of this the Sweeney Ridge hiking trails
would only exacerbate this problem, and would degrade the quality of life in this
county. Needless to say, I prefer Alternative A or Alternative E, which would
provide the most access
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29369
There is support for Alternative B because visitors want a no-dog experience at this
site and are concerned about impacts to natural resources as a result of dogs.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29335 (MR1100), Comment 203736.

CS1400 - Cattle/Sweeney: Suggest Change in Alternative
29371
ROLA - Commenters suggest that Sweeney Ridge should be open to off-leash dog
walking or ROLAs because the site is infrequently used and has significant open
space, which would provide a balance between the need for recreation and the
protection of natural resources. Suggested ROLAs include the trails/fire roads
within Sweeney Ridge.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 841
Comment ID: 186202
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sweeney Ridge: like Milagra Ridge, this trail/fire road is
virtually devoid of anything more than the occasional person. After traversing the
steep up/down of the canyon up to the ridgeline, I have rarely ever seen another
person at all. The trail is not for the faint-of-heart, and this generally scares off
anyone except the most physical/avid hikers. I'd prefer to see this area completely
off-leash and voice control for dogs for those reasons. It is one of the best places to
have significant open-space with virtually no other human contact to walk dogs.
Corr. ID: 2026
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193247
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: San Mateo (I) Comments
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

So much land. It would be wonderful to have at least one large area where dogs +
their humans can play- off leash.
Corr. ID: 2286
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201162
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. Sweeney Ridge: You need some off leash trails here. Of
the alternatives offered, Alternative A is the best of a poor lot.
Corr. ID: 4606
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210154
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: it's the responsibility of GGNRA/DEIS to identify and
analyze mitigation actions for the adverse impacts they claim. Otherwise they have
not truly analyzed Alternative A.
If GGNRA would add to Alternative A reasonable off leash areas in the GGNRA
sites in San Mateo County, while mitigating problems they find with Alternative A,
100

CS1300 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Desire Other Alternative
they would have a truly preferred alternative.
Corr. ID: 4623
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208406
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding the proposed GGNRA changes, I oppose the
Preferred Alternative because it is overly restrictive and punitive to responsible dog
walkers and their dogs. I would like to see the Park Service revise the dog
management plan to formalize the existing GGNRA dog policy (aka the 1979 Pet
Policy) plus provide for balanced off-leash areas in San Mateo County and new
lands and remove any proposed rules to reduce or ban dog recreation based only on
violations.
The GGNRA should develop a new alternative, the A+ Alternative, which will
better balance the recreational needs of the Bay Area with protection of natural
resources.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29373
On-Leash - On-leash dog walking should be allowed within areas of Sweeney
Ridge including the Baquiano Trail and along Sneath Lane to the Nike Missile site.
Corr. ID: 3059
Organization: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Comment ID: 201237
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Sweeney Ridge, I propose that any paved trail that
routinely supports service vehicular traffic allow on-leash dogs. The impact of dogs
versus vehicles seems somewhat minute. I wonder what impact vehicular traffic has
on surrounding wildlife.
Corr. ID: 3812
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208447
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1. I believe that leashed dogs should be allowed on the
paved road at Sweeney Ridge. That is, the road between Sneath Lane and the Nike
Missile Site. This would serve the park's goal of keeping the wilder sections of the
site dog-free, but allow local residents the opportunity to walk on a portion of the
park.
Corr. ID: 4688
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210089
Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Sweeney Ridge:
Map 19E should include on-leash access for the Baquiano and Sneath Lane/NPS
Easement Trails. We suggest that the thick chaparral on the Baquiano side and the
fact that the Sneath Lane/NPS trail is paved would prevent most if not all dogs
from accessing the property off the trails (in the event there is non-compliance with
the leash law). Proper enforcement of the rules should ensure that few if any
violations occur, in which case the environmental effects from site access on this
parcel would be minimal.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

31316
No Dog Areas - The Meadow Loop Trail should be for hikers only due to
proximity to wetland containing red-legged frog and garter snake.
Corr. ID: 2295
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 226683
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: would also support Plan adoption of Alternative A with
Modification by also limiting use of the Meadow Loop Trail to hiking only. By
providing two trails for hiking only, this would help reduce potential user conflicts
while protecting the most sensitive habitats within the Sweeney Ridge Trail
System. The Notch Trail is a narrow single track trail located within an identified
sensitive Mission blue butterfly corridor. The Meadow Loop Trail is also a narrow

101

CS1400 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Suggest Change in Alternative
single track trail located next to a sensitive fresh water wetland that likely supports
California red-legged frog and potentially San Francisco garter snake.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

31317
Signage - Additional signage should be placed at trailheads explaining visitor user
regulations and also any important habitat or wildlife located along the trails.
Corr. ID: 2295
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 226684
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is limited signage at most of the trail heads. For
example, there is not much signage at the Mori Ridge Trail entrance and the Portola
Discovery Site area (intersection of Sweeney Ridge Trail, Baquiano Trail, and
Sneath Lane Trail). There should be additional signage that explains the important
rules and regulations applicable to all users similar to the signage installed at the
Notch Trail entrance within Skyline College and the Milagra Ridge Trail System
entrance. This would significantly help in reducing potential user conflicts by
educating trail users and reinforcing the regulations. Please explain why this wasn't
considered in the Dog Management Plan for reducing user conflicts.
l) In order to protect the surrounding habitat and make sure trail users stay on the
designated trails, there should be additional signage installed at the trail heads
explaining w/illustrations the local habitat and wildlife. This signage should be
similar to the signage installed at the Notch Trail entrance within Skyline College
and the Milagra Ridge Trail System entrance. This would also help educate and
reinforce GGNRA regulations. Please explain why this wasn't considered in the
Dog Management Plan for reducing potential user conflicts within the Sweeney
Ridge Trail System.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

31574
There is support for continuing to allow off-leash dog walking at Sweeney Ridge.
For representative quote, please see Concern 29271 (MP1400), Comment 204113.

31810
Dogs should be allowed off-leash from Sneath lane to Fassler, on dirt trails south of
Sneath, and at Cattle Hill and the road to the Nike missile site. They should also be
allowed on-leash from Shell Dance Nursery to the missile site, but should not be
allowed on the Notch trail.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4640
Comment ID: 227731
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sweeney Ridge
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Allows balanced areas for dog recreation plus one trail for no dogs even though
overall visitation on the "no dog" trail will probably be less because of not allowing
dogs. While there is no evidence of dogs impacting the Mission Blue Butterfly,
Notch Trail includes the habitat for the butterfly so even remote impacts are
eliminated.
-Trails from Sneath Lane entrance to Fassler entrance and dirt trails south of that
path (plus Cattle Hill and road to the Nike Missile Site)
-Trail from the Shell Dance Nursery to the Nike Missile Site
-Notch Trail

102

CS1400 ‐ Cattle/Sweeney: Suggest Change in Alternative
Note that on the Bay side nearby Sawyer Camp Trail and San Bruno Mountain do
not allow any dogs. On the Coast side nearby San Pedro Valley does not allow
dogs.
I doubt there is a significant number of visitors that are truly afraid of dogs that will
visit Sweeney Ridge because of the large, wild predators in the park

DC1000 - Duplicate comment
There were no comments on DC1000
ED1000 - Editorial
There were no comments on ED1000
EJ2010 - Environmental Justice: Affected Environment
29478
Off-leash dogs present a threat to the elderly since they are easily knocked down.
Commenters also feel that minority ethnic groups are disproportionately impacted
by off-leash dogs since many minorities are afraid of dogs.
Organization: San Francisco State University
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1886
Comment ID: 200399
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not even visit Fort Funston because I am aware that it
has basically become a dog park. The GGNRA is home to many sensitive, endemic
species that need to be protected from off-leash dogs. I also feel that off-leash dogs
present a threat to the elderly, who are in danger of being knocked down by
uncontrolled dogs.
There is also evidence in a report by Dr. Nina Roberts to suggest that minority
ethnic groups are disproportionately impacted by off-leash dogs as they are afraid
of the dogs.
I strongly urge you NOT to allow off-leash dogs in the GGNRA, accept perhaps in
fenced-in designated "dog park" areas.
Corr. ID: 4631
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208667
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a person from the country of Myanmar and I have
moved to the US to study at San Francisco State University as a scientist I study
birds. I go to Chrissy Field, Tomales bay and Fort Cronkhite to look at the seabirds
and other birds. There are dogs there that scare the birds by running after them. I
am also nervous at these places because I am also afraid of dogs. We do not have
many dogs in my country and they frighten me. I hope you will protect the birds.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29479
Commenters disagree with statements made in the plan from the 2007 San
Francisco Study about how Latinos and Asians feel towards off-leash dogs. The
plan should look at additional studies that focus on minorities that visit GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4533
Comment ID: 209693
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Plan/DEIS suggests that minorities don't visit the park
or don't fully enjoy the park because of the presence of dogs, and that seniors, the
handicapped and families with small children are threatened and intimated by the
presence of dogs. These suggestions are based on "studies" and "telephone
surveys." The reality, however, is that many of the people with dogs in the GGNRA
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

103

EJ2010‐ Environmental Justice: Affected Environment
represent and include minority groups, seniors, the handicapped and families with
small children. In particular, I often see families with young children and their dog
playing and picnicking at the East Beach area of Crissy Field. The preferred
alternatives in many of the sites would have a more negative impact on many in
those groups as the restrictions to access with dogs would make recreation that
much more difficult or impossible. For instance, if a family with small children or a
person with a walker has to walk to the Central Beach at Crissy Field before
allowing their dog off-leash, many of those people will not be able to enjoy a beach
experience with their dog because they will not have access.
Corr. ID: 4634
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208678
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The claim that "environmental justice" requires severe
restrictions on offleash dogs is not supported by the studies cited in the DEIS. A
DEIS cited 2007 San Francisco State study claims that all Latinos and Asians
surveyed said that dogs were a problem. However, the study was not about the
"ethnic minority visitor use experience at the GGNRA" as claimed in the DEIS, but
was actually intended to address ways to improve connecting people to the parks.
In any event, the SF State study involved only 100 people who were largely
unfamiliar with the GGNRA. My own observation is hat people of all ethnic and
national origin backgrounds and their dogs enjoy offleash experiences at Crissy
Field which the proposed changes will deny to them.
Corr. ID: 4684
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209958
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If the Park User Experience section of the Draft Plan must
include racial data, it must first collect that data, give a thorough analysis before
making the generalization that minorities such as Asians and Latinos are afraid of
dogs. I find this section of the Draft Plan deficient of data concerning park use by
race.

EJ4000 - Environmental Justice: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
29480
Restricting off-leash dog walking limits equal access for the disabled, elderly,
lower income, and ethnic minority communities. For example - the elderly and
disabled will have a difficult time reaching the ROLA at Fort Funston under the
preferred alternative. These minority groups prefer off-leash dog walking since it
allows them to not have to exert physical strength which they may not have. In
addition, these minority groups will be disadvantaged since some of them will have
to travel further to reach off-leash areas. Some low income individuals may not
have a car to drive to alternative off-leash dog walking sites. Restricting dog
walking activities will impact this type of recreation that minority communities
enjoy.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3941
Comment ID: 205932
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is unfair to punish all responsible dog owners with such
severe measures for the problems created by a few dog owners. For example, we do
not see similar severe measures being taken against bicyclists for the actions of a
few.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Elderly people, special needs people and lower income people are more severely
and unfairly punished by these current GGNRA proposals because they will have to
travel so far to properly take care of their dogs. They may not be able to do so and
may be forced to surrender their beloved companions.
104

EJ2010‐ Environmental Justice: Affected Environment

29481
Commenters believe that the preferred alternatives in the plan will negatively affect
the local economy including many small businesses. Professional dog walkers will
be forced to raise their fees, which may be unaffordable by some middle class dog
owners. Some professional dog walkers may go out of business. Some small
businesses that are located near areas that plan to eliminate off-leash dog walking
or ban dogs will lose the business from dog owners that will go elsewhere to walk
their dog. The plan does not account for the economic benefit of having dogfriendly areas which attract tourists.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1547
Comment ID: 190740
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This unique National Recreation area is just that: a
recreation area meant to be preserved for recreation, established to preserve the
beauty of coastal living for all to enjoy even as the urban areas become more
densely populated and suburbs stretch at the seams of growth limits. For every
action, there is a reaction and the severe curtailing of the use these lands were
designed for, will no doubt stress other open areas and parks, leading to other
conflicts among groups of users. Plus many hundreds of small businesses that
include pet walking would be affected-and I think it's a safe bet that those business
owners are among the most conscientious users of the GGNRA lands because their
very jobs depend upon the fact that they observe the rules and avoid tickets.
Corr. ID: 1566
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190771
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Like everyone in a free country, dog walkers have a right
to make a living. If you limit them to 3 dogs a t a time, they will have to raise their
fee in order to make a living. Then many middle clawss dog owners cannot afford a
walker.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

EJ5000 - Environmental Justice: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments on EJ5000
FB1100 - Fort Baker: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29549
The Preferred Alternative is supported because it allows on-leash dogs on the
parade grounds, Drown Fire Road, and East Road. Commenters support this
a;lternative for personal health reasons and for the well being of dogs.

For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29237 (OV1300),
Comment 181777 and Concern 29296 (HV1300), Comment 203418
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10
Comment ID: 181422
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: the following are my comments on some of the various
areas under review.
Fort Baker: Alt A or Alt C.
Corr. ID: 3934
Organization: 3rd Supervisorial District of the County
of Marin
Comment ID: 205859
Organization Type: County Government
Representative Quote: Fort Baker: Please consider including the Parade Grounds,
Drowns Fire Road and East Road for dogs on leash.
105

EJ4000‐ Environmental Justice: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives

FB1200 - Fort Baker: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29550
Commenters oppose the preferred alternative since it would prohibit off-leash dog
walking on the few remaining trails in the area.

For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29294 (HV1200),
Comment 182084
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 646
Comment ID: 181439
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I oppose the proposed dog restrictions in Marin County.
The Audubon Society does not represent the interests of most resident taxpayers
and it certainly doesn't represent our country's pet owners.

FB1300 - Fort Baker: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29551
Commenters support Alternative D because it is most protective of natural
resources and visitor safety.
Corr. ID: 1472
Organization: Marin Audubon
Comment ID: 200253
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative D: Muir Beach, Fort Baker, Homestead Valley,
Alta Trail and Orchard and Pacheco Fire Roads, Oakwood Valley, Marin
Headlands Trail

FB1400 - Fort Baker: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29553
ROLA - In order to provide more balance between user groups, a ROLA should be
added to the mowed lawn on the Parade Ground.
Corr. ID: 2038
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193277
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It would appear that all alternatives were NOT considered.
There are areas which would qualify as appropriate ROLA areas (ie no endangered
species present) which have not been marked as ROLAs. For example, the mowed
lawn on the Parade Ground of Fort Baker (which is entirely encircled by rowdway.
Why NOT add a ROLA here to preserve balance between dog-owners + non-dog
owners in the GGNRA?

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29554
No Dog Area - Dog walking should be prohibited on Battery Yates Loop or Drown
Fire Road in order to protect Mission blue butterfly habitat.
Corr. ID: 4215
Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208895
Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Fort Baker - We generally support the Preferred
Alternative, with the exception of Battery Yates Loop and Drown Fire Road. We
believe the primary focus of this area should be protection of the mission blue
106

FB1200 ‐ Fort Baker: Oppose Preferred Alternative
butterfly habitat and that this area be off limits to recreation with dogs. .

FF1100 - Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative
29409
Commenters support Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative at Fort Funston
because it will allow the site to be used by everyone; it presents a balances use and
compromise of the site by allowing on-leash areas, off-leash areas, and no-dog
areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 961
Comment ID: 191594
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support adopting the new dog plan, which will
allow Fort Funston to be shared, once again, by families, by children, by the
elderly... by people of every kind.
Corr. ID: 2701
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195549
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I write in general support of your proposals. I believe they
strike a fair balance among the competing needs of dog owners, non-dog owning
visitors, and the environment. Since I live in the City and primarily use those parts
of the park in the City, my focus has been on them and I think they are fair and
reasonable. Fort Funston is a good example; the current situation has made it so
that I do not much enjoy visiting it anymore, since I am routinely being run down
by off leash dogs, being hit by tennis balls thrown by owners,stepping on dog
waste, and so forth. By combining an off leash area with on-leash and prohibited
areas, there is room for all to enjoy.
Corr. ID: 3741
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204591
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel there needs to be a better balance of human
recreation vs protection of natural resources. For this reason, I urge you to go with
the preferred alternative, particularly as it applies to Fort Funston.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

While I don't trivialize the importance of dog walking as a form of recreation, I
don't feel it should be allowed at the expense of native habitat for wild animals and
the ecosystem that supports them.
29410
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it will allow visitors who do
not enjoy dogs to have a no-dog (or more controlled dog) visitor experience at the
site.
Organization: Self
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1445
Comment ID: 199679
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One of your proposals I strongly support and that is to
control dog walkers. They bring 5 to 10 loosely managed dogs to Fort Funston.
While some of the more responsible ones try to clean up after the dogs. Far too
many look the other way.
Corr. ID: 3547
Organization: fellow feathers HG club
Comment ID: 201305
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a regular walker at Fort Funston and support
Alternative 'C'.
Some of the dogs are very scary and should not be off leash all over the Park. The
dogs impact my walking . They scare me when they run at me.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

107

FF1100 – Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative

29411
There is support for the Preferred Alternative because it limits/restricts off-leash
dogs at Fort Funston, which will preserve the natural resources and/or wildlife at
the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2305
Comment ID: 200614
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs have destroyed Fort Funston's highlands in the last
15 years, and I have seen numerous people and animals terrorized by badly
behaved off-leash dogs. Irresponsible dog owners are ruining the parks and city for
everyone and reasonable limits need to be enforced. The GGNRA is right and the
Supes, as usual, are just pandering.
Corr. ID: 4265
Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209124
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FORT FUNSTON. Alternative C should be adopted to
protect nesting bank swallows.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29412
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it limits/restricts off-leash
dogs at Fort Funston and will therefore reduce conflicts associated with dogs
(between other dogs, horses, or humans) at the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1466
Comment ID: 199815
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing in support of the GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. ride horses out at Fort
Funston and access the trails, beach and Fort Funston three times a week. I grew up
in San Francisco and walked our family dogs at Fort Funston in the 80s and
90s.The change in the habitat there is depressing. Seeing dogs harass the dwindling
bird life is very sad; watching people not pick up after their dog is enough to make
me go nuts. The lack of cooperation and understanding of shared open space has
been a source of great frustration for me. Over the last ten years, I have witnessed
three accidents involving dogs and horses. One involved the rider being
hospitalized. One involved the death of the dog. For these reasons, I am firmly in
support of all that the GGNRA Draft Dog Management Plan is attempting to do. I
feel that Alternate C is a compromise for everyone but is much better than the
status quo. I firmly support ongoing dialogue and clearer policy.
Corr. ID: 3511
Organization: Fellow Feathers
Comment ID: 201256
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a regular visitor of Fort Funston, I support Alternative
C dog leash plan.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The recent attack (and resultant death) of a dog by two pit bulls should be a
moment of reflection, though, for stricter leash laws.
Thank you for taking some action, however, in addressing the dog leash issue at
Funston.
Corr. ID: 3632
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204110
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to support the preferred alternative as
presented in the DEIS. Although I have some reservations about all elements of the
plan, I believe that it is basically sound and should be supported. I have two dogs

108

FF1100 – Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative

and have had several negative experiences while walking my dogs on GGNRA
lands. One time, at Fort Funston, one of my dogs was chased in a very aggressive
manner by a pit bull and eventually was bitten by this same animal. All this
occurred while the owner of the other dog watched from afar as I tried to break
them up. The bite drew blood but otherwise didn't hurt my dog badly. This is one
example among many of where there was inadequate control by dog owners over
their pets. One other time worth mentioning happened when I took my son to Fort
Funston when he was 4 years old. A commercial dog walker was unable to control
an animal that lunged at my son to get the stuffed toy in my son's hand. The large
dog slammed into my son and caused him to hit his head on the course asphalt
pavement. I called the park police and reported this incident at the time. My son has
suffered permanent disfigurement to the forehead from this fall.In short, I think the
NPS needs to put a rule in place that curtails the seemingly out-of-control offleash
dog access in some parts of GGNRA to restore a modicum of safe recreational
access for all park users. I think this DEIS is going in the right direction, though
some relaxation of "no dogs" could occur in some parts of GGNRA lands in
Pacifica with no detrimental effect to the natural environment, including listed
species habitats. For example, the Baquiano Trail and the Sneath Lane access trail
from the parking lot to the Baquiano Trail could be allowed for onleash access.
Finally, I support a carefully analyzed and implemented compliance strategy to
ensure full compliance with all rules related to dog management. Things are far to
lax now and must be brought under control The basic elements of such an approach
are in the plan, but actual implementation is not ensured by simply writing a plan.
There must be coordinated follow through with the affected cities and
neighborhoods, good signs, and then enforcement.
29413
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it will limit either the
number of dogs per walker at Fort Funston or will limit the number of dogs a
commercial dog walker is allowed, which should reduce the dog damages/impacts
at the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3136
Comment ID: 203717
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please adopt option C (the NPS Preferred Alternative) for
the GGNRA Dog Management Plan. I am a regular supporter of the Golden Gate
Parks Conservancy and a frequent and long-time (over 10 years) volunteer.
The first is the limit on numbers of dogs that can be walked by an individual, and
the numbers that can be walked off leash.
My many days spent at Ft. Funston have left me convinced that the majority of
damage done by dogs is done by the large packs with a single walker or two. Many
of these are professional dog walkers, and their use of the park is frankly exploitive.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The second is the implicit recognition that traffic should be restricted to the trails,
as in any park. I think that most people, and even most dogs, recognize this, but
many still do not. Educating people on the value of the park, and teaching them to
respect it by respecting the trails, is in the long term the only way to protect the
park.
I appreciate the work that all parties have put into developing this plan, but please
remember that the stakeholders in the park include a large community of flora and
fauna. They can't attend meetings and rely on us to represent them.
109

FF1100 – Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative

FF1200 - Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29414
Commenters are opposed to the Preferred Alternative at Fort Funston because it
will limit/restrict the amount of off-leash areas at this site and will therefore cause
negative dog reactions (conflicts) as a result of over-crowding at the proposed
ROLAs at Fort Funston or at other dog parks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 6
Comment ID: 181406
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please leave the Presidio and Funston open to off-leash
dogs. If you don't, you will simply make the neighborhood parks more crowded
with dogs/their walkers.
Corr. ID: 228
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180725
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston and the other parks are already packed full of
dogs - restricting the size of off leash play would make it dangerous for small dogs
and people protecting them as they would be confined in the same areas that
aggressive large dogs also are playing.
Corr. ID: 247
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180814
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: By limiting these areas to off leash, would only crowd
exercise areas making the whole exercise plan an impossibility. Dogs would only
get in each others path causing potential harm to all dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

DO NOT MAKE THE PROPOSED OFF LESH AREAS AT FORT FUNSTON
AND CRISSY fIELD LIMITED IN SPACE IN ANY WAY
Corr. ID: 278
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180921
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And on weekends my husband and I include Fort Funston
as part of a regular exercise for us with our dog.
The new plan suggests the the area which would allow off leash activity would be
limited to a small section near the parking lot and a stretch of beach. There are a
few problems with this proposal. I'll start with the section by the parking lot - this
would dramatically concentrate more off leash dogs into a smaller area thus leading
to dog management. Dogs don't always like to be near other high energy dogs.
Mine prefers wide open spaces and not necessarily large groups of dogs and
activity. Furthermore, since the area is not fenced it may cause issues with dogs that
run into the parking lot where there is traffic thus endangering the dog and drivers.
Most people I know walk away from the lot before they unleash their dog but I fear
that since they will not be able to go far they'll end up staying closer to the parking
lot than is advised. The other issue with the proposed beach-only area for off leash
activity is that it puts pressure on people to have to go down to the beach which
does not always work. I for example don't often go to the beach because my dog
will get wet. Some people worry that their dogs will get swept up in the waves or
tide. Some hunting dogs cannot resist rolling in the dead birds, fish or seals that
wash up on the beach nearly every day. And above all, the tides sometimes render
the beach nearly impossible to use because of how narrow it can be.

110

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Corr. ID: 419
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181601
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I OPPOSE the Draft Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Plan/DEIS) for Dog Management:
Reducing the off-leash area will make it more difficult for certain sections of the
community to use the parks. The elderly, the disabled, and people with children
rely on the wide open space for access and safety. Reducing the off-leash area at
Fort Funston for example will concentrate dos in a small area where those with
mobility issues will not be able to walk safely.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192063
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: c) Fort Funston:
The DEIS fails to provide scientific support for the drastic reduction in off leash
play areas and fails to take into account the negative effects from the massive
reduction in off leash dog play areas. The DEIS should address the following:
i The area designated for off leash play near the parking lot is a small fraction of
the former off leash play area. Severe overcrowding will result, with conflicts,
damage to overcrowded area, and strong incentives for dog walkers to cheat in
leash required areas.
Corr. ID: 2067
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193326
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Ft. Funston the Alternative plan would crowd dogs so
much as to create tension and unruly behavior. It is the open space for people and
dogs that allows for safe and enjoyable intermingling. Dogs need space.
29415
Commenters are opposed to the Preferred Alternative at Fort Funston because it
will limit/restrict off-leash areas for dog walking; which is enjoyable to visitors
with dogs and provides good quality of life; provides good exercise for dogs and it
would be unfair to take these areas away as a result of a few violators because there
is no comparable place like Fort Funston in the area.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 448
Comment ID: 181703
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If we could not have access to this area, it would be very
difficult to live in the city where we both work.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Please keep the area of Fort Funston open to dogs and their families, dog walkers
and allow the animals to continue to enjoy the outside play off leash.
Corr. ID: 502
Organization: known
Comment ID: 181879
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel this is unfair to the general public who have enjoyed
Fort Funston for over two decades to be able to take their dogs to an authorized No
Leash park. I also feel it is UNFAIR to the Professional Dog Walker and their
clients who utilize both these services. WHY THE CHANGE NOW?.
Corr. ID: 740
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182692
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am concerned that the changes being proposed will
significantly affect the quality of life for both my dog and my family.
111

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

The new, proposed off-leash areas at Fort Funston seem unnecessarily strict and
arbitrary. The plan at this location is confusing and illogical and has the potential to
create a lot of unintentional non-compliance because it is so confusing.
Corr. ID: 902
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191264
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We visit Ft. Funston regularly with our Labradoodle and
kids, and before kids we brought our Siberian Husky. Many dog breeds need a
place to run to get sufficient exercise, especially City dogs. Please don't take this
off-leash privelege away from those who love Ft. Funston, and love dogs who can
run free.
Corr. ID: 1745
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200233
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to acknowledge my support to continuing the
off-leash policy for dogs that currently exists at Fort Funston. Fort Funston is
unique in that it allows dogs the chance to run and roam freely. With no place else
like it within many miles of San Francisco, dog owners will be denied the
opportunity to exercise their dogs in a place that has successfully been used for this
purpose for many years. Denying San Franciscans and their dogs this liberty strikes
me as more punitive than stemming from any real grievance regarding nature's
balance at Fort Funston- whatever others might claim.
Corr. ID: 1776
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191574
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My dog and I both have a better quality of life by being
able to walk freely at Fort Funston Recreational Center. If the leash laws are
enacted, our quality of life would be greatly reduced
Corr. ID: 2107
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193366
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The people that go to Ft. Funston every day are a
community. For many of us, our whole social network is made up of people we see
and know from Ft. Funston. We will lose our community if you restrict off-leash
dog walking. I am losing my human friends if you restrict off-leash dog walking.
Corr. ID: 3493
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203362
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been taking my dogs to Fort Funston for over
twenty years. I don't know what I would do without it. Most dogs are noticeably
more relaxed when off-leash resulting in very few altercations. As a matter of fact,
in all the years I have gone there I have only had two issues with other dogs.
Today's dog population that generally live in cities with working "parents" need the
freedom to run and play to be healthy, happy animals. Considering the ratio of dogs
to people today in San Francisco and the Bay Area, it is even more important that
dogs and their owners should have a place like Fort Funston to walk and play
regularly. There are plenty of parks where dogs are not allowed that dogless people
can visit!!
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29416
The Preferred Alterntive at Fort Funston is opposed because it presents a danger to
or is unsafe for dogs, including the proximity of the upland ROLA to the parking
area and cliffs and/or because there would be little safe beach area at high tide at
the beach ROLA and dogs would be concentrated in a small area within the ROLA
on the beach.
112

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 393
Comment ID: 181182
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I currently walk my dog at Ft. Funston -- either on the
beach or along the trails. As proposed, the trails would be off limits to off-leash
dogs. When tides are high, there would be no safe place for leash-free exercise.
Corr. ID: 3995
Organization: The Hearing Dog Program
Comment ID: 207467
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the proposed option for Fort Funston the trails would be
closed to off leash dogs. This would lead to a higher number of off leash dogs
concentrated in the ice plant area close to the parking lots. Currently dogs start off
here but quickly move on into Fort Funston. With the new plan they would tend to
stay in this area. This concentration of dogs would create problems due to the
increase in dog density. It would also become less safe due to proximity to moving
cars.
I proposed that you keep Fort Funston as it has been for several decades. It has
proven to be an ideal example of how large numbers of people and dogs can
recreate in an enjoyable and safe manner. It is a shining example of how an off
leash recreational area can meet the recreational needs of people with and without
dogs. You have a real jewel to point to that's unique in the world. Please don't
destroy it through closing portions of Fort Funston to off leash dogs
Corr. ID: 4412
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207005
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston
PAVED ROADS: Dogs do not cause damage to pavement
Although it is understandable for the park service to want to keep dogs out of a
portion of the dunes, allowing dogs off leash on the paved roadways does not result
in environmental damage. From my observation of people walking dogs in Ft.
Funston, 99% of dogs and owners stay on the paved roadway.
PROPOSED ROLA AREA: Keep dogs away from cars
The plan shows the proposed ROLA to be next to the parking lot. It makes no sense
for dogs to be off leash in close proximity to cars, and on leash when they are away
from them. The decision to limit the ROLA. to this area is absurd!
Corr. ID: 4612
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206344
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have trouble with the GGNRA's preferred alternative
plan in that it severely limits and affects the off leash dog walking area at Fort
Funston. From the maps I have seen, the preferred alternative. off leash area is
bound by the large and always busy parking lot, steep cliffs and one paved
walkway and one sanded path. I am concerned that if the number of dogs allowed
playing off leash in that area dramatically increases, the cliffs and the parking lot
become major safety concerns. Additionally, limiting off-leash access to the beach
tative Quote: At Stinson Beach Alternative A allows only for dogs on-leash in the
parking areas. This is the best alternative presented, but there should be another
alternative that allows dogs off leash on
Corr. ID: 4622
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207049
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS does not include any discussion of the safety
concerns of having children at Fort Funston due to the irregular/remote/hilly
113

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

topography, the very dangerous cliff area (constantly eroding from wind and rain
and often not visible due to fog) and the dangerous beach.
The "preferred alternative" will create a dangerous situation for humans and dogs
by limiting off leash to the area immediately adjacent to the north side of the
parking lot. This area is far too small to accommodate the large number of daily
walkers and dogs which will result in injury. There is no information in the DEIS as
to how this specific amount of Fort Funston was allocated for off leash in the
"preferred alternative". No data in the DEIS supports this allocation of limited
space to off leash activities (beach off leash discussed below). Without supporting
statistical and verifiable data, the basis of this allocation appears to be arbitrary.
Corr. ID: 4643
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208857
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One of my favorite areas to walk the dogs - of which I take
only six or seven at a time - would be Fort Funston. This is one of the few areas in
which the dogs are now allowed to run and play off leash, but with the new ruling,
the area allowed for dogs to play off leash is around the parking lot. Is that what the
GGNRA really considers to be a safe area for dogs? With all of the cars coming
into the parking lot, the risk of bodily injury to dogs (and people) would be much
higher. Fort Funston is wild and full of sand dunes. What possible harm could dogs
do to that area? I know that some objections have been made stating that certain
bird life may be threatened, of which there is not sufficient data.
29417
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative because they feel that dogs are not
causing disturbance or issues at Fort Funston when compared to horses, people, or
natural causes such as wind/weather. Disturbance includes impacting the habitat,
affecting wildlife or listed species, and/or because the area is not pristine due to its
military history.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 330
Comment ID: 181094
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a regular visitor to Fort Funston I appose to the
proposal changing the dog laws of the GGNRA and absolutely support alternative
A. I understand the concern for environmental protection of our planet but disagree
that the current laws would do as much environmental damage as proposed. I very
rarely see dogs in the protected areas of Fort Funston. Dog owners I have seen have
respect for the protected areas of the park. As for wildlife, I have never seen a dog
chase or harass any native wild life on the beach at Fort Funston (or Ocean Beach).
Corr. ID: 1203
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194832
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Health of the Environment: Bringing (of all things)
more horses onto the trails of Fort Funston, brings with it a population with a
horrific sense of entitlement - and no sense of responsibility. The regular dog
walkers of Ft Funston clean up after their animals not only on a daily basis but also
on a monthly clean-up. Those who bring their horses up to Ft Funston 1) do not
stay on the horse trails, 2) frequently do not know how to ride a horse, and have
little control of their animals, 3) never clean up after their horses, and 4) leave trails
more heavily eroded, more covered with manure, vermin and flies. Turning our
trails into 'Horse Trails' makes both the official trails and the adjacent areas unfit,
unsafe, and unsanitary for human walkers (with or without dogs). The horse riders
have been by far the most inconsiderate and destructive population at Ft Funston.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

114

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Corr. ID: 1503
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191362
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly oppose the restrictions on off-leash dog walking
recommended in the Preferred Alternative for Fort Funston.
The DEIS report fails to provide any hard data that dogs "degrade" the land. (DEIS,
p. xii, p.225) The document fails to consider the extent of human recreational
influences on the soil, and to what degree human non-dog activities and
occurrences of nature "degrade" the soil.
Corr. ID: 1612
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190854
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Fort Funston
Map 16-A largely preserves the 1979 Pet Policy and should be permanently
adopted.
In the 15 years that NPS has been trying to limit off-lease dogs at Fort Funston, we
dog owners have abided by the seasonal closures and illegal fencing of other areas.
Since Judge Alsop's decision voiding your attempt to change the 1979 Pet Policy,
the only changes to Fort Funston have been casued by Mother Nature. The "Habitat
Protection Area" is now a huge sand dune, the cliffs above the "season closure"
have eroded because of wind and the sea - the same seas that destroyed part of the
Great Highway.
Corr. ID: 1717
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191163
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston:
I prefer alternative A because I believe it is already a restricted areas. Fort Funston
is a wonderful, iconic place, a place in which we take complete pride. 99% of the
folks who go here stay on trail with their dogs, pick up poop and have good voice
control.
Corr. ID: 2234
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200863
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support continuance of the current conditions at Fort
Funston. I think it is hard to argue that dogs have a more negative impact on the
environment than do hangliders, people drinking at the park after hours (as
evidenced by broken bottles in and around the parking lot) and horses. Specific to
the last point, the amount of visible dog feces on the beach pales in comparison to
the amount of horse feces on any given weekend. I would also imagine that Horse
trails in an among the bluffs contribute far more to shoreline erosion than any
combined dog use.
Corr. ID: 3066
Organization: SFDog
Comment ID: 201251
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed plan that restricts off-leash dogs on the Chip
Trail at Fort Funston does not make any sense as this area is not near the area
where the bank swallows nest. If the bank swallow is the basis for restricting dogs
in that area, then more attention needs to be paid to the defficits in the DEIS as it
does not address the fact that a GGNRA study by researcher Nola Chow has been
ignored. Her study showed that that dogs do not distrub the bank swallows.
Corr. ID: 3083
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203076
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

115

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Representative Quote: I have heard your staff say that they think Fort Funston has
been destroyed from the dogs. If you walk around Fort Funston, you can see that it
is the wind, sand and weather that has changed the landscape - NOT the dogs.
I would like to see the Ocean Beach from Sloat to Lincoln to be leash free also. I
don't believe that dogs pose a problem for them at all.
Corr. ID: 3546
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203405
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm writing to urge you to vote against the GGNRA's dog
management plan, specifically to preserve Fort Funston as a haven for San
Francisco dogs. The issue of balancing human use and environmental concern in
urban parks is a complex one, but considering the massive demand for and wild
success of parks like Fort Funston, the environmental detriment is relatively
insignificant.
Fort Funston is a shining example of a functional urban park, in large part due its
use by dogs and dog walkers. Advocates of the proposal would paint Fort Funston
as a little swath of the Old West, ruled by anarchy, inaccessible to anyone but dog
walkers. While the Chronicle had its eye on this issue, the Letters to the Editor
section was rife with anecdotes of dog-related irritations and safety concerns from
parents of young children. Yes, there have been dogfights and human conflict, as is
to be expected in so heavily used an area, but Fort Funston is actually remarkably
safe because of the presence of dogs, which diminishes the safely concerns so
prevalent in other urban parks. Drug abusers, muggers, pedophiles, homeless
encampments and other issues which pose a safety risk to demographics like
children, the disabled, the elderly and women alone are massively deterred by the
flocks of romping dogs. In my years visiting Fort Funston as a child and teenage
girl, I've never had the sort of frightening or uncomfortable encounter I might have
at, say, Golden Gate Park.
The sense of security, the geniality of the dedicated dog owners who frequent the
park, and the network of wide paved trails make the park a great place for anyone
who can stand the company of dogs to visit. Whether you come to tire your dog out
among the dunes or to enjoy the spectacular view of the ocean, Fort Funston has
never been anything but peaceful and joyous.
On the other side of the equation is the desire to restore as much land as possible to
its natural, original state. Those who advocate the plan for this reason don't often
mention that Fort Funston is hardly a virgin wilderness. It's a military base--paved
over, tunnelled out and seeded densely with invasive iceplant. Considering how oftused and human-appropriated the land is, one might as well attempt to restore a
children's playground or a high school football field to its natural state. As long as
there must be some land in the city to meet dog owners' needs--and there must-Fort Funstion is absolutely ideal.
Corr. ID: 3670
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204176
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My biggest argument is that NPS doesn't have a good
enough reason to change anything. Where dogs are allowed now, they should be
allowed always.
These lands have been open to dogs for decades. NPS owes something to the
people and dog owners who are and have always been the Parks' biggest
customers.We're not talking about allowing dogs where they haven't been allowed
before. These are places where dogs have been allowed for a long time. The
wildlife is doing just fine with Park visitors who bring their dogs along. We see all
kinds of wildlife at Fort Funston everyday. There's ravens, hawks and even an owl
116

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

on occasion. If dogs were a problem for the wildlife, then the wildlife wouldn't be
there, it would have left a long time ago.
The wildlife in these Parks is thriving on its own without interference-even though
there are lots of dogs around. In addition, it's impossible for dogs to disturb cliff
dwelling birds. So how can NPS say that the dogs are disturbing the wildlife?
Yet NPS claims that dogs cause erosion as well. Nevertheless, the imperceptible
erosion caused by dogs cannot compare to the erosion caused by the wind most
every day along the coast. The weather and winter storms cause more erosion than
the dogs can possibly do. The wind literally extends beaches across The Great
Highway, forcing the closure of the highway a few times a year. Fort Funston in
particular is used by hundreds or maybe a thousand people, mostly with dogs every
day. When the wildlife is thriving and the erosion is imperceptible with dogs, then
what reason does NPS have to kick the dogs out?We're not trying to develop it,
change it, or make it into something it isn't - that's what NPS would like to do. The
land is not just Parks, it's also part of the Golden Gate Recreation Area. Dog
owners and Parks are not in conflict about opening to dogs a pristine land that
never saw a human footprint. The land has already been set aside for Recreational
use, and dogs are a part of that use, as much as running, hang-gliding, exercising,
school sports-team training, and just plain walking.
Corr. ID: 3687
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204207
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are many parks and beaches in Californina that
either do not allow any dogs, or do not allow off-leash dogs. People who want to
avoid dogs have plenty of choices. But people and dogs who enjoy the off-leash
experience have very few options.
Dogs at Fort Funston are not aggressive, are kept under control, and are simply
having fun in a natural way. Fort Funston is NOT a pristine natural environment.
Before becoming a park, it was a military installation, and since then, it has been
open to dogs. Birds which inhabit the cliff areas are not disturbed by the dogs.
There is no valid environmental argument for keeping the dogs on-leash in any area
of the trails or beach at Fort Funston. Dogs need to run and play, and many people
cannot afford huge yards. My dog trainer has told me that small fenced off-leash
dog parks promote aggression in dogs, but the same is not true for Fort Funston,
because there is room for the dog to run and walk, so they do not feel threatened.
29418
Commenters believe that the Preferred Alternative is unfair to professional dog
walkers and/or their clients, and will result in an increase in the cost of commercial
dog walking.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1447
Comment ID: 199695
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've read through the proposal; it is hard to follow, but it
seems to restrict off-leash areas significantly. We regularly visit Fort Funston,
Ocean Beach and Crissy Fields. While I understand there could be some
environmental impact, if dog owners are responsible, it should be minimal. In all
my times to 'off-leash' areas, I've never witnesses any issues. Also, I am not a dog
walker, but am a small business owner.I have a large dog who requires lots of
running for exercise, which would be impossible on leash. Reading the restrictions
of off-leash areas as well as the restrictions placed on dog-walking, I see an
immediate negative economic impact. Dog Walkers are needed in San Francisco.
Dog walking rates are signifcant and with the proposed restriction, you would see a
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

117

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

significant increase in prices and also a decrease of dog walkers (or they will go out
of business). Please keep the off-leash areas available!
Corr. ID: 1914
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192592
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA plan will completely destroy the dog walkers
livelihood. This is how we all pay our bills! The limitations imposed will make our
jobs impossible, and forcing us to keep all dogs on leash going down that steep hill
is completely unsafe and impractical. Please don't do this to us!! Please dont do this
to the dogs either. They need a place to play and learn how to be sociable by
interacting with other dogs. Impossible on leash!!
Corr. ID: 3188
Organization: Professional Dog Walker
Comment ID: 203835
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm a professional dog walker and trainer in San Francisco
and I take my pack of 5 - 8 dogs to the horse trails at Fort Funston. I've been going
here twice a day for the last 4 years and have trained all of my dogs to respect, at a
distance, horses, hikers, and other dogs we may meet on the trials. I take pride in
the control I have of my pack of my dogs and have taught my clients how almost
every dog has this potential to learn such manners. Those who don't stay on leash
until they learn.
We CAN strike a balance between continuing to allow dogs to run naturally and be
controlled.
We are not anti-environemntalists, and are, in fact, in favor of preserving the beauty
of the natural environment. And we are certainly animal lovers, and to any of us,
the thought of our dogs harming other animals or birds is unaccpetable. It is much
more often individual dog owners who allow such activities than any dog walkers,
in my experience.
Please consider using enforcement for those who do not control their dogs rather
than taking away this amazing land from those of us who responsibly enjoy it every
day.
Corr. ID: 3747
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204268
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On behalf of my wife and our five year old, neutered male
pug, we not only implore you, but we beg you to choose Alternative A (no action)
for the San Francisco areas of Crissy Field and Fort Funston. All alternatives
suggested other than no action have an adverse effect on my family, my dog, and
our dog walker.We are not insensitive or not understanding for the need to propose
alternatives that mutually benefit all natural and cultural resources and ensure
visitor safety for all that patronize the GGNRA. By proposing alternatives that
reduce or eliminate geographical area for monitored dogs to roam restricts the
logistics of how to best serve the group of dogs that are taken out for exercise. This
in turn may congest the approved areas, reduce the surface area for the dogs to
exercise, and ultimately, the dog suffers from an unproductive outing. Further, our
dog walker will then be unable to provide the same level of service in the same
amount of time. They may have to reduce the number of dogs taken out per outing
and raise prices to their customers for the lost scalability. We, as dog owners,
would suffer as well by having to pay higher prices and/or suffer from not having
our dog being properly exercised.
Unfortunately, after much thought and consideration, none of the alternatives other
than no action, keep the same level of benefit for my family, our dog and our dog
walker.

118

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

We feel the adverse effect of these alternatives, other than no action, simply cannot
be condoned.
29419
The Preferred Alternative is opposed as a result of accessibility issues, including
but not limited to: all the off-leash areas of Alternative C are on sand and hard to
navigate for mobility-impaired persons (elderly, handicapped); the on-leash
requirement for the Sand Ladder Trail and the steep steps is dangerous to navigate
with a leashed dog; the beach ROLA is too hard to access because visitors must
walk across/on sand.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 107
Comment ID: 181961
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - requiring folks to leash their dogs on the
sand ladder to Fort Funston is quite frankly dangerous. Clearly the writers have not
walked up and down that ladder very often. It's very steep and frequently eroded thus making it a slope. I believe that if dogs were leashed, you'd have quite a few
more people taking spills head-first as their dogs eagerly pull them down. If the
concern is to keep dogs from romping on the hills, then simply restrict the dogs to
inside of the fence.
Corr. ID: 828
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186122
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston
About the "stairs" you want to restrict your park users to. I am an elderly woman
with bad hips and a small poodle who needs a good run every day. I work at SF
State as a lecturer, so I know how much a public employee needs to love his or her
work. But again, the stairs feel to a senior with limited mobility hostile, even
sadistic on the part of those who planned them. I took those stairs exactly once, and
let me tell you, I had to hit the Aleve bottle heavy afterwards. You are
discriminating against the handicapped who need to walk their dogs and want to
enjoy nature.
Corr. ID: 887
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190049
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My main issue is that your map if taken at face value could
be misconstrued as providing a generous amount of off leash area when in fact the
area chosen is problematic in many ways. Primarily, the beach at Ft. Fun is very
difficult to access. You either need to walk down/up an extremely
steep/sandy/logged path followed by challenging access up/down from the beach.
Additionally, after certain bad storms access has been impossible and much
garbage has been on the beach as a result of sewer issues and tides. Also, during
certain times of the year especially in the summer there are a lot of dead creatures
(crabs, birds, sailfin jellie fish, even sea lions) which pose public health issues due
to disease and decay. The other beach access point is at least 1/2 mile from the
parking lot with another steep (albeit shorter) hill to access. This is going to limit
those with any physical issues be it age, cardiac related, musculoskeletal issues etc.
Corr. ID: 984
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191688
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Alternative the DEIS report recommends for
Fort Funston would keep an off leash dog on the sand.
My dog, for physical and health reasons, cannot walk on the sand for long. She has
to be on a paved area. You are effectively excluding my dog, and us, her human
companions, from recreation activity at Fort Funston by keeping us off the Sunset
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

119

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Trail.
The report does not address the needs of citizens with physically disabled dogs who
have a right to off leash recreation.
The contract with the city of San Francisco in 1979 guarantees that recreational use
in this urban park by all its citizens be preserved.
I strongly oppose the harsh restrictions GGNRA recommends in their DEIS report.
Corr. ID: 1173
Organization: The senior exercise club which I just
made up
Comment ID: 193547
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to comment and hopefully get you to
reconsider the plan. I am a 66 year old senior and walk 40 minutes with my dog at
fort funston.
I want you to reconsider the dog area and allow me to walk as I do now...down the
paved path with my dog.
Corr. ID: 1185
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193563
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In reviewing all of your proposed plans for Funston, "C"
seeming to be that plan to which the GGNRA is leaning, there is an accessibility
issue for handicapped individuals and individuals with mobility problems.
Proposed Plan C's off lease area is all sand, which is not compact and is slopped on
the east side making it impossible for access for handicapped individuals and
individuals with mobility problems.
My third point is that making the area at the north water fountain an on leash area
would only encourage dogs to be more aggressive when vying for a spot at the
water dishes. Dogs are known to be much more defensive and aggressive, when on
leash.
Corr. ID: 1205
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194836
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please consider that all but one of your alternate plans for
Fort Funston discriminate against seniors walking the trails.
MAP 16: This proposal is the second most restrictive of those proposed. It is
punitive to seniors in particular, who cannot navigate easily or regularly up and
down the steep cliffs to the designated off-leash area below.
Corr. ID: 1279
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195006
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Alternative described in the DEIS would
exclude me from using Fort Funston in my life-long recreational activity. I believe
under the Americans With Disabilities Act, this is illegal.
The recommended off-leash areas described in the Preferred Alternative in the
DEIS are not accessible to everyone, especially the mobility-impaired. The
document needs to be revised to address and evaluate how the Preferred Alternative
will impact mobility-impaired dog owners.
Corr. ID: 1515
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190670
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the pref alt for Fort Funston I cannot take my on my dog
walk for she has a Back disability and would require paved access for both her and
the dog. She needs the dog to be off leash for her back condition and cannot handle
a dog pulling on the leash. The off leash areas are sand or would require going
down a very steep beach acess trail which would put great stress to her injury. As
120

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

the pref. Alternative would restrict my mom from being able to come to For
Funston on our dog walks, she will be left out of a very important part of her life. I
would like to keep my mom a part of the walk and restricting her I feel is
discriminating.
Corr. ID: 1543
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190726
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Fort Funston
Elderly and disabled people will have great difficulty reaching the beach section to
allow their dogs to run off-leash. The most important area for them is the top
section where the dogs can run around freely.
It is a discrimination against them to force them to walk all the way to the beach
area to go off-leash.
Corr. ID: 1563
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190766
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: have used Fort Funston to walk my dogs for over thirty
years. My wife and I take our dog there twice a day. The area that will be excluded
is paved. There is a dog watering station. 95% of the use I put the facililty to will be
eliminated. I am a local business owner, House to Home Remodeling. I am 58.
Many days my knees will not allow me to walk on loose sand. My doctor says I
should walk 1 mile daily. Many of the older and elderly people who walk their dogs
at Fort Funston require this exercise for their health. HOW DO you intend to
accomodate the disabled, elderly, young parents with strollers, people with canes in
your new plan.
Corr. ID: 1567
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190774
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk my dog 2x a day at Fort Funston because I have
plantar fascitis, which does not allow me to walk on loose sand or unpaved ground.
Funston has a lot of off-leash paved areas currently, where I am able to walk
without pain. Over the years, I have observed many elderly and disabled people
walking their dogs there because they are able to use their canes and walkers on the
paved path, while their dogs can exercise on the sand.
The new restrictions are clearly discriminatory towards disabled people. You
propose to confine us to an area that is mostly loose sand.
Corr. ID: 1752
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191220
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The elderly and mobility impaired "people" want equal
access with -- ROLA -- it is all about "our joy" of watching and being out in nature
w/ your dog and others off leash! Help maintain "less restriction" on the elderly
people's access to ROLA for Crissy Field - EAST Beach + Fort Funston. Thank
you.
I've heard that some seniors are fearful of off leash dogs jumping on them or
knocking them over, that is a small minority. I know a number of senior citizens
that go there specifically to interact with people and their dogs, it is the only joy in
life they have!! Some seniors need this fresh air, peace of mind, 'socialization' so it
is not just dogs that need to keep Fort Funston a ROLA - senior citizens need it
too!!!
Corr. ID: 1832
Organization: Not Specified

121

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Comment ID: 191966
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FORT FUNSTON, SAN FRANCISCO GGNRA
Access to be denied the handicapped and aged
We often walk in the early morning, we are respectful of the environment and of
one another and we appreciate and depend on the social, recreational and health
benefits provided us by the privilege of exercising our dogs and ourselves while
walking the loop of the Sunset Trail, coastal Trail and back to the parking lot.
Many of us cannot possibly walk on the sand and in the sand dunes. We are
puzzled by the severity of the proposals for Ft. Funston. The EIS "Incidents
Involving Dogs in 2007 and 2008" table (pg. 130) clearly demonstrates that Ft.
Funston is NOT a problem area in terms of closed area violations or disturbing
wildlife. Why are we being threatened with punishment (ie; loss of the privilege of
walking with our off-leash, voice controlled animals) when we have done nothing
wrong?
Corr. ID: 1914
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192591
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no place for handicap people to take their dog at
Ft. Fun in preferred alt.
Already fenced off most sensitive habitat at Ft Fun.
Corr. ID: 1926
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192263
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FoFu- As a senior with a young dog, having ROLA beach
access is a safety issue. Make both beach acccess trails open to off-leash. STUDIES
SHOW that the less exercise a dog gets, the fiercer he or she becomes. So let us
exercise our dogs properly!
Corr. ID: 1928
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192266
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Do not diminish the joy we all enjoy watching dogs off
leash & people running free in our recreation areas! East Beach @ Crissy Field is
also much better for the mobility impaired (handicapped) people that want to use
the beach, see dogs running.
Corr. ID: 2099
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193343
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Funston
Sand ladder access, and other access , for disabled people with dogs is not
adequate.
Corr. ID: 2936
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202228
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing as a Disabled Senior Citizen who uses the
public off-leash dog walking areas to exercise my service dog. I am requesting that
you continue the current policies regarding dog use at public parks - policies that
have provided many otherwise unavailable opportunities for seniors and disabled
people to use the beautiful, safe facilities.
Fort Funston provides one of the only opportunity for my service dog to get
unleashed exercise. Also, like many other disabled seniors, I am able to enjoy being
outdoors in our lovely ocean-side parks and to take advantage of the many social
interactions we have while dog walking at Fort Funston. Many of the seniors who,
122

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

like me, use Fort Funston several times a week, have found exercise and
friendships along with a profound enjoyment of the outdoors and scenery opportunities we would not have without the current policies.
The professional dog walkers have provided me with much needed assistance on
many occasions. For example, when I have been unable to exercise my own dog
because I was either hospitalized or unable to leave my own house, the professional
dog walkers took care of my dog. On days when I have gone to walk my dog, but
had difficulty physically navigating the path, the professional dog walkers were
always there to give me a hand. I have observed the professional dog walkers
frequently encouraging seniors and providing a hand to older disabled people when
needed.
There is absolutely no way any disabled senior could manage the steps down to the
beach with a leashed dog. Well, there is no way we could manage the steps without
a dog, as the stairs are inaccessible to any of us who have trouble walking. You can
take a cane, walker, or wheel chair along the path at Fort Funston, as many of us
do, but a walker or wheel chair can not go up and down stairs. I don't know what
the ADA requirements are for a public park, but Funston is currently accessible as
it is now, and will be completely inaccessible if the plans change as proposed.
Corr. ID: 3052
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201230
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to ask you to please not limit the dog-friendly
areas within the GGNRA, especially Fort Funston.Less than 20% of the area is
currently available to those of us with dogs, and only 1% available for dogs under
voice control. ALL the proposed alternatives, based on very a faulty DEIS, propose
limiting them even farther!
I am disabled and therefore unable to exercise my dog on a leash. Fort Funston is
just about the ONLY place on the peninsula where my dog and I can get the
exercise we need. The paved paths at Fort Funston make it possible for someone
like me to walk there.
I can't imagine what it would be like if all those dogs were limited to a much
smaller area as proposed in the new guidelines. I would no longer be able to take
my dog because I cannot get down to the beach area where they would be allowed
and the other area is too small and close to the parking lot.
I do NOT support the draft DEIS for the GGNRA; it doesn't seem to be based on
good science or even on good observation. Besides that, Fort Funston was a FORT;
there is already huge human environmental impact from it being a fort, and I don't
see them talking about removing the concrete bunkers.
Corr. ID: 3088
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201423
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my profound surprise and
disappointment with the proposed changes to the Fort Funston recreational area.
Both of the access trails to the beach require a high level of fitness and mobility.
Because the new plan restricts off leash activities exclusively to the beach, and a
small section on the bluff it essentially takes away the opportunity for the elderly or
disabled to let their dogs run free. I would also like to point out that there are many
times at high tide when there is simply no beach. I also find it curious that part of
the reasoning was concern for safety on the cliff, yet the only trail that would
remain open to unleashed dogs (the sunset trail) is the very trail where accidents are
most likely to occur.
123

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Corr. ID: 4560
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209899
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For example, the Preferred Alternative would allow offleash dogs only on the dunes adjacent the parking lot at FF, and on part of the
beach. Many elderly and/or mobility impaired individuals cannot make it down the
steep access trails to the beach, and thus would be left only with access to that
small dune area, which is difficult to navigate, for off-leash recreation. If a person
wants to stay close to their off- leash dog (eg, in order to clean up after them),
he/she would have to clamber over that difficult-to¬navigate terrain, which will be
far more crowded with people and dogs, thus increasing the likelihood of being
jostled or knocked down.
Corr. ID: 4622
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207078
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Diversity/Discrimination Against Seniors and. DisabledThe DEIS claims under the Environmental Justice section that Hispanic and Asian
users of the GGNRA cited dogs as a problem. There is no data in the DEIS for Fort
Funston. Obviously the writers of the DEIS are not users of Fort Funston as there is
a very diverse population utilizing this property. There are Caucasians, African
Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, etc. all present on a daily basis. In
addition to ethnic diversify, Fort Funston users demonstrate a vast array of sex, age
and economic levels. Many seniors utilize Fort Funston. Many disabled persons
utilize Fort Funston. The "preferred alternative" will be detrimental to seniors and
disabled persons who utilize Fort Funston. Many seniors and physically disabled
persons who utilize Fort Funston do not want to walk through sand. The off leash
areas descried the DEIS require the owner to walk though the sand near the parking
lot in order to monitor/voice control their pet, or climb down to the beach to access
an off leash area. Many senior and disabled persons are unable to make the trek to
and from the beach on the sand ladder. The descent to the beach is both arduous
and dangerous as the steps are large and uneven. It is easy to lose one's balance.
The "preferred alternative" requires that the dog remain leashed while the descent
and ascent is made. This is dangerous for both the owner and the animal as any
misstep by either can result in very serious injury.
Further many senior or disabled persons want dogs under voice control as it allows
them not to have to exert any physical strength with the upper extremities. Many
middle aged women suffer from degenerative rotator cuffs which preclude walking
a dog on leash. Other disabled or seniors have balance issues. Voice control allows
the dog owner to have the availability of both arms to aid in their balance and
protect themselves if an accidental stumble should occur. The "preferred
alternative" would deprive seniors and disabled persons from the ability to avoid
physical injury.
29420
Restricting or limiting the off-leash areas under the Preferred Alternative violates
the original agreement when Fort Funston was given to GGNRA and this area
historically allowed off-leash dog walking, which preserves the urban and
recreational uses of GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 807
Comment ID: 186049
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I oppose strongly the proposed changes to off leash dog
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

124

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

activities at Fort Funston and other areas in San Francisco. Off leash dog access
should be increased, not restricted. Time and again the courts have ruled against the
GGNRA's manipulation of rules requiring off-leash dog activity. Restricting access
for off-leash dogs also violates the original agreement when Fort Funston and other
lands in San Francisco were given to what is now the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 1129
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192440
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What the Draft Dog Management Plan fails to do is
provide CONTEXT for Fort Funston. This is an URBAN recreational area, not
wilderness, and it is surrounded on 3 sides by 2 private golf courses, a gun club and
a city sewage treatment plant.
There is no reason to penalize the many lawful dog owners for the errors of the
very tiny minority which GGNRA rangers should police.
Corr. ID: 2196
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200693
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have reviewed the GGNRA Draft Dog management plan
and I am VERY CONCERNED about much of the plan particularly as it relates to
Fort Funston. This park in particular (over Crissy Field and others) is particularly
suited to off-leash dog walking. When the City of San Francisco turned the
property over to the GGNRA I understand that it was with the plan to maintain it as
a dog friendly park. You know the statistics of dogs per people in San Francisco
and creating such SEVERE limits to the off-leash dog areas at Fort Funston is a
very poor idea which will flood city parks.
Corr. ID: 4621
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207027
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The claim that there are many people who would visit Fort
Funston if dogs were not there is not only unsupported by evidence, it is counterindicated by the other restored dune scrub sites in San Francisco. The Point Lobos
Reserve and Parcel 4 (Balboa and Great Highway) have virtually no visitors. It is a
myth that there are large numbers of potential visitors who want to look at native
plants and dune scrub, but avoid Fort Funston because of the dogs there.
When the ability to take a real walk at Fort Funston with an off leash dog is
replaced with the opportunity to watch that dog play in a ROLA, people lose real
recreation. GGNRA/DEIS does not seem to realize that it is people's recreation that
is at issue. Walking with one's dog is the recreation; watching that dog play in a
ROLA is not the same thing at all. GGNRA/DEIS does not acknowledge or
evaluate the lost recreation. That is arbitrary and capricious.
GGNRA/DEIS weighs the desire of some people not to see dogs (even though they
can continue to hike, picnic, fly kites, ride bikes, watch birds, ride horses, hang
glide, etc.) more heavily than the impact on people who will lose outright their
recreational activity. This is pure prejudice on the part of GGNRA staff that dog
walkers are not legitimate recreational visitors, but all the other visitors are
legitimate. This prejudice is arbitrary and capricious.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29421
Under the Preferred Alternative, Fort Funston would yet again become underused
or unsafe (crime will increase) because the majority of visitors at this site are dog
walkers; Fort Funston is currently safe because of dog presence and dog walkers at

125

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

this site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1004
Comment ID: 191735
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What will happen to Fort Funston if you put these
restrictions in place?even the shared plan? It will be empty and deserted; in short
time it will provide the perfect location for shady deals, drug users and homeless
encampments, and it will not be a safe place nor a clean place to visit. It will no
longer be a place of civic pride. And as for environmental impact, I am sure the
litter, broken glass, beer bottles, syringes etc. that are left behind will have its own
sad environmental impact. Which of these options pays a greater price? Has anyone
considered this? Are you really convinced that lots of people will come to use this
park when you severely restrict off-leash dog use? These are the same people who
currently do not use all the other parks available to them where dogs are not
permitted at all.
Corr. ID: 2946
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203446
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a senior (AARP card carrying), Asian, single female.
I am a native San Franciscan. I do not want you to take away or limit off-leash dog
walking at Fort Funston. I tried walking at Fort Funston in the late 70's early 80's
but stopped due to the type of people I encountered there. (Lewd behavior directed
toward myself a single female just trying to get some outdoor exercise, and groups
of young men drinking/smoking-making it quite uncomfortable). Revisiting the
area in the late 80's to present time I am so happy that there are people there that
proudly use the space. Off-leash dogs have made the area safe for people like me
who just want to walk and not worry about crime. Dog people are friendly,
conscientious and are always willing to help. The place is no longer isolatedmaking it a deterrent to those who would use it for unsavory activities (drugs,
homeless encampments, etc.). The dogs being off-leash keep people from wanting
to sleep in the bushes. The one person who does sleep there leaves before 8am. I
feel SAFE walking at Fort Funston. If you limit off-leash dog walking at Fort
Funston, you will also see a new problem at the Fort. Feral cats. Cats will come,
stay, breed and soon the birds that exist there will be wiped out. Cats hunt and kill
birds. Dogs may chase but I have never seen one catch a bird. I have seen cats kill
birds and there have been numerous studies showing the negative impact on bird
populations by cats.
Finally, crime in the neighboring area will increase. The cars parked around the
Lake will get broken into.
I know most of Marin county's GGNRA do not have off leash dog access and there
is no real problem with the above issues but Marin is isolated compared to Fort
Funston. It is not easily accessible. There is a bus stop across the street from Fort
Funston and it is walking distance from homes, shopping, BART etc.
Take the dogs away and crime will come. Take the dogs away and the cats will
come.
Corr. ID: 3115
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201522
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA's argument about public safety at Fort
Funston specifically, is a poor one. Who else goes there? As a single woman, I do
not feel comfortable hiking there by myself. Would families go there for a picnic?
...No, it is too windy. Fort Funston would become a magnet for partiers and vandals
without all the dogs. The parking is great, it is remote and it bothers no one. If the
argument is trash, there is very little. I think that most of the dog owners, and
walkers, really respect this wonderful place. Sometimes I go twice a day and I have
126

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

never seen a Ranger patrol the area.
Corr. ID: 4036
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207174
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Funston, the area is somewhat dangerous because of the
cliffs; the beach is very hard and steep to get to and virtually deserted. The
parasailers take off in a different area. Literally, everyone on the "dog side" is there
with a dog. We have an entire coastline of beach access that is far easier to use
where "dogless" folks go. The reason people started using Funston with their dogs
is because it was deserted and rather undesirable as beaches go. Ban dogs and you'll
just end up with a deserted beach again!
Corr. ID: 4709
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209765
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe the analysis for indirect impacts to adjacent lands
isn't accurate either- no impacts are anticipated for areas at Fort Funston, but when
Fort Funston's proposed off-leash area becomes so crowded, dog owners may go to
other areas, creating visitor and other resource impacts. In the 1970's and early 80's,
Fort Funston was a cesspool of illegal activity. By walking dogs at Fort Funston,
dog owners have transformed this part of the park into safe community of people
who look out for each other - as well as the environment.
29422
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative at Fort Funston because the proposed
off-leash areas are too small; 2 acres of off-leash areas out of the total 270 acres at
Fort Funston is not acceptable.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1057
Comment ID: 192155
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What I cannot understand is why anyone else would use
Fort Funston unless they just wanted to walk on the beach. Why such severe
restrictions on the ROLA size is what puzzles me. It also seems that having a dog
on the beach is just about eliminated in your preferred plan.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I do like the idea of having commercial dog walkers get permits. I realize this is a
difficult task but the plan is too restrictive for my needs.
Corr. ID: 1810
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191789
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have skimmed through your 1166 page document and
studied your arguments for restricting off leash dog walking in Fort Funston to a
couple of acres out of more than two hundred and seventy, I am more than
appalled, I'm outraged.
I have seldom seen any visitor to Fort Funston without dogs except the hang glider
folks. I have never seen a horse on those nicely marked horse trails and I have
never encountered anyone whose fear of dogs made them feel deprived of the
pleasure of strolling through the area. People without dogs have infinite beaches to
stroll on where dogs are not allowed or under leash control. I have never seen a
Snowy Plover. The Bank Swallows have more problems with the unstable cliffs
than with dogs.
Corr. ID: 1824
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191931
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am strongly against making Fort Funston dog owners
keep their dogs on leashes. It has been an off leash area for decades, and you have
127

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

no rational reason to change it now. I've reviewed your new Dog Management
Plan, and it is an outrage. You intend to restrict off-leash walking to 2 small areas.
Corr. ID: 2286
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201161
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1. Fort Funston. Much too small an off leash area in a park
that has traditionally been off leash for the entire area except for areas that are
under renovation. Fort Funston is a dog park. Keep it that way.
Corr. ID: 2933
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202217
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have 2 dogs which I currently take to Fort Funston once
or twice a week. I love the fact that there is a place to take my dogs to run, offleash, that is so accessible to San Francisco. We all enjoy it.
I, of course, would prefer that all of Fort Funston was available for off-leash dog
walking. I respect the off-limits, native vegetation areas, and keep my dogs from
running through them. I think that most others do as well, but know that it's not 100
percent.
I realize that people have different needs, and we all need to compromise. That
said, we are fortunate in the Bay Area to have many areas where we can go to enjoy
a walk in nature, and only a few where dogs can run off-leash. If the off-leash area
needs to be restricted, then so be it. However, I feel the currently recommended
area is much too small. I'm not sure of the reasoning for such a limited space and
would hope for at least 2 to 3 times the area that is currently proposed.
As I said, Fort Funston is a place that both my dogs and I enjoy. Please don't put
restrictions in place that will keep this San Franciscan from enjoying this unique bit
of the Bay Area.
Corr. ID: 4231
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208570
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston, the GGNRA area that I go to most often with
my dogs, is not a natural habitat; the building of the batteries over 60 years ago
removed the native vegetation and most of the native wildlife. This makes it an
ideal area for dogs to run off-leash. The wildlife and vegetation that now exist are
clearly compatible with such uses or they would not be there. Any effects of dog
recreation on the snowy plover could be taken care of by a low fence that would
keep dogs out of the nesting areas rather than by a ban on off-leash dog use over
most of the park.
The GGNRA should be realistic and notice that the main reason people go to Fort
Funston is to have fun with their dogs running and playing; they do not go for the
area's scenic features. The proposed area near the parking lot where off-leash dogs
would still be allowed under the draft plan is much too small to accommodate the
number of dogs that visit this park. Any dog behaviorist will confirm that dog
"incidents" are much more frequent in crowded areas and between dogs that are on
leashes. With plenty of space, the dogs and people all work it out. There is certainly
no factual record of incidents in the draft plan that would justify the proposed
limitations.
Concern ID:
CONCERN

29423
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative at Fort Funston because the layout of

128

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

the off-leash and on-leash areas do not make sense (does NOT include issues with
access), including but not limited to: on-leash areas and ROLAs have no shade; the
two ROLAs should be connected by an off-leash area; ROLAs are located in the
coldest/windiest locations at Fort Funston.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1548
Comment ID: 200082
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I regularly (at least twice/month) take my dog to Fort
Funston where she is off-leash. I have reviewed the plan for Fort Funston and offer
the following comments:
STATEMENT:

It makes no sense to have an off-leash area at the top, a leashed area, and then an
off-leash area down at the beach. The lack of continuity makes no sense and will
encourage those who are not responsible to leave their dogs off-leash all over.
There should be a way to get down to the beach that does not require a dog to be
on-leash
I understand the need to protect wild flora and fauna. A balance can be achieved. It
is not clear from the DEIS that any effort really was made to find a balance. Please
keep in mind this is a national recreation area. It is not a national park. Dogs, as
well as people, need exercise.
These lands are in the public trust for everyone and all uses. If there are
irresponsible dog owners and dangerous dogs, they should be treated accordingly.
The vast majority of current park users are not.
Corr. ID: 3722
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202323
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've attended 2 NPS meetings as well as the SF Supervisors
meeting to learn about the Draft Proposals for the GGNRA and have been utterly
dismayed at the extreme reductions in on/off-leash recreation outlined for dogs and
their guardians. After studying the Fort Funston ROLA proposals it seems clear
that no dog behaviorists were included as DEIS advisors, because neither the on or
off-leash areas have any shade!!! Also, as a senior, I'd risk injury trying to get
Penny to the beach (which as you know is often unusable because of high tides or
bad weather) on-leash, and because the trails would be crowded Penny would be
anxious, esp. on-leash, and more likely to be aggressive (evincing possible "leash
rage"). The ROLA proposed next to the parking lot is completely inadequate for the
number of dogs using Fort Fun and is an invitation to non-compliance which under
the current proposal would eventually result in dogs being banned entirely.
The DEIS fails to consider that the GGNRA is the front/back yard for a large
metropolitan area. The fundamental purpose of creating the GGNRA was to
provide open space for recreation (including dog walking as a form of recreation)
for residents of the Bay Area. NEPA requires evaluation of impacts on the "human
environment", but the DEIS fails to do so by failing to adequately address how the
proposal affects "recreational" values for these local residents, or to evaluate the
impact on local parks of such a drastic change in existing policies..
Corr. ID: 4592
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209997
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred alternative for Fort Funston is a poorly
chosen site. The preferred alternative for Fort Funston confines off-leash recreation
to the coldest and windiest area. We jokingly referred to this as the "tundra," and
129

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

trudge through it to get to the protected areas, out of the cold near the trees or on
the protected side of the hills. The most protected area, i.e. where it is comfortable
to walk even during rain showers, is the horse trail on the eastern side, where the
preferred alternative would completely ban dogs. The current status of off-leash
should be maintained, since it allows a variety of landscapes and experiences.
The preferred alternative for Fort Funston restricts recreation from the northern end
of the beach. The justification for this is unclear. Yes there are shorebirds there, but
shorebirds and dogs have co-existed there for decades. Yes there are bank swallows
there, but again, there is no evidence that dogs have harmed the bank swallows or
the nesting sites (which are on sheer cliffs).
29424
The Preferred Alternative is opposed because off-leash dogs are allowed at Fort
Funston; Alternative D should be selected or dogs should be prohibited or restricted
to on-leash use at Fort Funston.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2882
Comment ID: 202913
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs at Fort Funston should either be prohibited or
restricted to on-leash use. This is a wonderful spot for hikes and picnics, but it has
become a de facto dog run, overrun with off-leash dogs that tear up the area and
leave their droppings everywhere, and they fight and scare older folks and children.
Corr. ID: 4315
Organization: State of California Department of Fish
and Game
Comment ID: 209393
Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Fort Funston
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) differs from the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative in the designation of a ROLA on the beach south of the
Beach Access Trail and designation of a ROLA between the parking lot and Sunset
Trail. Under Alternative D, dogs would be required to be leashed on the beach,
dogs would be excluded off-trail between the parking lot and Sunset Trail, and a
ROLA would be established at a site adjacent to the Habitat Protection Area. As
stated in the draft EIS, the adoption of Alternative C at this site is likely to result in
minor adverse impacts to coastal dune vegetation, long-term major adverse impacts
on wildlife, and long-term minor-to-moderate adverse impacts to San Francisco
lessignia. DFG recommends that Alternative D be selected as the adopted
alternative, as it would, by requiring dogs to be leashed on the beach and excluding
dogs off trail between the parking lot and Sunset Trail, avoid impacts to coastal
dune vegetation and San Francisco lessingia which may result from trampling,
digging, and dog waste; impacts to birds which may result from repeated flushing;
and impacts to marine mammals which may result from biting, barking, or physical
contact.

FF1300 - Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative
29425
Commenters support Alternative A because there is no problem with the current
conditions; dogs are not damaging the environment and/or affecting wildlife or are
not causing issues at Fort Funston.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1583
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

130

FF1200 – Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Comment ID: 190806
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support Alternative A (no change) for Fort Funston. Fort
Funston is a very important park for me, my family and our dog. We enjoy walking
on the paths and the beach. This is not a pristine park - it is an urban oasis. For
Funston will never be Yosemite or Yellowstone. Walking at Fort Funston you can
not forget you are in an urban area = you hear the traffic, the Pacific Gun Club and
scores of folks waalking together. Perhaps fencing the trail areas to keep dogs from
the sensitive areas (suggestion).
Corr. ID: 3758
Organization: SFDOG
Comment ID: 204623
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The changes the GGNRA is proposing are very harsh and
limiting. Over the years I have watched Ft Funston change but that was due to the
weather no the dogs or even the people.
Please leave Ft Funston off leash. Do not limit the areas of access or make it off
lease
29426
Commenters support Alternative A because it allows the most off-leash dog
walking of all the alternatives for dogs to exercise and/or it preserves the
recreational uses at Fort Funston.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 328
Comment ID: 181091
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have reviewed all the options for Fort Funston and Ocean
Beach, the two areas where I regularly walk my two dogs. I vehemently support
Option A, which allows me to keep my pets under voice control, and strongly
protest all other options.
Corr. ID: 1721
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191172
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have owned and walked dogs in both places. Specifically,
I enjoy Crissy Field, Ft. Funston, and the Linda Mar/Sharp Park beaches with my
dog and child.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I feel very strongly about maintaining off-leash areas in these locations. Open lands
and our natural resources belong to all of us, and as a law-abiding tax-payer, I wish
to protest further restrictions in our beautiful wild places.
Corr. ID: 3620
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204082
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been walking my dog at Fort Funston for the last 15
years and am very familiar both with the terrain and with Fort Funston's history
with regard to off-leash dog-walking over that period of time. Although I regret
GGNRA's proposed dog-walking restrictions in many of the areas covered by the
Management Plan, I am limiting my comments to the restrictions proposed for Fort
Funston because I believe that they cannot be justified by GGNRA's own research
or objectives and will result in significant hardship for San Francisco's dog-owners.
Of the available alternatives, I believe that the NPS should adopt Alternative A (no
action) with regard to Fort Funston because it does the most to preserve off-leash
areas for dogs. In my opinion, Alternative E is misleadingly titled as providing
"Most Dog-Walking Access" because in fact the areas open to dog-walking would
be less than those under Alternative A. I urge the NPS to clarify this point to the
131

FF1300 – Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative

public and to take the possibility of confusion into consideration when reviewing
public support for Alternative E.
Principal Reasons for Favoring Alternative A
1. Importance of preserving Off-Leash Areas for Dogs. Other than the horse, it is
difficult to imagine another species that has had as lasting and beneficial a
relationship with humans than the dog. It's important that the NPS balance many
factors when considering the appropriate use of lands under its purview. However,
just as the NPS takes into consideration threats to endangered species, it is entirely
appropriate that the NPS also consider our species' obligation to provide adequate
exercise for a species whose ongoing contributions to humankind cannot be overstated.
The fact is that requiring dogs to get virtually all of their exercise at the end of a 6'
long leash is simply cruel. Dogs cannot get their natural exercise needs fulfilled
walking at the pace of a human.
The opportunities for off-leash exercise for dogs are already extremely limited in
San Francisco and elsewhere and will become more so if the NPS management
plan is enacted. Fort Funston has long been one of the few areas in San Francisco
where dogs can enjoy off-leash exercise with relatively few negative impacts to the
environment and disruption to other users. It should be managed in a way that will
allow it to continue to fulfill this important purpose. Indeed, this is a cultural
resource in its own right and deserves protection.
Corr. ID: 4540
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209780
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The allowable off-leash area currently available at Fort
Funston perfectly meets the recreational and social needs of people and dogs alike.
I feel that the "preferred alternative" choice that I learned of failed, seriously, to
accurately analyze the need for residents of this urban area.
I trust that the GGNRA, in developing a general management plan, will take into
consideration and respect the specific character and situation of the Fort Funston
Area. I fully support Alternative A, the No Action alternative of the DEIS, as it
relates to Fort Funston.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29427
There is support for Alternative A because there are few or no other comparable
places to Fort Funston for owners to take their dogs off-leash in the Bay Area.
Corr. ID: 175
Organization: P.O.O.C.H.
Comment ID: 182287
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are precious few places where dogs can be safely
and legally walked off-leash. Please don't take one of the last, and nicest, Fort
Funston, away from us.
Corr. ID: 493
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181849
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is important to me that Fort Funston remains as it is.
There is no other place where we can take our dog for a walk off leash. There are
many other beautiful places in the Bay area for people to take walks and enjoy
nature without dogs, but Fort Funston is one of the few places were we and bring
our dogs and let them run free.
Corr. ID: 535
Organization: Not Specified

132

FF1300 – Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative

Comment ID: 181945
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a dog owner in the Bay Area we love Fort Funston and
drive the 45 + min drive there to enjoy time with our furry family member.
Sometimes we don't always go down to the beach so it's nice to have the trails on
the bluff as off leash so our Stella can roam and enjoy time off leash as well. There
are so few areas in the Bay Area that dogs can enjoy off leash with their owners.
All the times we have been there we've never seen anyone with out of control dogs.
You see lots of families and everyone seems to pick up after their furry family
member. It would truly be a shame for you to change anything about the park at
this point.
Corr. ID: 1810
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191790
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The beachfront your proposal allows is nice, thank you.
However it is the only legal beach in the Bay area. California State Parks do not
allow dogs at all and most municipal jurisdictions do not permit off leash activity.
Since GGNRA now possesses so much of the San Francisco bay/ocean front lands,
I mean all; my appeal to you is to continue the current off leash dog policy for the
Fort Funston area forever.
Corr. ID: 3484
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203332
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep Fort Funston an off-leash play area for dogs.
People who take their dogs there are super respectful of the habitat areas, always
pick up dog waste, and only take dogs off leash that are social, friendly and under
good voice control. It is one of the few areas in the Bay Area where dogs can really
run, people can enjoy a scenic vista, and dogs can swim and play with lots of other
friendly dogs. It would really be a shame to take one of the only outdoor places that
is possible away from the dogs of the Bay Area and the people that love them.
29428
Commenters support Alternative A because there are access and/or leash issues for
visitors, including the mobility-impaired, with the other alternatives proposed at
Fort Funston.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1205
Comment ID: 194839
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Of your plans, if changed must be made, Map 16A is a
compromise alternative that is viable and fair to all. It is also the only plan that will
work well for seniors.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Please take seriously the detrimental effects the more severe restrictions will have
on the health and welfare of seniors who have so long diligently and reverentially
cared for Fort Funston.
Corr. ID: 1516
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190673
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog walker who frequents Fort Funston. I pick up
twice as much poop as dogs I walk almost every time I am there as well as plastic
bags & other trash from people.
Dogs are my life & I do not want them to loose the freedom of being off leash at
the beach. However, as a 54 year old woman I can not physically handle taking 6
dogs down to the beach via on leash walking. They are anxious to run & I tho very
healthy I can't handle their pulling & excitedness. I do have them trained to come
133

FF1300 – Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative

via voice control & this should be sufficient for them & me. Well behaved dogs &
responsible owners/dog walkers will be punished by these plans. I think the best
alternative is to NOT change the usage areas, rather to enforce the rules regarding
picking up poop & managing dog behavior.
Corr. ID: 1579
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190801
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The only way for my two dogs and I to get any exercise is
an off leash jog. I can't run with two leashes with the possibility of tripping. Many
who have their dogs off leash is the only way to truly let their dogs free to explore.
They are couped up in the house and it is only when they are at these off leash
parks do they really feel free.
I pay my good tax dollars to enjoy they parks. Why would I have my tax dollars
enforcing these ROLA areas that I did not want in the first place.
Corr. ID: 1704
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191125
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The everyday users of Fort Funston would like to see it
remain as is. It is a safe place for both people and dogs and receives maximum
usage. The parking area is full on the weekends, 75 percent full or more on the
weekdays. Changing the policy will not increase the amount of use. Educating the
users of the park in ways to preserve both the current use and the natural surrounds
would be great. For many elderly people Fort Funston is great because they can
walk themselves and their dogs. Many elderly have a difficult time leash-walking. I
think more of the regular Fort Funstoners would be willing to stay out of a few
sensitive aras as long as the majority of the park remains off-leash. Pacifica will be
impacted negatively by any change to Fort Funston.
Corr. ID: 1716
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191161
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: IIII) Because of physical limitations, I (+ many others) can
not go down the cliff in Fort Funston. I want to continue to walk my well behaved
dogs along the cliff.
Corr. ID: 2100
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193345
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no way to get down to the beach @ Fort Funston
unless a person can handl their anxious dog(s) (heading to the beach!) on leash
down hill in sand or stairs - NOT ALL PEOPLE CAN DO THIS - old folks,
disabled, etc.
Corr. ID: 2103
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193354
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Fun - if the proposed off-leash area is limited to the
sand dunes I am denied access to walking with my dog (I walk, haltingly, with a
cane + I do not have good footing).
Corr. ID: 4039
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207222
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A primary issue for our family's dog care is my physical
mobility. With the GGNRA's current dog policy, paved trails at both Fort Funston
and Crissy Field enable me to participate actively in exercising our dogs.
According to the Executive Summary, Alternatives B & D would completely bar
me from being able to exercise my dogs at Crissy Field and Alternatives C & D
would allow some, though very restricted (and likely very crowded) off-leash beach
access. At Fort Funston, all options other than Alternative A would restrict off134

FF1300 – Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative

leash dog activity from all wheelchair accessible trails. This, in effect, makes the
area closed to wheelchair users who need to provide off-leash exercise for their
dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29429
Commenters support Alternative E because it allows for a balance of off-leash, onleash, and no-dog areas and/or still allows for protection of the environment.
Corr. ID: 45
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181775
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: PLAN E FOR FORT FUNSTON IS BY FAR THE BEST
ALTERNATIVE, IN MY OPINION. IT GIVES ALL PET OWNERS THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF OFF-LEASH SPACE WHILE STILL PRESERVING
AREAS FOR OTHER HABITATS.
Corr. ID: 1213
Organization: Tinkering School
Comment ID: 194861
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a user of Fort Funston, Mori Point, and Rancho
Corral de Tierra (the area just north of Montara) and am requesting that you choose
Alternative E.
Corr. ID: 1703
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191123
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There needs to be more ROLA areas accessable @ Mori
Point + Crissy field for Elderly & Handicapped people. Fort Funston (16E) is the
better choice for the off leash area/or not just along the ocean Corr. ID: 1706
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191133
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston: Map 16-E would provide enough off-leash
access and preserve natural settings too in my opinion.
Corr. ID: 1744
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191212
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Fuston
Plan 16E is the best of the group. I suggest making the wasteland between the
parking lt and the waterfountain also off leash. Most of the time it is so blustery
you need to cover your face to avoid getting sand in your face. That would be hard
to do holding leashes.
The dogs often find this section the best areas for elimination and it is easiest to
find and clean up )Mine like their privacy so they would't do their business if they
were on leash).
I also think the park should continue to be posted as a high dog use area so people
can choose to hike elsewhere if they wish to avoid dogs. The trails don't need them
to be on leash only.
Corr. ID: 3145
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202687
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am against the proposed on-leash areas for Fort Funston.
This area is and has been a wonderful resource for walkers, dogs and their owners.
I would support the alternative given on Map 16E. It's expansive land area for offleash dogs could accommodate walkers and dogs of various abilities.

135

FF1300 – Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative

29430
There is support for Alternative D because it allows the least amount of off-leash
and on-leash areas for dog walking at Fort Funston, and will generally protect the
natural resources at the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1544
Comment ID: 190729
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Funston
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

No VC anywhere + esp. on trails - everyone (dogs, people, horses) controlled on
trails. If what dog owners want is beach access, fine - but confined to smallest area
possible.
Prefer 16D, Can live w/ only beach area on 16C
Corr. ID: 4354
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209528
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FORT FUNSTON
The fort has a large number of people who have used it for dog walking and
sociability for many years. It is severely eroded in large places. Watching dogs run
and chase balls and sticks I see them move from denuded areas into areas which
have been or could be rehabilitated for habitat, rather than given over to sand and
ice-plant. Post and rail (coated wire) fencing such as is used on Milagra Ridge and
Crissy Field is needed here, both to keep dogs out of vegetated or re-vegetating
habitat and to give people and dogs a definite place to be or a clear path along
which to move. Such fencing does not have to dominate the landscape.
I favor Alternative D which provides an upland area for the dogs and also a part of
the beach as shown on the maps. There should be a connecting ROLA path
between the upland and the beach, fenced as necessary to keep animals and people
out of habitat.
29432
Concern ID:
Commenters support Alternative B.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4683
Comment ID: 210182
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FORT FUNSTON
Alternatives A, C and E are all unacceptable for reasons mentioned above.
Alternative C, the preferred alternative, is much too permissive and will only
perpetuate the culture of destroying the resource. Remember this is a dune-based
natural resource, so even seemingly benign uses such as the ROLA between the
Chip Trial, Sunset Trail and the parking lot will continue to wear away the under')
Ing compressed dunes and will continue the destruction of this unique place.
Alternatives B and D do nothing to really repair the damage to the Fort Funston
resource.
Alternatives B and D offer some level of protection. We much prefer Alternative B.

FF1400 - Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID:

29433

136

FF1300 – Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative

Fees - Commenters suggest commercial dog walkers should also be charged a
registration fee. Money generated from the fees can be used to fund maintenance
and restoration projects in the area.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 598
Comment ID: 222177
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - 3. Make and enforce guidelines for the
number of dogs allowed per walker. It is reasonable that "professional" dog
walkers, who are, after all, making commercial use of the parks for their own profit,
should be held to a strict standard, perhaps including some kind of
registration/licensing requirement, with the provision that violations could result in
losing their license.
Corr. ID: 1137
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192473
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In San Francisco, the cumulative effect of the current
preferred alternatives would bring a drastic reduction in the percentage of overall
off leash areas leading to over-crowding of remaining off leash areas and an
increase in the risk of dog related issues and injuries. Please reconsider, especially
at Baker Beach and Fort Funston.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Below are some other ideas for help with land preservation without the complete
shut-down of areas:
1.) License or use fees for dog walkers/more than 3 dogs contributing funds for
maintenance/preservation
2.) Use fee per dog for certain areas contributing funds for
maintenance/preservation
Corr. ID: 3747
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222074
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - We suggested the following programs to be
explored since we are advocates of Alternative A:
1. Have dog walkers register with the GGNRA to establish proper channels of
communication and documented compliance.
29434
No Dogs - Commenters suggested that areas within Fort Funston should not have
dog walking so all visitors can enjoy the area and for protection of natural
resources. Suggestions for no dog areas included the following: areas north of the
intersection of the Coastal Trail, Beach Access, and Sunset Trail; areas south of the
parking lot; all beach areas; and hang gliding area.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1185
Comment ID: 222076
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: After reviewing all of your proposed plans for Fort
Funston, enforceability is a major issue. Having said that, I would suggest an easier
plan to enforce - use the parking lot as a dividing line. Limit, not only off leash
walking, but dogs altogether in all areas south of the parking lot, leaving all areas
north of the parking lot to off leash dog walking. Families who wish to picnic and
enjoy the beach could do so without dogs. It is much easier to access the beach
down the stairs then to access the beach through the paths at the north end of
Funston. Remember, you have no restrooms other than those in the parking
lot.Families walking their children down to the beach via the north end of Funston
discover no restrooms. We all know what happens then.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

137

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Corr. ID: 1522
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190686
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) Fort Funston beach should be no dogs. The shore birds
have a difficult enough time and even dogs on-leash disturb them by barking and
lunging at them.
Corr. ID: 1894
Organization: Hang Gliding Assoc. of Canada
Comment ID: 200310
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Pleas keep Fort Funston an off leash dog park. I would like
to see the hang gliding area and the fields behind the hang gliding area closed to
dogs but please keep the rest of the park open to off leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 1913
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222159
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FoFu- Have hang-glider area be in the no dog zone for
safety of dogs & people.
Corr. ID: 2073
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193335
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston is a prime gem of a location in SF that should
be able to be enjoyed by people who don't like/are afraid of dogs. The current plan
has the prime beach front as off leash - reduce or move the off leash to different
location.
Corr. ID: 3860
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205550
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is time to restrict dogs in the national park lands - on and
off leash. People should be able to enjoy most, if not all, of the waterfront beaches
of San Francisco and in the Bay Area park lands without dogs.
Fort Funston should have very restricted dog use - most of the land at Fort Funston
should be dog free for everyone to enjoy - how did it ever become a dog park?
Corr. ID: 4016
Organization: San Francisco resident
Comment ID: 206842
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to recommend Fort Funston ALTERNATE B
with the following modifications:
-At the intersection of the (Coast Trail, Beach Access and Sunset Trail), and
heading north, limit this area to non-dog-walking activities for the protection of the
Bank Swallow and for users that are not comfortable with dogs.
Corr. ID: 4215
Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208901
Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - We appreciate that this is a challenging unit
for the GGNRA, and find most of the Preferred Alternative acceptable, and a big
improvement over the status quo. However, as in other units we have named, this
again is a place that will not allow an experience free of unwelcome interactions
with dogs. We would propose that the Coastal Trail north of the beach access, or
even north of the drinking fountain, be no-dog. We also propose that the seasonal
beach closure be year-round. Both of these actions still allow two large ROLAs and
ample access to both, but would also greatly increase the ability of bird watchers
and other visitors to enjoy the wonderful natural resources of this important park
unit without the interruption caused by the presence of dogs.

138

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29435
ROLA Rotation - Commenters suggest closing certain sections of the park in shifts
(rotate ROLAs) as necessary to aid in natural resource preservation.
Corr. ID: 1137
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222080
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston 3.) Temporarily closing sections for maintenance, re-growth, etc.; Shifting land use
to help preservation
Corr. ID: 1466
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222085
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - I am also in support of ROLAs being
rotated so the land is not overused and if conflicts arise, an on-leash policy being
implemented. That is safer for everyone. I am also in favor of fenced in dog run
areas as an alternative but I feel that Alternate C is a much better direction to take.

29436
Fencing - Commenters suggest using fences/barriers and possibly entrance gates to
keep off-leash dogs in certain areas at Fort Funston. Fences should be used to easily
distinguish areas where dog walking is or is not allowed. Suggested areas for
fencing or natural barriers include the following: areas along the bluffs; damaged
area near the main parking lot (fenced ROLA); and along trails.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 279
Comment ID: 222166
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - 3. Improved demarcation and maintenance
of trails to keep dogs off the vegetation.
Corr. ID: 1740
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191199
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please consider putting up better barriers & fences to
protect the land and plants that you (GGNRA) do not want harmed. A lot, if not all,
barriers at Funston are insufficient & ineffective. Most are posts (low posts) with
wires. When it's windy, a lot of these barriers are covered completely. Dogs AND
people can easily cross these barriers. Its not only dogs that cross these barriers into
plants. Many times at Funston, there are people who walk onto the protected plants
& they're not even with a dog.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

If you want to preserve plants please consider more effective barriers that will
prevent dogs & humans from crossing. Humans are at fault too. Not just dogs.
Also, please replace the fence on the west end of the park. This fence has been
down for about 1-2 years now & is a real safety hazard to all dogs AND people.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222067
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston Comment: The DEIS should be changed to:
- provide more fenced in area for wildlife habitat, for equestrian trails and for
protection of dogs at edge of bluffs, while continuing to provide additional off leash
play areas. The DEIS fails to support claim that fencing will impede wildlife and
will affect view.
Corr. ID: 2905
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202643
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
139

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Representative Quote: Ft. Funston - I support the Preferred Alternative for Ft.
Funston. To improve upon the Preferred Alternative, I suggest installing a fence,
with access gates and adequate signage, along the border of the ROLA north of the
main lot. A borderline fence will clearly delineate the boundary of the ROLA and
will minimize compliance problems and visitor conflict.
Corr. ID: 3148
Organization: Habitat Restoration Team
Comment ID: 202777
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The area near the main parking lot at Fort Funston has
been completely destroyed by dogs. No plants grow. It is nothing but bare earth. It
is very ugly, but, having destroyed an area where Chorizanthe cuspudata var.
cuspudata (a rare plant) was found when I censused the area in the 1990s, it should
be fenced and dogs allowed to roam the enclosure without restraints.
Corr. ID: 3608
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 203973
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Funston - I support the Preferred Alternative C for Ft.
Funston. To improve upon the Preferred Alternative, I suggest installing a fence,
with access gates and adequate signage, along the border of the ROLA north of the
main lot. A borderline fence will clearly delineate the boundary of the ROLA and
will minimize compliance problems and visitor and wildlife conflicts. Signs should
be posted clearly identifying the area as an off-leash dog play area and stating the
regulations. The Bank Swallow nesting area should be protected by signage and
enforcement.
Last, I strongly recommend restoring the coastal scrub habitat at Ft. Funston. I used
to visit Fort Funston to see the birds and marine mammals from the bluffs and
beach. Now I do not visit Fort Funston nor do I take friends or visitors to this
location as it is a "dogs in control" area. Plant and animal species, as well as park
visitors, have been displaced from Ft. Funston over time as off leash dog activities
have increased. Dogs and dog owners have caused erosion damage to the Bank
Swallow nesting site by scaling the bluff. Shorebirds that have migrated great
distances are flushed by off leash dogs. A proactive effort must be made to bring
back the visitors who are interested in proper stewardship of this area of the park.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Dog Management Plan. I
encourage you to adopt the best measures to protect the National Park's valuable
resources for future generations and for wildlife.
Corr. ID: 3812
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208448
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. I believe that the proposed alternative at Fort Funston
will not work unless the park fences the trails to keep visitors and dogs on trail. My
experience working at Fort Funston has shown that unless fences are present, dogs
will roam whereever their owners allow. That said, I suggest making the trails very
wide, say 15 or 20 feet, to allow plenty of room for visitors with and without dogs
to enjoy the trails. This will prevent a "fenced in" feeling, while allowing the park
to restore the dune habitat that used to dominate Fort Funston. I don't believe the
park can enforce leash laws or area restrictions without fences, and believe that
fencing has worked in the northern portion of the site, allowing habitat restoration
while also allowing dog owners and non-dog owners to enjoy the site.
Corr. ID: 4358
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209506
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We are also concerned about the preservation of the parks'

140

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

natural resources, but more balanced and reasonable options exist besides
restricting dog-walking access. It is not even clear at Ft. Funston where dogs are not
allowed. Better signage and the creation of environmental barriers would be a
solution that could protect wildlife and vegetation, yet allow dogs off leash and
their guardians to use the park.
29437
ROLA - Commenters suggested changes to the location and size of the ROLAs at
Fort Funston. An off-leash dog walking loop including the parking lot, staircase,
beach trail, and beach should be allowed because on-leash dog walking along the
steep, sandy beach trail would be unsafe for elderly and handicapped visitors. The
area to the right of the parking lot should include a ROLA because during high tide
the existing ROLA would not be accessible. Other suggestions included increasing
the site of the existing ROLA by extending it north, moving the ROLA away from
the cliffs due to safety reasons, and a loop trail including the Sunset Trail through
Battery Davis then south to the ROLA near the parking lot.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 54
Comment ID: 181787
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This study also doesn't take into account the high-tide at
Fort Funston. There are times when the entire beach is underwater. The preferred
alternative would not allow anywhere for dogs to run at these times and we
conscientious dog owners are there all year-round.
Corr. ID: 235
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222158
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - The beach from the pipe to the sand ladder
trail could ROLA. This would provide a landmark (the pipe) to define the two
areas. It would also allow dogs to access the "voice control" area from the North or
South.
Corr. ID: 1319
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222069
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - Another problem is that there are many
times the tide is too high to be on the beach in the zone proposed for the off lease
zone and therefore is not usable. Keep the areas right of the parking lot and parking
lot off leash.
Corr. ID: 1563
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222077
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - The notion that you would restrict the area
of the park that has been altered the most from its native state lacks even the most
basic logic. The area you intend to restrict dogs to being on leash (north from the
parking lot to the beach access) is the area that would make the most sense to have
the dogs off leash.
Corr. ID: 1717
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222073
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - If they must increase restrictions than they
should at least create an area where people can get a good walk and the dog can get
exercise. At the very least make the off leash are from the parking lot all the way to
the beach access trail and also from the staircase to the bottom of the beach trail.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Anything less than this is destroying what is wonderful about Fort Funston.
Leave the following area off leash:
141

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Entrie loop from stairs to beach access trail, in loop including beach. Then enforce
the rule!
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222068
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston
- Take into account that many cannot make difficult walk up and down steep, sandy
trail to access beach. These folks are forced to rely on small off leash play area near
parking lot.
Corr. ID: 1913
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192588
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FoFu- Preferred alternative needs more ROLA area and
clear division between ROLA and leashed or no dogs to provide more equitable
division.
Corr. ID: 1916
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192596
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FoFu- Please include a ROLA path to the beach in the
preferred alternative.
FoFu - Extend the Alt. E ROLA to the north, and include it in the Preferred
Alternative. There is no reason why you can't just fence off an area for the snowy
plovers while they are laying.
Corr. ID: 1928
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222078
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Off leash needs to be more in the mix - not whittled down
to nothing in the ares of Fort Funston & Crissy Field! Compromise means to allow
the elderly ROLA access too!
Corr. ID: 3745
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204606
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred alternative cannot be allowed to go forward.
It is more than too restrictive, Parts of it are downright dangerous. Having the offleash area at Funston be an area that borders the cliffs and the parking lot, given
that the density in that area will be greatly increased shows a complete disregard for
the safety of the pets that will be using that area. Leashing packs of dogs while
descending to the beach is also a recipe for disaster.
Corr. ID: 4690
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210080
Organization Type: Federal Government
Representative Quote: Lastly, many of my constituents regularly visit the Fort
Funston beach area with their dogs and are concerned with the preferred alternative
restrictions. While I join them in commending the fact that the proposal would
maintain the beach area as off leash, I ask that you reexamine the plateau area
restrictions. Specifically, commercial dog walkers and non-commercial dog walkers
alike have shared with me that they would like the open field area just north of the
drinking fountains to remain off leash, rather than prohibited to dogs altogether, as
the plan proposes. As you know, dogs would benefit most from the span if they are
able to run around off leash and this space has been historically used for that
purpose.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29438
Time Restrictions - Commenters have suggested time constraints (week vs.
weekday, seasonal, hours of day) for off-leash dogs at ROLAs (including seasonal
142

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

restrictions for bank swallows; moveable keep out signs for hang gliding areas) or
at the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 279
Comment ID: 180932
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A better alternative for Fort Funston would be: 1. ROLA
on the beach, switching to on-leash during vulnerable periods for Bank Swallows.
Corr. ID: 598
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182156
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My dog and I are frequent users of Crissy Field and Fort
Funston. Although I am aware of some of the problems that have arisen due to offleash dogs in these areas, I have personally never experienced them. The main
reason, I believe, is that I go to these sites around sunrise, long before they are
crowded and before professional dogwalkers arrive. My experience is that each
place has a very regular and dedicated group of early arriverers. Because of the
early hour and the low density of users, problems are extremely rare.
I urge those making this decision to consider the following:
2. The patterns of use at these parks vary during the day. Please allow continued use
of existing off-leash areas at these parks during low use hours, e.g. from opening
until 8:30 am and for an hour or two before closing time. The more stringent
regulations should apply during higher-intensity use since there is much higher
potential for conflict.
Corr. ID: 1319
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222072
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - The other option is to make no changes to
off leash rules, but put a time limit on it. For example, only off leash from 6am1pm.
Corr. ID: 1770
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191536
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If dog owners have adequate areas for off-leash activities
at Fort. Funston, they will be more respectful of the restricted areas. They will even
self-police uninformed dog walkers who enter restricted areas, with the
understanding that we can all lose our privileges if a few dogs are allowed in the
habitat areas. In regard to hang-gliders, they are at the Fort only on certain days and
times when the conditions are right. Moveable "Keep Out signs can restrict that
area from dogs only when the hang-gliders are present.
Corr. ID: 4243
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209219
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lets take the Ft. Funston area in San Francisco as an
example. As a dog owner even I will admit that that area IS NOT an area for any
people with an aversion to dogs. So if I wanted to enjoy a picnic, walk, bicycle ride,
horseback ride (?) etc., without canine interference, that could very well be an
impossible undertaking there. A REASONABLE COMPROMISE might be to have
alternating days/weeks/months (?) for dog owners/walkers and those who would
enjoy the same area(s) dog free. For example, if I wanted to walk my dog leash free
there tomorrow on the 18th, and I know that the day or week was off limits for dog
owners/walkers, I would have to make other arrangements. I do not recommend
month long hiatuses, one week intervals would probably be more compassionate
toward dog owners/walkers (Another thing to keep in mind: professional dog
143

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

walkers use such areas as a source of income; to close such areas would force such
people to lose income or perhaps livelihoods.) The alternating time frame idea, I
believe, could work for ALL AREAS in question/dispute.
29439
Signs - Clear signage stating the dog walking regulations and areas for ROLAs, onleash dog walking, and no dog areas need to be available for visitors. Current signs
stating wildlife areas need to be replaced or repaired. The use of appropriate
signage will allow for better compliance.
Organization: Tax Payer
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 457
Comment ID: 181728
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe there is a simple alternative to these expensive
proposals. Keep things as is but add large signs warning that Ft. Funston is an offleash dog haven and fence off any sensitive areas.
Corr. ID: 598
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222168
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1. Clearly posted guidelines help park users and
enforcement personnel. When I first got a dog and began going to these parks, I
found it very confusing that there were no posted guidelines for dogs and owners.
Corr. ID: 1466
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199819
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With that in mind, my biggest concern is a lack of signage
that alerts people to the park's boundaries and the laws we all should follow. And
what about charging people to park their cars at Fort Funston, a means to collect
funds to help pay for signage and habitat restoration?
Corr. ID: 2326
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 223768
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Fort Funston there is a small amount of visible signage
to explain the wildlife situation. There are a few old, broken, and sand covered
fences to delineate protected wildlife boundaries. The lack of clarity has led to a
disregard. However, I have seen this disregard extend to all people not just people
with dogs. I don't think dogs are really the problem - it is people. I am convinced
that most people don't intend to be malicious or malfeasant they just don't
understand how their behaviors effect the big picture. They see acres of sandy open
space with military remains and can't understand how someone thinks they are
doing damage. So what if my dog and my kid dig in the sand?
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Increase Signage and boundary delineations for protected areas
1. Explain what nature is vulnerable and needs our protection - help us be even
prouder of our coast than we already are!
2. Expect - People behaviors and actions- specific guidelines ie: pack it in pack it
out, keep out of certain areas
3. Expect - Canine behaviors and actions- specifics ie: pack it out - the poop, keep
out of certain areas, no digging in certain spots
4. Expect - Other park users behaviors and actions with specific guidelines bicycle, horse, hang gliding, picnickers, dune surfers, fisherman, joggers, remote
flyers, etc
5. Community Service Projects so the youth can have education credits for helping
snowy plover, native plant restoration or other wildlife.
6. Self Monitoring - each one teach one - self policing of expectations
144

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Keep non critical areas open to off leash, then use boundaries, education and
community to protect the rest.
Corr. ID: 2905
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222179
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Signs should be posted clearly identifying the area as an
off-leash dog play area and stating the voice and sight control rules.
Additionally, I suggest aggressively restoring the coastal scrub habitat throughout
Ft. Funston. Plant and animal species, as well as park visitors, have been displaced
from Ft. Funston over time as dog play activities have increased. A proactive effort
must be made to bring back the visitors who are interested in proper stewardship of
this area of the park
Corr. ID: 4016
Organization: San Francisco resident
Comment ID: 222079
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - North of that intersection (Coast Trail,
Beach Access and Sunset Trail) provide a second smaller parking area and
accessible trail with signage noting dog walking is permitted at the southern parking
area.
-Provide clear signage in both areas of expectations and reasons for the rules. In the
8 years I have been using Fort Funston there have been no rules posted at the
parking area of Fort Funston.
29440
Education - Commenters suggested implementing more programs to educate
visitors about important natural resources at the park in order to reduce dog walking
in sensitive areas. Visitors should also be educated on dog walking regulations.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1913
Comment ID: 192589
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Educate stable owners of risk when it comes to riders in
the areas where people walk their dogs @ ff - the less conflict between hang
gliders, horseback riders, and dog walkers the better - more monitoring by park
rangers.
Corr. ID: 2326
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201646
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston Specifically
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Families + dogs + kids + education (and clear instructions on how to take care of
nature) = the next generation of caretakers of GGNRA.
Use the existing community to help implement your goals of caretaking
By spending the budget on clear boundaries and education in the long run you will
reach your goal of land and wildlife protection now and for generations to come at
minimal expense. Use the existing community to implement these goals.
There are very few programs for adults, families and children to educate them
regarding protecting the native flora and fauna, - so tell them.
Corr. ID: 3582
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203652
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
145

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Representative Quote: I go to Fort Funston almost every day, with multiple dogs.
My dogs (and myself) are very well trained. I pick up litter that often washes up on
the beach. I also clean up after my dogs and other people's. I am confident in stating
that I leave the park cleaner than I find it, each time I go. I am not the only one.
Many San Franciscans who enjoy this area are also responsible environmentalists
and nature-lovers. I propose fining or assigning community service/park clean up to
people (dog-owners/walkers or otherwise) who act irresponsibly, rather than
punishing the many people who might have dogs and use the park responsibly. I
would be more than willing to involve myself and others in park clean-ups and
restoration of the area. This is a far more reasonable solution than any of the
proposed solutions or alternatives.
31167
Enforcement - There is a greater need for park rangers and law enforcement to
police Fort Funston for compliance with dog walking regulations. A system should
be established that would allow for visitors to easily report non-compliant dog
walkers.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3747
Comment ID: 222075
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - 2. Post placards for an email address or
website to report patrons who are damaging natural resources or endangering
visitors of the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4077
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207796
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do feel that things can be done to help preserve the area,
but the plan put forward goes way to far. I would suggest:
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

- Rangers should patrol the area to enforce the new rules
Corr. ID: 4683
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210185
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: People who allow dogs off leash, regardless of regulations
allow ing or disallowing that practice, should be held financially accountable for
repaying the National Park Service, and the City and County of San Francisco if
they are involved in a rescue, the full cost of any dog rescue from the bluffs and
they should be fined for not controlling their dog appropriately in the first place. It
is critical that the Fort Funston bluffs be preserved for the present and for future
generations. In their own right, they are an amazing resource that the National Park
Service has never protected, recognized or interpreted for the public. They show us
a cross section of San Francisco geology going back thousands of years. The
practice of allow ing off leash dogs and the public in general the freedom to destroy
those bluffs is a violation of the public trust to preserve such resources. We hope at
least this resource will be given the protection it needs when this plan is finalized.
31168
On-Leash - Commenters suggested that dogs should be on-leash in the hang gliding
area and should also be required to leash dogs when horseback riders are in the area
for safety concerns. On-leash dog walking should also be required on all trails to
protect restored areas and sensitive resources and along the beach between the
access trail and sewer outlet.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 235
Comment ID: 180754
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

146

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Representative Quote: I have raised, trained and handled dogs all my life. I don't
currently own a dog, but go to Ft. Funston on a daily basis to be around dogs and
hike. Since I "don't have a dog in this fight", I believe I am objective and can
provide some insight. As a canine enthusiast, I still respect the fact that not
everybody wants to be around dogs. I also realize that very few owners (or dog
walkers for that matter!) actually have voice control of their dogs. I think the limit
of 6 dogs for walkers is appropriate.
Regarding the "Preferred proposal": It seems workable and reasonable. The only
flaw I see is that the "no dog area" North of the access trail is often inaccessible at
high tide, due to a outcrop of rock from the cliff. I don't think this is fair to people
who don't want to be around roaming dogs. I would keep the "no dog area", but
make the beach (to the South) between the access trail and the sewer outlet pipe an
on leash area.
Corr. ID: 279
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222165
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - 2. On leash on the trails north of the beach
access.
Corr. ID: 1319
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222070
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - For the hang gliding area (left of the parking
lot) should be on leash until 1/3 way down the stairs when a glider is in the area.
Have signs posted. This protects the hang gliders and makes it still creates an open
area for the dogs.
Corr. ID: 1319
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 222071
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - It should be required that if a dog owner see
a horse that they must leash their dog, period.
Corr. ID: 2099
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193344
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Don't ban dogs from the horse trail at Fort Funston (or
other areas) - but rather have rules to leash dogs when encountering horses (other
users)
Corr. ID: 3148
Organization: Habitat Restoration Team
Comment ID: 222081
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston - In all other parts of Fort Funston dogs
should be on leash and on trails. Having worked with others for years to restore the
bluffs to native conditions, dogs should not be allowed into the protected areas.
Staff and volunteer efforts to fence off sensitive areas have been compromised to
allow dogs access to planted areas. Keeping them on leash will ensure that the
thousands of hours of volunteer efforts to restore the Park will not be wasted. Just
because we're free doesn't mean our labor shouldn't be valued.

FM1100 - Fort Mason: Support Preferred Alternative
29299
Concern ID:
Keep Fort Mason as an on-leash area so that all user groups can enjoy Fort Mason.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1079
Comment ID: 192214
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
147

FF1400 – Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative

Representative Quote: our enjoyment of Fort Mason quickly turned to concern as
we saw dogs running without supervision while their owners engaged in
conversations. twice one of our children was aggressively approached by a large
growling dog.
we've been forced to find other areas of the city to enjoy the outdoors with our
family. the Fort Mason area in particular is a gem that deserves better management
by the park service. later, we've been told, dog owners were ticketed and things
have quieted down. until there are rules proscribing dogs off leash we will not be
able to enjoy an area so close to our home.
Corr. ID: 1795
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200267
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully and strongly support all aspects of the plan
pertaining to Ft. Mason, Crissy Field, and the Presidio beaches.And what I see are
various forms of irresponsible dog ownership: off-leash dogs behind their owners,
who therefore can't possibly see what their dogs are doing; multiple off-leash dogs
going off in different directions, so ther owners can't possibly keep track of all of
them; owners on the phone with their dog so far ahead of them it is unlikely they
can see; etc.

FM1200 - Fort Mason: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29302
Restricting dog walking activities at Fort Mason should not happen; punishing the
majority of dog walkers for the few who do not follow the rules is unfair. Dogs
should be allowed off-leash at Fort Mason. Commenters feel that during the
weekdays this area has low visitor usage so it would provide a great area to allow a
dog to exercise off leash. Commenters stated that this area is not environmentally
sensitive so dogs should be allowed to be off leash.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 567
Comment ID: 182056
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Northern San Francisco (Marina, Cow Hollow, Russian
Hill) is noticeably an area heavily populated by dogs and but lacking off leash dog
parks. One of the few places that has been traditionally used for off leash recreation
for many years is Crissy Field. Crissy Field should certainly retain the status quo
and continue to fulfill this needed purpose. Fort Mason should also legalize off
leash dog walking. So called "environmentalists" have argued the environmental
impact that this would have on this park; however, I find these arguments weak as
this is clearly a manicured urban park.
Corr. ID: 988
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191699
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: After reading the reasons behind the proposed changes to
the GGNRA's pet policy, I am outraged that such arbitrary, illogical and ridiculous
plans have been put forth to the people of San Francisco. I am particularly
concerned with the plans for Crissy Field but would also like to voice my concern
now that I think the plans for Fort Funson, Fort Mason, Ocean Beach, Baker Beach
are equally as ridiculous.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

...you can't take this privilege away from everyone else when the amount of "bad"
dogs is so small. Perhaps you could work with the city to increase the punishment
for "unruly" or "aggressive" dogs instead of banning off leash areas for everyone?
148

FM1200 – Fort Mason: Oppose Preferred Alternative

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29305
Commenters believe that there is no technical or scientific basis for changing the
current conditions at Fort Mason.
Corr. ID: 4088
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208349
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And for the other sites that may fall through the cracks, I
am very concerned that there is no technical or scientific basis for change at all of
the Marin sites, Baker Beach (beach nudity is the biggest concern-not off leash dog
walking), Lands End/Fort Miley and of course Upper Fort Mason. Folks have been
walking their dogs off leash for years at Upper Fort Mason and even the late
GGNRA Superintendent Brian O' Neill did not mind but actually enjoyed the dogs
there. This area is primarily frequented by folks who live in the neighborhood who
come with their dogs?a LOT of older people and working people who are very
responsible and clean up after their dogs and there are VERY few dog conflicts.

FM1300 - Fort Mason: Desire Other Alternative
29306
Concern ID:
Alternative A is preferred since dog walking conditions have been working well.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 790
Comment ID: 186017
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My comments address Upper and Lower Fort Mason.
The current circumstance has been Heaven. That is, Alternative-A, dogs on leash at
all times is the preferred choice. No dogs in the garden.
29310
Alternative C is preferred. Commenters believe that since this is not an
environmentally sensitive area nor is it heavily used by visitors that ROLAs should
be allowed.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 193
Comment ID: 182305
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I approve of increased restrictions, especially in wildlife
sensitive or heavy use areas. near Fort Mason, I am in favor of Alternative C ROLAs.
Corr. ID: 2224
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200830
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I favorably endorse alternative 9C for Ft.Mason park.
Corr. ID: 2888
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202949
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The rolling grassy field at Ft. Mason as wellshould be an
area to be used for restricted off-leash dog use.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

FM1400 - Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN

29300
ROLAs - The Great Meadow should be an area for off-leash dog walking since it is

149

FM1400 – Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative

a developed lawn area. Another area for a ROLA should include the southern
section of the Great Circle. All other areas should be for on-leash dog walking.
Commenters believe that not allowing off-leash dog walking should not be based on
other users of the area such as tourists or bicyclists.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417
Comment ID: 181586
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Mason (proposed Alternative B): The current proposal
requires dogs to be leashed, in favor of tourists on rented bicycles. The Great
Meadow is a popular area for members of the community to meet and let their dogs
run. Therefore, in interest of the community, it should be an off-leash area (at least
the southernmost part, away from the main service road). All other specify areas
(Laguna Green, grass, service road, housing, etc...) on-leash only. It's illogical to
give favor to cyclists, as legally they aren't supposed to be riding on pathways
through the Great Meadow, anyway. This would provide a largely on-leash park
(since it is multi-use and already very developed) with respect to the prime area
currently used for off-leash dog walking. Cyclists should NOT get priority, as
they're the ones currently violating the law and, being on legally defined vehicles, a
bigger threat.
Corr. ID: 1401
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195324
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do think that it's important to keep some of the more
developed areas available for off-leash dogs, such as the Crissy Field lawn and Fort
Mason's great lawn. Why not have these big lawns be available to dogs? I'd rather
see dogs running there than through a pristine patch of coastal scrub in the Presidio.
Lawns are huge wasters of water and fertilizer; if they can take some of the doggy
need off of the beaches they will at least be serving some purpose.
Corr. ID: 4412
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207009
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Mason
STATEMENT:

ELIMINATE LEASH REQUIREMENT IN THE GREAT CIRCLE
I have walked my dog on leash at Ft. Mason, and have no idea why dogs are
required to be on leash in the great circle. At least during the weekdays, the area is
practically unused, and would provide a great place to allow a dog to exercise off
leash.
PROPOSED ROLA SHOULD BE SOUTH SECTION OF CIRCLE
I noticed that one of your proposals (although not the preferred proposal) would
allow for a ROLA at a section of the park. I applaud that proposal, but would
suggest that either, the entire circle be allowed for dog use, or that the section
designated for the ROLA be the area of the great circle near the restrooms where
the water fountains are located, as this area (in my experience) is less used than the
section that leads between Ft. Mason and Aquatic Park.
29301
Commenters feel that there should be no commercial dog walking, only one or two
dogs per visitor, a compliance rate of 95 percent, and establishment of a simple and
effective reporting system at Fort Mason.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2905
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

150

FM1400 – Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative

Comment ID: 202640
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Mason - I support the Preferred Alternative with the
following changes: no commercial dog walking, one dog per visitor, compliance
rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective reporting
system.
Corr. ID: 3606
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 203955
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Mason - I support the Preferred Alternative with the
following changes: no commercial dog walking, two dogs per visitor, compliance
rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective reporting system
Corr. ID: 3608
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 203971
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Site Specific Comments
Ft. Mason - I support the Preferred Alternative B with the following changes: limit
of three dogs per visitor, compliance rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a
simple and effective reporting system.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29304
No Dog Experience - There should be some areas of Fort Mason that are dog free
areas.
Corr. ID: 4206
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208851
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think there should be at the least, sections of Fort Mason,
East Beach, and Baker beach that are 100% NO DOG zones.

29308
Time of Day Restrictions - The plan should consider time of day, day of week, and
season at Fort Mason. Commenters believe that this consideration would require
less enforcement work for rangers, would benefit visitors who do not enjoy dogs,
and benefit visitors who do enjoy off-leash dog walking.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2170
Comment ID: 200562
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would propose a compromise. Fort Mason would have
limited ROLA hours to allow dog owners to have use of the Great Meadow but also
allow other people the opportunity to enjoy the field without dogs.
Sat/Sun/Holidays would be on-leash only times. During the week there could be
ROLA hours of approximately 3 - 6 or 7pm (depending on time of year). If a warm,
sunny day fell during the week and there were a significant number of people
without dogs using the field, rangers could suspend ROLA for that day. This
compromise would require less enforcement work for rangers, would allow nondog people to take advantage of the park when weather permitted, and, would give
dog owners the chance to let their dogs run at the Great Meadow at those times
when few other people are using the meadow.
Corr. ID: 4170
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208736
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Alternate Plan for Crissy Field and Fort
Mason fails to consider 1.) time of day, 2.) day of week, and 3.) season.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

1. Time of Day. During morning and evening hours there are often more people
151

FM1400 – Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative

walking their dog than people without a dog.
2. day of week. During weekdays all day, the quantity of people at Fort Mason and
Crissy Field is minimal. Dog restrictions on use during weekdays is not warranted.
3. Season. During the cold, gray, raining, foggy months of the year the quantity of
people at Fort Mason and Crissy Field is minimal. Dog restrictions during the wet
season is not warranted.
At Crissy Field or Fort Mason, if restrictions are to be placed on off-leash dog
walking, these restriction should only be put in place during the days and time when
overcrowding warrants it.
In my opinion, the only times Crissy Field or Fort Mason warrant any off-leash dog
restrictions, would be during the weekends, and only between 11 - 4 p.m., and only
in specific verified overcrowded locations (the air-strip at Crissy is never over
crowded)
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29309
On-leash dog walking at the Great Meadow and a much smaller area in Laguna
Green for dog walking.
Corr. ID: 1556
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190747
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Mason - Upper:
Dogs should be o-leash only at Great Meadow + a much smaller area in Laguna
Green designated.
Preferred map 9-D.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30341
Fencing: The ROLA in alternative D should have a physical barrier to separate it
from the Laguna Green area.
Corr. ID: 4215
Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208896
Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: We find the proposed Preferred Alternative either desirable
or acceptable in the following sites, assuming the incorporation of our general
comments: Fort Mason, Baker Beach and Ocean Beach. We believe the ROLA
described in Fort Mason Alternative D would be acceptable if an adequate means of
physical separation of the Laguna Green area could be identified. We are very
pleased to see substantial areas without dogs on both Baker Beach and Ocean
Beach. This is good for wildlife, vegetation and people

FP1100 - Fort Point: Support Preferred Alternative
29483
The preferred alternative allows for maintaining current conditions, which benefits
shorebirds, and maintains a beneficial visitor experience by providing areas where
dogs are on-leash.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

152

FP1400 – Fort Point: Suggest Change in Alternative

Comment ID: 181424
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: the following are my comments on some of the various
areas under review.
Fort Point: Alt A.
Corr. ID: 1182
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193559
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am commenting specifically on Crissy Field and Fort
Point in the GGNRA, where I walk everyday. I support the GGNRA plan as
outlined on the map. It is very important to have dogs on a leash on all sidewalks
and paths. Dogs should be on a leash on all the beaches at Crissy Field and Fort
Point area since the birds can be anywhere along the shore there.

FP1200 - Fort Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29484
Concern ID:
CONCERN STATEMENT: The current situation at Fort Point is not enjoyable for visitors who do not like
dogs, and the preferred alternative would not change this area.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29312 (LE1100), Comment 193360

FP1300 - Fort Point: Desire Other Alternative
29485
No Dog Area - It is difficult to have a no-dog experience at Fort Point, and the
terrain of the trails may lead to unwanted interactions with dogs. Alternative D
should be the preferred alternative at Fort Point.
Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4215
Voters
Comment ID: 208898
Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Fort Point - This is one of several sites in San Francisco, as
noted in the general comments, where we believe there is a decided lack of
opportunity to have a "no dog" experience or to even avoid unwelcome approaches
by dogs, given the narrowness of many of the trails. We support the Alternative D
treatment ideally, or at least a reduction in the number of trails where dogs are
permitted than shown in the preferred.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

FP1400 - Fort Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29486
ROLAs - There should be more off-leash areas for dogs to run, particularly on the
beach and on Fort Point trails.
Corr. ID: 3754
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204260
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Allow urbanized areas such as Ft Mason, Chrissy Field,
and Fort Point as leash-free dog runs. Also, as a compromise, allow Fort Funston to
continue to be essentially the dog run that it is (replete with untended feces) with
the caveat that this does not include the lower beach area, only the upper iceplant
153

FP1400 – Fort Point: Suggest Change in Alternative

infested bluffs surrounding the parking lot. Otherwise, dogs have no business in the
areas listed where seabirds forage, interact, and mate.
29487
Commenters desired the preferred alternative, but only with the exclusion of
commercial dog walking, a limit of one dog per visitor, the establishment of a easy
system to report violations, and a requirement that compliance with the rules be at
95% or higher.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4410
Comment ID: 206950
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Point 'We support the Preferred Alternative with the
following changes: no commercial dog walking, one dog per visitor, compliance
rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective reporting
system.
Corr. ID: 4584
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210029
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Point ' I support the Preferred Alternative with the
following changes: no commercial dog walking, one dog per visitor, compliance
rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective reporting
system.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

FT1100 - Fort Miley: Support Preferred Alternative
29288
Concern ID:
Commenter supports the preferred alternative.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10
Comment ID: 181428
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: the following are my comments on some of the various
areas under review. Fort Miley: Alt C.

FT1200 - Fort Miley: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29289
Concern ID:
Commenter is opposed to changing the existing leash laws at this site.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 548
Comment ID: 182016
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am opposed to the changes in leash laws pertaining to
NPS lands in San Francisco.

FT1300 - Fort Miley: Desire Other Alternative
29291
Concern ID:
Commenter supports alternative B (no dogs) and signage should be made available.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: none
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 71
Comment ID: 181826
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

154

FT1400 – Fort Miley: Suggest Change in Alternative

Representative Quote: I strongly believe that certain designated areas in GGNRA
should exclude pets such as
Fort Miley and huge swats of Ocean Beach. "No Pets" signs should be made visible
and available for everyone to see including nightime.

FT1400 - Fort Miley: Suggest Change in Alternative
29292
ROLA for Ft Miley and Lands End - A ROLA should be located along the Coastal
Trail, Legion of Honor, El Camino del Mar Trail up to the steps, and between the
golf course fence and bunkers.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2023
Comment ID: 193237
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -The coastal trail adjacent to Ft. Miley + the Legion of
Honor needs to be a regulated offleash area.....
Corr. ID: 4354
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 219011
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The El Camino del Mar Trail up to the steps has little
space for dogs to run off on either side owing to density of habitat and steep
topography. It seems appropriate for a regulated off-leash area (ROLA).
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I prefer Alternative D because it also allows dogs off-leash in the very narrow strip
of land between the golf course fence and the drop-off to the bunkers.
Note: Commenter is actually referring to Alternative E, not Alternative D.
29293
On-Leash for Ft. Miley and Lands End - All the trails near the picnic tables and
parking lots should be on-leash. Dogs should be on-leash along the Coastal Trail
because it is steep and narrow. Trails missing from the maps from the golf course
fence to the picnic tables and the El Camino del Mar Trail to the parking lot behind
the Legion of Honor should also be on leash due to natural resources habitat.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4354
Comment ID: 209526
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: LANDS END/FORT MILEY
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I favor Alternative D for this area. It has steep topography with narrow trail
corridors in most places. It is appropriate to have dogs on leash on the Coastal Trail
so that all visitors may have a good experience. The people who use the widest
portion of this trail between Pt. Lobos Avenue and the end of the improved area are
often older, disabled, or appear to be visitors from other countries.
Oddly, some trails are not shown on the maps, including one that connects the golf
course fence line trail with the E. Ft. Miley picnic tables and one that continues the
El Camino del Mar Trail past the steps to the parking lot behind the Legion of
Honor. These areas have many opportunities for dogs to go off-trail into habitat
areas. They should be on-leash areas. It should also be noted that the end of the
fence line trail does not connect directly with the Legion of Honor parking lot and
there is probably a 50' elevation difference between them. Walkers who try to
connect in this area will be on San Francisco RPD land some of the time. Dogs
should be on leash in all of these areas because of cars and museum visitors.
155

FT1400 – Fort Miley: Suggest Change in Alternative

GA1000 - Impact Analysis: General Comment
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

31873
Several impacts levels and other objectives require further definition and
explanation to make them more measurable or clear.
Corr. ID: 4686
Organization: The Marin Humane Society
Comment ID: 210147
Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: "Visitor Experience and Safety" ' The draft plan should
clearly define what a "conflict" relating to dog use refers to.
"Law Enforcement/Compliance with Dog rules, and Park Operations"- The draft
plan objective should further define what "maximizing dog walking compliance"
refers to. This goal does not appear to be measureable and doesn't provide a process
to determine enforcement success. A possible solution would be to clarify what the
parameters will be to encourage high compliance or to incorporate envisioned
compliance rates as an objective. Improved Park operations and use of staff
resources managing dog walking seem to be different parameters. The draft plan
should be very clear about what the enforcement goals are and assume that
enforcement and staff resources are a part of daily park operations.
"Park Operations"- The draft plan should clearly state what and how the monitoring
will be done by the Park. We would like to see this area further defined by clear
objectives. The reference to monitoring to be used in future decision making based
on estimated outcomes seems harsh and one-sided. This objective should be
clearer. The draft plan should also address how it will evaluate commercial dogwalking and what that enforcement policy proposal will be.
"Natural Resources"- The draft plan should further define the objective of
"protecting native wildlife and their habitat from detrimental effects of dog use..."
Further, referring to detrimental effects of dog use doesn't adequately address what
those issues include.
"Cultural Resources"- The draft plan should further define the meaning of
"detrimental effects of dog use."
"Education" ' The draft plan should further define how to "build community support
for the plan to maximize management of dog walking use."

GA2000 - Impact Analysis: Use Trends And Assumptions
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

30514
Commenters have stated that the reasons for restricting/limiting/banning dogs at
GGNRA are not realistic (such as dog attacks, dog walkers not picking up dog
waste).
For representative quotes, please see Concern 30514 (GC1000), Representative
Quote 181101.

156

GA1000 – Impact Analysis: General Comment

30515
The DEIS did not take into account the fact that some GGNRA sites are underutilized (Fort Funston, Crissy Field) or utilized almost solely by dog walkers or
mostly paved sites.
Organization: Citizen, Property Owner & Tax Payer
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 373
Comment ID: 181156
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Currently there are limited off leash options in San
Francisco.
The proposals are huge reductions and specifcally for the under utilized beaches
at Fort Funston and Crissy Fields. Did the elaborate survey reflect
actual daily users timelines? Mon-Fri? Sat? Sun? Foggy days? Windy days?
Special events? There's very low usage Mon-Fri.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30516
Commenters do not agree that allowing dogs at GGNRA makes more work for park
employees.
Corr. ID: 377
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181165
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As to dogs making more work for park personell: I
personally have never seen a dog rescue. There have been plenty of people rescues,
however. Also, I have never, EVER seen a park ranger removing dog waste.

30517
The DEIS assumes impacts result from dogs and the DEIS does not take into
consideration other factors that impact the park's resources (humans, horses,
bicyclists, waves, wind, erosion).
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 723
Comment ID: 182749
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Included in the text of the report is a statement "that
habitat loss and degradation due to development, beach recreation, and
encroachment by non-native vegetation have contributed to a decline in Snow
Plover numbers..... " That indicates to me that there are a broad number of factors
that are at play here. The Graphical evidence provided in the report also provides
no direct correlation that unleashed dogs and Snowy Plover numbers are
related......? It seems that information concerning exactly why numbers of native
wildlife are falling is woefully inadequate. Until comprehensive studies are
completed it would be premature to place all the blame on one potential disruption.
Corr. ID: 780
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190024
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Claims of the snowy plover's demise being in any way tied
to the activities of off-leash dogs are both disingenuous, spurious and completely
overstated to say the least. It has long been settled that the compromised status of
this species is attributable to anthropogenic habitat destruction. The widespread
decimation of sand dunes, estuaries and other wetland systems (all of which are
critical to the propagation of the snowy plover), represents the long established
cause of the species' currently low population numbers.
Corr. ID: 2215
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200764
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA Dog Management Proposal is restricting
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

157

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

access to taxpaying citizens who own dogs for political reasons.
Dogs are not destroying the natural environment - people are - people who ride
horses, ride bikes, hike etc.
Corr. ID: 2275
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201067
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The eco systems of our city beaches are essentially a
redundancy and the wear and tear they are subjected to by dogs is not much
different than the wear and tear by the weather, children and many adults. It is
unrealistic to preserve these areas as museums. They are natural beaches closely
connected to a crowded city and as residents of this area, people should be able to
enjoy them as such either with or without their canines
Corr. ID: 4220
Organization: N/A
Comment ID: 208928
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have looked at your documentation as it relates to dogs
being off leash, and find that it is sorely lacking in most assumptions, and that if the
assumptions were to be accurate, they would have considered the following as
being problematic to the environment:
1. Beach Patrol Trucks driving into protected areas.
2. Horseback riding in protected areas (personal and police/ggnra).
3. Off road vehicles ridden by GGNRA staff.
4. Surfers walking through the dunes.
5. Runners, running through the dunes.
6. Off leash Children chasing birds/throwing stones.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30518
Commenters disagree with assumptions in the DEIS concerning site usage
(morning vs. evening usage) or visitation trends/rates at the park.
Corr. ID: 822
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186101
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most of the beach use studies I have noticed have taken
place on weekends in the middle of the day. I am not confident the plan has an
accurate beach use assessment. I am afraid that the beach use in the morning and
evening is not well understood.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192078
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Environmental Justice:
The DEIS states: "Some ethnic or low-income populations may be more negatively
affected by off-leash dog walking."
Comment:The DEIS fails to characterize accurately the reasons for low visitation
rates to national parks by minorities.. The DEIS should be changed to take into
account the following:
- The problem of low visitation rates by ethnic and low- income populations to
national parks has been identified in a number of studies. For a survey of the
literature, see "Rocky Mountain National Park: History and Meanings as
Constraints to African-American Park Visitation, 2001, Elizabeth B. Erickson."
The DEIS should address the 1997 studies on low minority visitation to six national
parks conducted by the NPS. Since these other parks are all subject to the very
strict control of dogs by Park Service policy, dogs are NOT a factor in low
visitation. To imply that dogs are the problem keeping away visitors from GGNRA
158

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

sites is not helping to deal with the real factors discouraging their presence. The
DEIS should be revised to reflect the NPS data on low visitation by minorities to
other national parks.
o Sources cited in support of DEIS statement include a phone survey by Northern
Arizona University (NAU), as well as a small study done by San Francisco State
(SFS).
Comment: The DEIS fails to characterize accurately the results of the NAU survey
and the relevance of the SFS study, and the DEIS should be revised to reflect the
following:
- On p. 1404 the DEIS, referring to the NAU survery, states: " 41% of those who
had taken dogs for a walk at GGNRA were racial minorities"
The San Francisco State study was done with only 100 respondents and most were
unfamiliar with GGNRA sites.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192038
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: ii) The DEIS has no support for the statement about"
increased public expectations for use of the park for dog recreation". The DEIS
should be revised to remove that phrase based on the following:
- The DEIS states in the section on Visitation Trends, pp. 266-267 that the rate of
visitation has been stable at approximately 14 million for the past thirty years and is
expected to remain at that level for the next twenty years. The DEIS has no data
about the number of dog visits per annum. Based on the stable rate of visitation and
the absence of any data on dog visitation, the DEIS can not make the claim of
increased public expectation.
Corr. ID: 1893
Organization: University of San Francisco
Comment ID: 200612
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: First, the justification for dog management plan is poorly
thought out because impacts on the space and staffing are the result of multiple user
groups. The background of your executive summary notes that use of the GGNRA
has increased, as the population of the San Francisco Bay Area has increased. The
background then goes on to cite an increase in the staff time required to manage
dog-related issues and use this as justification for the dog management plan.
However, the problem with this argument is that if overall usage of the area has
increased, you would expect a proportional increase in management of dogs, right
along with a need for increased management of everything else- from parking to
lost hikers. Why then is this proposal targeted at dogs, and not, say, bicyclists,
whose use has presumably also increased? Or perhaps car-owners should be
targeted, as parking can destroy habitat
Corr. ID: 4013
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206811
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a reader of the plan, I am confounded with the
statements within the DDMP. If NPS acknowledges that the local population is
increasing, and visitors to GGNRA is also increasing, how is the DDMP/NPS not
predicting increased impacts on GGNRA resources? Even worse, how can they
claim that new dog regulations need to be adopted, if park visitation is predicted to
be fairly constant, and there will be no impacts on GGNRA resources.
Corr. ID: 4023
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206972
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

159

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

Representative Quote: Have you ever done a usage survey? In the areas I mention
above and others, off-leash dog walking (and dog swimming) is the recreational
usage for at least 50% of all visitors, probably more than that for some areas.
Corr. ID: 4091
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208391
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Visitor use - Our recommended alternative (Appendix A)
is based on two facts, one of which is stated in the draft Plan/DEIS, and one of
which is indirectly acknowledged but not analyzed in the draft Plan/DEIS.
The first fact is that visitor use has remained relatively stable for the past 20 years
and is not projected to increase significantly in the next 20 years. Therefore, the CF
EA remains a sound foundation for designating zones appropriate for off leash dog
walking at Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 4414
Organization: Paws in Motion/Marin Pet Care
Association
Comment ID: 207121
Organization Type: Business
Representative Quote: Alternative A for Homestead Valley reports that the site
has low visitor use. From my personal experience, this is incorrect. Dog owners
living within walking distance or 5 minute driving distance (totaling approximately
30 or more residents) hike and run with their dogs all over the site, mostly off leash
and have been doing so for many years.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30519
Commenters do not agree with the general assumptions that blame dogs concerning
dog waste and overstate the issue of dog bites.
Corr. ID: 1600
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190836
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Ocean Beach restrictions seem a little unbalanced
though. Many people who live in the Sunset will have nowhere to go. You should
address the fact that people bother the snowy plovers just as much as on-leash dogs
do. I don't remember this being analyzed in the alternatives.
Please also discuss how you can tell coliform bacteria tests can be attributable to
dog waste only. If it cannot be distinguished from other animal waste, then it is not
a cause effect.
Corr. ID: 4622
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207075
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog Feces The users I have observed at Fort Funston have been quite proactive in collecting
and disposing of dog feces. Although not mentioned in the DEIS, the NPS "poop
patrol" collects the feces approximately every 1.5 - 2 hours from the various waste
disposal sites. Therefore, the NPS must have records of the volume of dog feces
which is collected and disposed of correctly. In addition there are volunteer clean
up the entire area throughout the year programs. Those volunteers pick up all kinds
of things from dog feces to litter in general.
Also, the "preferred alternative" will not change the amount of dog feces or make
any change in the percentage of persons who comply with the feces pick-up
requirements. Whether a dog in on leash or off leash will not change the amount of
dog feces. There is no statistical data contained in the DEIS that there is any real
160

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

dog feces issue affecting Fort Funston.
Corr. ID: 4660
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227444
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition to these broad claims, Park Service cannot
substantiates even the low number of incidents in the DEIS. Please see Appendix 3:
e-mails Supporting Park Service Inability to Support DEIS Law Enforcement
Counts in my public comment regarding Environmental Injustice. I attempted to
verify the counts using the Ranger/USPP Details and the Ranger/USPP Headers
and neither provided support for the dog "bite/attacks" counts, particularly the 17
reported for Stinson Beach in 2007 on page 272 of the DEIS. There is no evidence
of any "bite/attacks" at Stinson Beach during 2007 or 2008, and yet this one DEIS
number represents 32% of the total DEIS count (53) for all of 2007 and 2008 dog
"bite/attacks". Overall, I was only able to find 51 incidents that seem to qualify as a
"bite/attack" or hazardous condition versus the 119 shown in the DEIS. In addition,
the DEIS shows that "bite/attack" and hazardous condition incidents dropped 45%
from 77 in 2007 to 42 in 2008 without any apparent reason. I requested the
schedule of the Ranger/USPP Details that substantiated the counts and was told
there is no schedule, which indicates either a lack of professional care or deliberate
manipulation of the data.
Corr. ID: 4660
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227443
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The 2001 to 2010 GGNRA Law Enforcement Records
(Ranger/USPP Headers) list all of the reported incidents/offenses (incidents) with
the ranger or USPP officer's brief description of the incident. The Ranger/USPP
Headers do not indicate a significant number of safety-related incidents from dog
recreation. I summarized and categorized the Ranger/USPP Headers, and found that
between 1 and 2 percent of GGNRA safety-related incidents were dog-related.
These incidents include incidents at all GGNRA sites not just the sites covered by
the DEIS plan. These counts seem insignificant considering some 15% or 450,000
people in the Bay Area enjoy walking their dogs in the GGNRA (estimated from
the 2002 Population Survey and 2008 US Census Report) and the nuisance type
severity of most dog-related incidents. The level of severity for most other incidents
is unclear from the Ranger/USPP Headers; however, it is reasonable to assume that
the overall severity of other incident categories is much greater and include more
life threatening injuries and even death.
Corr. ID: 4660
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227442
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Based on the 2007 and 2008 Ranger/USPP Details, I found
the following accounts of actual human injuries and other animal and safety related
incidents for the two years that should represent all of the "bite/attack" and
hazardous condition incidents:
16 Trails/Beach Human with Injuries
2 non-owners that were nipped by OFF-leash dogs resulting in minor welts or
scraps (1 jogger and 1 beach goer)
2 non-owners hikers that were nipped by ON-leash dogs resulting in minor welts or
scraps 5 non-owners bumped either from OFF-leash playing dogs or dogs jumping
up on them (3 children, 1 bicycle, and one adult on the beach)
5 dog owners with bite wound or lacerations from separating dogs with some
requiring stitches
1 fisherman with a minor thumb puncture caused by a fish hook when baiting the
line and a dog run into the fishing line
161

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

1 horse incidents with a rider thrown
1 NPS maintenance person that was bit on the knee and showed redness but no
broken skin (unattended/tied up dog on a 20 foot lead)
3 Non-Trail/Beach Human Injuries
1 motorcyclists was injured from hitting a loose dog in traffic on Quarry Road
1 child was bite on the lip by a tied up dog at a business
1 skateboarder had a puncture wound/bruise on the arm from an on leash dog that
lunged at a passing skateboard on the sidewalk
32 Other Animal and Safety Incidents
1 horse and buggy incident on the Ocean Beach with the horse having puncture
bites on the nose
7 dog-dog interactions resulting in non-lethal injuries (1 grab/shake and 6 with
scraps or lacerations)
1 dog cliff fall with serious injuries requiring aid being carried up from the beach
(Fort Funston)
5 dog cliff rescues from dogs stranded on cliffs with no injuries (1 Sutro Baths, 1
Fort Point, 3 Fort Funston)
1 dog barking at a Park Service policeman on a horse
1 dog charging and grabbing the boot of a Park Service policeman (Illegal camping
by a Washington resident with an outstanding warrant)
9 incidents of dog owners complaining about inappropriate dog-dog interactions
(no injuries)
3 complaints about people not liking dog interactions (no physical contact with a
dog)
4 stray dogs friendly dogs with no indication of aggressive or fearful behavior
30520
Commenters disagree with assumptions taken from the park's own data (LE data
showing incidences and visitor use data) - regarding noncompliance or dog
conflicts at the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1723
Comment ID: 191173
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am attaching an alternative for Fort Funston- Please
consider this as a better policy - one that will work, with the least amount of
frustration on your part and the part of dog walkers.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

-Have a monthly clean-up day so the park at Fort Funston will not get "trashed" - as
Superintendent Dean worried.
-Please consider that, although there are incidents of dog bites or fights - the
number of dogs out there is great and the conflicts are few. No where in your report
do you regard numbers of dogs visiting there parks per day
Corr. ID: 2003
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193207
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Page G-1 lists specific problems and # of occurances. The
numbers are extremely low compared to the number of visitors such as 15 wildlife
disturbances.
Corr. ID: 2213
Organization: Not Specified
162

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

Comment ID: 200746
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I attended a recent open house hosted by GGNRA, and
was told by one of the rangers that dog 'incidents' were one reason why they wanted
to take away off-leash areas. However, this is not backed up by GGNRA's own
statistics. Incidents involving dogs is extremely low, whereas incidents involving
people (and no dogs) make up the majority of reports. Using the GGNRA's
reasoning we should also ban people from these areas.
Corr. ID: 2899
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203051
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "According to the GGNRA (GGNRA NPS Web Site, Park
Facts, 2002), the parks had 13,994,614 "recreational visits" during FY 2001.
Therefore, given there were 38 bites to bystanders in about 42,000,000 recreational
visits to the GGNRA in the 3-year period , we can estimate the chance that a dog
will bite a stranger at 1 in 1.1 million visits. (Compare this to the risk of being
struck by lightning in the US - which is 1 in 250,000). A summary of the risk of
being bitten by a dog in the GGNRA is given in Table 3.
Table 3: Risk of Dog Bite in the GGNRA
Type of Bite Risk*
Dog on Dog: 1 in 8,400,000
Dog on Owner or Friend: 1 in 1,105,263
Dog on Stranger: 1 in 1,135,135
* Based on GGNRA incident reports from 1999 to 2001 and 13,944,614 visits to
the GGNRA per year
Corr. ID: 4622
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207048
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Safety The DEIS does not contain any user site survey of Fort Funston. NPS public
spokesman Howard Levitt publicly state4d in my presence at an NPS community
meeting that no user site survey of Fort. Funston has been conducted by, or on
behalf of, the NPS. The DEIS repeatedly refers to safety issues related to dog bites.
The only actual data in the DEIS pertaining to dog bites is the Law Enforcement
Data (Appendix G) which reflects for Fort Funston "4 bite/attack" which is useless
information without a site survey of users to determine if the reported incidents are
statistically relevant. Nor does the data include a description of the severity of any
incident (i.e., skin broken, medical attention required, etc.) The category " 10 haz
coed/pet rescue" is noted to include "cases of simple assault, case of injured person,
case threats" which appear to include actions of persons, not dogs. What exactly is
being reported? Such a broad sweeping reference without inclusive analysis is
legally meaningless and appears to be puffery by NPS. In fact, the entire report is
replete with adjectives and adverbs but without meaningful data One could say that
the entire compilation reads like a conclusion was reached and staff was then
directed to support it. Interesting. There simply is no statistical data as to the daily
number of visitors, the daily number of dogs, and what the Fort Funston visitors are
or are not doing (i.e., walking dogs, walking, hang gliding, flying radio controlled
airplanes, practicing cliff rescue, watching the ocean, etc.) While I have not done a
survey, I would be willing to state that the categories just listed cover 90+% of
those who visit Fort Funston.
The DEIS does not include any discussion of the inherent danger of the beach at
Fort Funston due to the extreme undertow and riptide conditions present throughout
the year. All native San Franciscans understand the very significant danger
presented at this stretch of coastline. Any use of the beach should, for public safety,
163

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

be restricted from swimming.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30521
Commenters question the assumption that some visitors experience incidents with
dogs and do not report the incidents, when this is an actual fact.
Corr. ID: 4070
Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207714
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 18)Page 286 "It is also assumed that the large percentage
of visitors that experience incidents with dogs do not report them to park staff
(Coast, pers. Comm., 2006)" This is a FACT?it should not just be an assumption. I
have ridden horses on the beach below Fort Funston for over 10 years. There has
not been ONE ride where an offleash dog has not chased after my horse. That being
said, they usually turn around or stop after a while, but these are all incidents that
harass/ annoy/ or effect the visitor experience of another user of the public land. I
do not call the park service every time this occurs because I have a VERY seasoned
horse and am used to handling the situation, but it should be noted that the events
do occur on a regular basis and they are non-stop under current management.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30522
Commenters question the assumption that elder visitors or visitors who are
minorities are afraid of dogs.
Corr. ID: 4224
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208968
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no mention of this diversity in the DEIS.
Minorities are mentioned only in the context of being afraid of dogs. The DEIS
incorrectly quotes from a focus group of people who had largely never been to the
GGNRA as proof that minorities don't come to the GGNRA because of the dogs.
DEIS did not consider negative impacts on minorities and disabled who lose access
to dog walking.
Corr. ID: 4371
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209515
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA has not fully considered urban impact (city
parks, area resources), human impact (physical, mental, social) and it grossly
believes the DEIS and The Plan will better serve minorities (minorities fear dogs).

30523
Commenters note that an assessment of visitor experience should not assume that
people without dogs do not enjoy dogs, but that some visitors (without dogs) are
either neutral or accepting towards other people's dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4560
Comment ID: 209896
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS focuses on visitors who do not want to be
around off-leash dogs. First, there are many places where people can go if they do
not want to encounter off-leash dogs, far, far more than the number of places that
allow off-leash dogs. Second, consideration should also be given to people without
dogs who are either neutral or positive toward encountering dogs in the parks.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I encounter non-dog owners on my walks all the time who clearly enjoy interacting
with dogs and in fact many times I've had people come up and ask me if they can
pet my dog. Many tell me that they love dogs or their kids love dogs, but they
164

GA2000 – Impact Analysis: Use Trends and Assumptions

cannot have one of their own, and they therefore love come to places like Fort
Funston to interact with them. Any assessment of visitor experience must include
non dog owners who are neutral or positively inclined toward being around offleash dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30524
Commenters do not agree with assumptions made at certain park sites (such as the
vandalism at Crissy Field is a result of dog walkers).
Corr. ID: 4016
Organization: San Francisco resident
Comment ID: 206837
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: - In referencing Chrissy Field, the DEIS states that
"vandalism" is regularly occurring at this site. I find it difficult to believe that this
"vandalism" should be attributed solely to dog-walking users of this site.

GA3000 - Impact Analysis: General Methodology For Establishing Impacts/Effects
30091
Commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis of the DEIS because there is not
any or enough scientific evidence to support restricting/limiting/banning dogs at
GGNRA sites; some commenters believe the DEIS is biased against dogs or there
are too many cases of "could," "may," "might" occur in the impacts analysis
(speculation), thus proving little evidence of actual impacts from dogs documented
at the sites.
Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 129
Comment ID: 182225
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to object to the proposed 2011 Dog
Management Plan for the GGNRA. In my view, the GGNRA has not gathered
enough evidence of any sort to justify banning/restricting dogs from the GGNRA
lands. Your science advanced is weak, and few surveys indicate that the majority of
park users see any need for change.
Corr. ID: 936
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191419
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that there is no factual basis for the argument that
birds and other wild animals need to be protected from off-leash dogs. There seems
to be no scientific consensus that severe restrictions on off-leash dogs are needed to
protect natural resources and wildlife. Some of the most compelling research in the
last few years has been by researchers such as Forrest and Cassidy St. Clair (2006)
and Warren (2007) who admit that they expected to find that off-leash dogs had a
major impact on the diversity, abundance, and feeding behaviors of birds and small
mammals. However, when they did the actual research, they found no such impact.
Corr. ID: 941
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191440
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most disturbing is that there is no scientific environmental
argument for these punitive restrictions (by the way I am a PhD level educated
scientist from an Ivy League Graduate school). Although marketed as an
"environmental" impact report, in most cases there are no good environmental
arguments for restricting dog access.
Corr. ID: 1007
Organization: Odie's Mom
Comment ID: 191741
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

165

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

Representative Quote: It also strikes me as odd that this is the fight the GGNRA
wants to take up when there is no research to support the suggestion there has been
ecological impact over the past 30 years of the use of the lands for dog walking.
Corr. ID: 1257
Organization: Montara Dogs
Comment ID: 194952
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: No scientific studies were done on this land to conclude
that banning dogs is necessary.
Corr. ID: 1833
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191970
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) The conclusions are simply not supported by the alleged
"facts" that claim to support them. The Statement suffers from expectancy bias.
Expectancy bias is where a researcher expects a given result, and then manipulates,
cherry-picks and/or misinterprets facts and data in order to reach the given result.
This is simply bad science, and the opposite of what the scientific method requires,
and
Corr. ID: 3737
Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204252
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Undocumented Assumptions - The DEIS is full of
assumptions about impacts - things that "might" or "could" happen - but there is no
evidence of actual observed impacts. Cannot base management plan on
hypotheticals. The GGNRA has had years to observe and document actual observed
impacts. The fact the GGNRA did not include them in the DEIS indicates they don't
exist.I have never seen dogs causing major problems, not attacking people or
bothering bank swallows or snowy plovers at Fort Funston.
Corr. ID: 3737
Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204240
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I want a dog management plan based on real science, not
pre-determined biased obscure observations with guessed at causes and
outcomes.The DEIS fails to document actual impacts on resources at each site.
DEIS assumes that if an impact "could" occur, it does occur at each site, even
though there is little evidence of actual impacts documented at each site. If the
DEIS cannot document actual impacts, then they cannot restrict access.
Corr. ID: 4451
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208404
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Let's take page 14, Chapter 1, "Purpose and Need for
Action" as an example. Under "Water Quality" we see three issues raised (italics
Mine):
- "Issue: dogs playing in streams, wetlands, lagoons and coastal areas can increase
turbidity..." The study doesn't say they DO increase turbidity, doesn't prove or even
try to prove they do increase turbidity, or that the negative outcomes outlined in this
Issue point are realistic outcomes.
- "Issue: Dog waste can increase nutrient levels..." Again, no site-specific proof, no
backup, just a "maybe" with a lot of "maybe" negative effects. Without site-specific
proof, this is not acceptable as a part of an EIS, since it is not based on science or
proof, only conjecture.
- "Issue: Domestic dogs can potentially introduce diseases..." This is yet-another
example of a "maybe" that is not studied, not backed up with hard site-specific
facts. It's a conjecture in lieu of a substantiated-reason for limiting dog access.
Or, let's look at the "Wildlife" issue, page 15 (italics mine): "Issue: Intensive dog
use of an area could disrupt its wildlife..."

166

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

"Issue: Dog play can trample vegetation..."
"Issue: Dogs or dog waste can infect wildlife..."
"Issue: Habitat for all wildlife... may be affected by dog use..."
Again, all conjecture about what might happen, without site-specific study or facts
to prove that these problems are happening in the GGNRA due to dog use.
This untested, unproven conjecture continues throughout the "CURRENT DOG
MANAGMENT ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS" section, which is a huge basis
for the change in dog policy. It's bad science, and makes for an incomplete and
biased environmental impact study. Since the study BEGINS with faulty
assumptions, the entire 1,500 plus pages of the study, including its conclusions,
becomes meaningless
Corr. ID: 4712
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209785
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Inherent NPS bias: NPS Director Jarvis' public statements
about GGNRA Dog issues, GGNRA staff bias for this issue.
As NPS' Western Regional Director, this is a direct quote from Mr. Jarvis as
reported by Suzanne Valente and Steve Golumb when they asked Mr. Jarvis about
possible City Of San Francisco reversion at Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. This
conversation took place outside of the NPS Centennial-Initiative Listening Session,
Presidio Officer's Club, San Francisco, Ca., March 22, 2007
"I would rather give up those [the GGNRA] properties than have dogs running loose
on them." March 22, 2007
KQED Forum Show, April 7, 2011, http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104070900
2007 GGNRAJGGNPC Intercept Survey
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30092
Commenters question the lack of monitoring/sampling/survey/usage statistics or
site-specific data studies to support the DEIS, or suggests that data be collected.
Corr. ID: 918
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191334
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred alternative purports to restore Fort Funston to
a natural wild state. Even if this is possible, it will take many years. And even if it
happens, how many people will be served in a Recreational manner by the Preferred
Alternative? What surveys and data has the Park Service relied on in estimating this
number of people? This data must be made publicly available for review. If the
Preferred Alternative cannot clearly and scientifically be demonstrated to result in
serving a greater number of people, it should be replaced entirely. The status quo
should be the Preferred Alternative.
Corr. ID: 1484
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191261
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Despite the length of your report, I do not see evidence of
baseline surveys 07 control groups or any of the usual criteria used in scientific
studies. And yet you demand that we be "specific" in our comments!
It is unrealistic to expect urban parks to be completely wild or `natural' Even if pets
were banned, would you not have some concerns with feral cats, raccoons, etc.?
You claim that dogs can frighten the snowy plover. I suppose people could frighten
them also. Is the next step to ban people from walking through Fort Funston?
Incidentally, have never seen any of my dogs at Fort Funston or at Ocean Beach
harm a bird. Nor do they trample over any fence-protected plants.
Corr. ID: 1576
Organization: Not Specified

167

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

Comment ID: 190791
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Is there adequate scientific evidence that dogs are the
problem? Perhaps the National Parks could do a "clinical" trial as we do in
medicine, implementing their intervention @ certain areas + then have other areas
remain the same (placebo group). This trial could be done over 3-5 years period and
then the outcomes could be compared (some member of wildlife preservation). If
this data is already published or known it should be displayed. Either way it is good
science and would go along way with the citizens of San Francisco.
Corr. ID: 1954
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192705
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -Want more studies (in addition to Northern Arizona
University study) SF state study about dogs & GGNRA user's coexistence
Corr. ID: 3347
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203035
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a resident of San Francisco for the past 32 years, and a
dog owner for the past 25 years, I depend on open areas to exercise my dog. I visit
the GGNRA every day, sometimes without, but mostly with, my dog. Like most,
and perhaps nearly all, San Francisco residents, I don't have a yard in which to
exercise my dog. I rely on dog-friendly open areas where I can exercise my dog off
leash. Like the vast majority of dog owners, I am a responsible owner: I leash my
dog in areas dense with people, in sensitive habitats off limits to pets, and in areas
posted on-leash only. I don't let him dig or chase wildlife. I clean up my dog's stool,
and even the stool that other, less responsible pet owners, leave behind. My dog
needs more exercise than my old legs could ever possibly give him. He needs to run
around, chase balls and play with other dogs, and he can't do this on a leash. Dogs
that don't socialize off leash with other dogs develop aggressive, anti-social
behaviors that make them a nuisance, and can even make them dangerous when
they are allowed off leash.
The GGNRA 1979 Pet Policy has served the GGNRA and Bay Area pet owners
well for over 40 years. It recognizes that pet owner recreation includes dogs, and
imposes sensible restrictions on pets and their owners. It recognizes that the
GGNRA must serve the needs of an urban population. The GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement provides no evidence that the
1979 Pet Policy has had any material adverse impact on wild species or the natural
environment in the GGNRA. If dog access is to be severely restricted as proposed,
the damage dogs might do to the park in the future must be supported by the
damage that they have done in the past. To arbitrarily change these rules and ignore
40 years of data is irresponsible. And if no data was collected during this period to
justify the proposed changes, then a period of time should be allowed to collect data
relevant to the proposed changes so that the policy is based on good science, not
hypothetical future events.
Corr. ID: 3781
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205167
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS does not present any original, long term research
results conducted on GGNRA lands that demonstrates that people with dogs have a
deleterious affect upon plants and wildlife more than expected of visitors without
dogs. The use of the word "Could" is used many times in the DEIS. Dogs "could"
stir silt up, "could" harass wildlife, etc, instead of attempting to study actions of
visitors and reporting statistics of actual use, misuse, and its effects.
Corr. ID: 4055
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207514
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

168

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

Representative Quote: The report appears to make no attempt to analyse the
relative usage of each of the areas by category, i.e dog and non-dog and the impact
on the area outside of the GGNRA if the dog users are excluded and/or constrained
by the changes proposed. e.g, by simple estimation the majority of usage in ft
funston is dog walking, yet no statistical analysis has been preformed and no
subsequent analysis of the impact of the changes proposed.
This appears to be a bias fundamental in the intent of the report, only the
'environmental' impact has been considered
Additionally no historic statistics have been presented to support any unacceptable
increase in dog related 'issues' the report is purely speculative in this regard. This
appears to be another biased omission intent in avoiding real analysis, and replacing
it with 'opinion' unsubstantiated by fact.
Corr. ID: 4060
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207606
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A critical oversight in the GGNRA's assessment was their
decision to use a literature search and not real time water and soil sample analysis
on which to base their decision. This means there was no actual testing of soil or
water quality over a period of time during which dogs were present on the open
space in question--instead the GGNRA used case studies from other sites with
similar characteristics on which to make their determination.
Bad science makes for bad decisions and misleading data. Bay area dog owners
deserve much better-Corr. ID: 4405
Organization: Montara Dog Walking Group
Comment ID: 204921
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The rational provided in the DEIS to allow for a change in
the current 1979 Pet Policy areas (plus the San Mateo County GGNRA) does not
appear to be based on sound science and long-term monitoring of site specific
conditions. Many statements seem to be opinion vs fact based from actual impact
studies.
Corr. ID: 4614
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210137
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS claims that off leash dogs are interfering with the
nest of the Bank Swallows which are located on the cliffs at the beach. While every
once in a while an errant dog falls over the cliffs by accident, this is unusual
experience and not done to interfere with a bird. People climb the cliffs and also fall
over them but the DEIS does not include any analysis of the effect of the human
interference with Bank Swallows or other native inhabitants. In addition, no
statistical data is provided pertaining to the large number of cliff rescues by the
Police, Sheriff, Fire Department, Coast Guard. There must be data available because
the various departments are frequently present on site practicing and / or rescuing.
30093
Commenters request that statements made in the document should be backed up by
adequate references or questions why studies that have not been peer-reviewed are
included in the analysis.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3789
Comment ID: 205542
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I read much of the Dog Management Plan Draft EIS and,
beyond my disagreement with the proposals provided in the document, I was
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

169

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

incredibly disappointed by the quality of the document. Generally speaking, I had
four major concerns:
1. There was a woeful lack of substantiation (scientific evidence or other
documentation) to many claims made in the document. The document needs to be
carefully reviewed and revised to ensure all statements are backed up by adequate
references, or else that the statements in the document are revised.
Corr. ID: 4013
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206796
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In fact, several of the cited works don't accurately describe
the data & the areas of study in the context of a dog or general EIS within the
GGNRA. One of many examples can be found in pg.225 of the DDMP regarding "
Alterations of Park Soils". The citation -Joslin and Youmans 1999, 9.3- is taken
from a review from Montana Chapter of the Wilderness Society. Naturally, the
review focuses on the subject of land policy more accurately described as Montana
wilderness. But more importantly the citation actually does not include any actual
data - just a page &chapter in a review upon which the authors (Joslin/Youmans)
cite other works. Even worse, the work was not published in a peer-reviewed
journal.
30094
Commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis of the DEIS because the reports
used to determine impacts are not acceptable (telephone survey - small study size),
not applicable (studies not done in urban areas) or based upon speculation and not
data/fact/evidence (Hatch 2006 bank swallow report, Hatch 1999 report).
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1580
Comment ID: 190802
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) "Scientific" reports which are used to base a decision
require a peer-review, per NPS Guidelines of Scientific Conduct. Daphne Hatch's
Bank Swallow report 2006 makes conclusions which are not based on her data. She
makes speculative statements about what dogs could do, but there is no evidence for
damage, e.g., digging which leads to burrow collapse.
Corr. ID: 1694
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191104
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 6) Lots of the data and studyes faulty: Norther Arizona
University and SF State data about minorities fear of dogs in parks. Do better
studies with larger pools of respondents.
Corr. ID: 1802
Organization: Fort Funston Dog Walkers
Comment ID: 191635
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The telephone survey on page 99 was statistically useless.
1700 calls is way too small and how do you know they even visit these places.
There are more people on a sunny weekend at F.F. than you have talked to.
Corr. ID: 1803
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191655
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS continues a trend of GGNRA claims about
impacts by dogs on birds that are not supported by the data. It is based on bad
science. There is no scientific consensus that severe restrictions on off-leash clogs
are needed to protect natural resources and wildlife. Some of the most compelling
research in the last few years has been by researchers such as Forrest and Cassidy
St. Clair (2006) and Warren (2007) who admit that they expected to find that offleash dogs had a major impact on the diversity, abundance, and feeding behaviors of
birds and small mammals. However, when they did the actual research, they found
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

170

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

no such impacts. This indicates that assumptions about impacts from off-leash dogs
must be tested and proven to be true before they can be used to justify restrictions.
Unfortunately, most of the assumptions cited by the GGNRA have not been
adequately tested or proven.
Severe restrictions are not needed to protect the snowy plover. The GGNRA's own
data show that off-leash dogs have no impact on the numbers of snowy plovers, a
threatened species that roosts only (does not nest or raise chicks) on relatively small
parts of Ocean Beach and Crissy Field. Indeed, larger numbers of snowy plovers
frequently coincided with times when dogs were allowed off-leash in the area. The
1999 Hatch Report observed 5,692 dogs at Ocean Beach and found that only 6%
chased birds (mostly seagulls). Indeed, of these 5,692 dogs, a mere 19 were
observed to chase plovers. That is one-third of 1% of the dogs observed. Target
those dog owners for enforcement, but leave the other 99.66% of dogs that did not
chase plovers alone.
Corr. ID: 1981
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193157
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Why are the studies regarding dog behavior & impact in
other ares of the country being used as a basis for this proposal?
Who has reviewed the validity & credibility of the research cited in this study. Is it
really applicable to this urban recreation area?
Corr. ID: 4013
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206797
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A second example citing data from a study that
intentionally manipulates readers toward a misleading & biased conclusion can be
found on page 227. The cited study (USGS 2008, 12) refers to a USGS survey
measuring baseline pesticides concentrations at 10 creek sites - some of them
located within the GGNRA. The data collected from this single study was no doubt
an important first step "provide baseline information to enable evaluation of the
need for future monitoring". But there is no data or method in this report to connect
the low levels of Fipronil observed to any activity of dogs or dog owners in the area.
So it begs the question, why is it in the DDMP?
Corr. ID: 4021
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206897
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4) People without dogs pose an equal "risk" to plovers, yet
there is no attempt to restrict their access to the plover areas.
Unable to prove any impact on plover population numbers, the 1996 Hatch Report
argued that dogs "disturb" plovers. However in the entire 1.5-year study, only 19
out of 5,692 dogs -- less than one-third of one percent -- were observed deliberately
chasing plovers, and none was reported to actually catch or harm a bird. The report
adds that on another 15 occasions, at least 100 additional plovers were
"inadvertently disturbed" by dogs, comparing this to the 48 plovers inadvertently
disturbed by people without dogs, implying dogs inadvertently disturb plovers at
least twice as often as people alone. But a closer reading of the report shows that the
disturbances from people were noted in about half the recording time (24 hours of
observations) as that devoted to studying dogs (40 hours). Had the two groups been
observed for equal amounts of time, the number of disturbances would have been
nearly the same.
Corr. ID: 4064
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207624
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS provides no site-specific studies or evidence to
support its strongly stated conclusion that allowing dogs access to limited areas on
171

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

the GGNRA results in a negative impact on those areas.
The studies that are referenced in the document are often decades old and are based
on research done in places as removed from the GGNRA as Virginia or Colorado.
Additionally, these studies present contradictory conclusions about the severity of
impacts due to dogs. The final conclusions of the DEIS claim studies prove that
dogs have a significant negative impact of the environment, but the Boulder, CO
study referenced in the document demonstrates that off-leash dogs did not travel far
off-trail and rarely disturbed other people, wildlife, vegetation, or bodies of water.
Another study states that dogs traveling on a trail with screening vegetation are
unlikely to even encounter, let alone disturb, wildlife. Water quality sampling in the
GGNRA at some sites that are currently accessible to dogs has shown that "the
quality of water bodies throughout the park is generally acceptable for sustaining
aquatic life." The DEIS cites the Crissy Field tidal marsh as a particularly healthy
body of water, even though Crissy Field is a widely used off-leash dog recreation
area. These conflicting data should put the conclusions in the DEIS about dog
impacts into doubt, but instead the document clearly treats them as indisputable fact.
30095
Commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis of the DEIS because it does not
reflect the findings of other studies (that have shown dogs do not impact or are not
the only impact to wildlife/resources, etc as in Hatch 1996) or important studies
were not included in the analysis (GGNRA Site Stewardship use patterns survey,
Nola Chow study, Forrest Cassidy/St. Clair/Warren study of snowy plover) or some
studies were not emphasized enough (Lafferty studies).
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 624
Comment ID: 182744
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: After reading about the proposed plan, I developed many
concerns about the way in which the document was written and the information on
which its conclusions are based as well as the potential ramifications of its
implementation. Specifically, the document's suggestions for alternative locations
for off-leash dog-walking suggests the authors did not fully research alternative
locations as some suggested locations are currently not designated off-leash areas.
Further, the cited scientific research does not consider numerous additional studies
that reached dramatically different conclusions about the impact of off-leash dogs
on the environment.
Corr. ID: 1507
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191408
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that there is no factual basis for the argument that
birds and other wild animals need to be protected from off-leash dogs. There seems
to be no scientific consensus that severe restrictions on off-leash dogs are needed to
protect natural resources and wildlife. Some of the most compelling research in the
last few years has been by researchers such as Forrest and Cassidy St. Clair (2006)
and Warren (2007) who admit that they expected to find that off-leash dogs had a
major impact on the diversity, abundance, and feeding behaviors of birds and small
mammals. However, when they did the actual research, they found no such impact.
Corr. ID: 1512
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191449
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Snowy Plovers: Your own research (Forrest Cassidy St
Clair and Warren all demonstrate that dogs do not actually impact the diversity,
abundance and feeding behavior of the birds. The Hatch report observed 5692 dogs
and only 19 chased plovers. Your own studies prove that parents with toddlers,
surfers and other park users disturbed the plovers far more than dogs, yet I do not
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

172

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

see anything in the DEIS that is further restricting their access. Why are dogs being
singled out?
Corr. ID: 1529
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190697
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The draft environmental impact study draws conclusions
from little or contradictory information. For example, one study of the impact of
dogs off leash in urban parks show no decrease in bird diversity, but the EIS
concludes a negative impact.
Contrary to the gold standard of Adaptive Resource Management, the plan only
proposes to collect data on dog compliance, ignoring the issues that are the goals of
the plan such as the environmental impact of the changes
Corr. ID: 1929
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192267
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: OB/CF: Why wasn't the Warren study (2007) on WSP
included in DEIS analysis? Funston: Bank swallows burrows/nest cannot be
accessed by dogs. They are in the cliff face behind the faux emergency closure.
Corr. ID: 3068
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203065
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Further, the studies/science utilized to support allegations
of damage to resources in the GGNRA are fatally flawed - the positive impacts are
ignored and the negative impacts are unverified. For example, this DEIS omits the
Warren study of the snowy plover which concluded recreation of dogs and their
owners does not negatively affect the feeding of the plover
Corr. ID: 4013
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206806
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DDMP claims that "Both on- and off-leash dogs are
routinely brought into the WPA by park visitors, and are the greatest source of
disturbance to western snowy plovers (Zlatunich 2009, 10)". Data presented in
Tables 5, 6, and 7 from Zlatunich 2009 clearly provides evidence contrary to the
DDMP statement. In the 11 hours of survey time (time with plovers present)
reported in the Zlatunich study (conducted at Crissy field), their were 14 recorded
incidents of WSP disturbances (Table 6). 79% (11/14) of these disturbances were
caused by human walkers and runners. In addition, the number of humans within
the 11hrs of survey (time with plovers present) numbered 398 vs 58 dogs (18 on
leash/ 40 off-lease) - a ratio of nearly 7 to 1. The data presented clearly shows that a
large numbers of recreational humans are involved with the majority of WSP
disturbances. In fact, only 1 of the reported 14 disturbances came from off- leash
dogs. Table 7 reports a disturbance rate of 2.5% for off-leash dogs as compared with
3.6 % to walkers and 5.9% for joggers
Corr. ID: 4021
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206889
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) The GGNRA's own studies indicate that dogs have no
significant negative impact on the population of snowy plovers at Ocean Beach,
The Nov 15, 1996 report of snowy plovers by GGNRA staffer Daphne Hatch found
that there was an increase of more than 100% in the number of snowy plovers in the
years after the 1979 Pet Policy went into effect (allowing offleash dogs on Ocean
Beach and elsewhere). There was no negative relationship between the number of
dogs and the numbers of plovers on the beach at the same time. Indeed, the 1996
Hatch Report says: "Factors other than the number of people or dogs, possibly
beach slop and width, appear to exert greater influence over Snowy Plover numbers
on Ocean Beach."
173

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

Corr. ID: 4021
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206901
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 5) The Federal Government cannot make policy decisions
(such as this proposed closure) that are based on assumptions that have no hard data
to back them up.
The assumption that any disturbance of plovers or other shorebirds causes
significant problems for the birds is repeatedly stated as fact. However, even the
1996 Hatch Report says that "Little research has been conducted on the energetic
effects of disturbances, and on whether individuals can compensate for this lost
energy intake and increased energy expenditure." One recent study, conducted as
part of a Senior Research Seminar at UC Berkeley did test the commonly repeated
assumption that recreational disturbances changed the feeding behavior of snowy
plovers. Megan Warren (2007) found no significant relationship between feeding
behavior and direct disturbance by people recreating on the beach.
Corr. ID: 4218
Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club,
Native Plant Society
Comment ID: 208913
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I was working as a volunteer for Site Stewardship at the
time, after my CCC day job.I designed and organized a study at Milagra Ridge on
public use patterns in conjunction with staff at Site Stewardship. We'd mainly seen
dog-walkers, cyclists, kite flyers, and birders up there, and wanted to quantify it for
some upcoming trail planning. Staff members, volunteers, and I took turns watching
people walk the trails. We made sure we had people of differing opinions about
dogs and bikers, so that we wouldn't be biased.
We measured, among other things: 1) which trails people used, 2) whether they had
dogs, 3) how many dogs and people there were in a group, and 4) how far off the
trail dogs went. We found that most people who were there with dogs were walking
"off-leash", but their dogs were staying close by. We also estimated that about 90%
of dogs stayed within about 10 feet of the trail.
30096
Commenters state that that baseline for comparison in the DEIS should be an
environment in which the impact of dogs is added to the impact of humans; or
commenters do not agree with the baseline for comparison presented in the DEIS.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1562
Comment ID: 190764
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The current regulations are not enforced. In areas like Ft.
Funston and its trails it would be beneficial to publish and post the regulations so
they can be enforced prior to modifying the existing usage situation. Given the
driver for the issues is heavily dependent on potential interactions between people
and offleash dogs - you do not have a valid baseline on the issues until enforcement
is in place. As a result making a change is premature.
Corr. ID: 4010
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206767
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All human activities (and all activities by other species)
impact other components of the ecosystem. This does not mean that we will, as a
society, treat all disturbance as acceptable. However, it provides a more honest
reference point for discourse about acceptability. I request that the NPS document
the historic range of variability, using pre-white settlement as a reference point, for
the species discussed in the DEIS. In addition, I request that the NPS document the
effect on those species of humans other than those recreating with dogs. This
includes the effect of NPS actions. This provides an important context for
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

174

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

discussions of the impact of people recreating with dogs
Corr. ID: 4038
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207208
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA should modify its compliance-based
approach to create a baseline of current conditions and then measure impacts against
compliance. Based on my considerable experience at Crissy Field, I am highly
confident the GGNRA would learn that the so-called bases or justifications for the
alternatives -- at least at Crissy Field -- have no validity. Indeed, many of the
purported justifications for the restrictions are couched in "could's" rather than what
has actually happened. The text of the DEIS demonstrates that there is no basis in
history or fact for prohibiting off-leash dogs at the East Beach, the promenade, and
the adjacent areas.
30168
In general, commenters do not agree that dogs have an impact on the resources at
GGNRA and/or the case is not substantiated with logic clearly in the DEIS that dogs
impact resources.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 350
Comment ID: 181125
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As dog owner, I often walk my dog in the areas under
study and have never witnessed any problems except park police warning and
ticketing dogs just for being off lead, not because they were being a nuisance or
danger.
I would like assurance that the GGNRA is not pursuing the extensive limitations
they propose for a non-existent problem.
Corr. ID: 888
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190052
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This effort by NPS is extremely disturbing and a waste of
taxpayer money. I hike on park service trails all of the time and have never seen an
issue with dogs on leash or off leash. This is not a significant problem.
Corr. ID: 1595
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190827
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I discovered Ft. Funston 3 years ago when I first received
out dog and have been going there every week since. From the beginning, I was
amazed at how responsible the majority of dog owners are at cleaning up after their
dogs. I see NO adverse affects from the dogs at this location. What I see is a vibrant
community of dog owners who travel from all over to enjoy one of our last
resources available to let our dogs run off leash.
Corr. ID: 1715
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191157
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) Chapter 3 table 6 stated only 3 incidents @ Muir Beach.
Yet you're closing the beach. Seems to me that the environmental impacts reported
do not substantiate the recommend proposal.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

(1a) Muir Beach has fewer incidents than Stinson yet is more restrictive. Don't
understand logic
Corr. ID: 3762
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204662
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very familiar with your proposal and am extremely
opposed to it. The GGNRA was established as a recreation area. Your report barely
makes reference to that use. As someone extremely familiar with all the local
GGRA in which dogs are allowed, I find little evidence that dogs have any
175

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

significant impact on the native animal nor plant environment. I believe that dogs
have less of a negative impact than certainly people-as well as other recreational
users. But not only has my personal observation supported that-more importantly
the GGNRA's proposal cites reasons for the severe limitations of dogs-both on-leash
and off-leash-are NOT supported by scientific evidence
Corr. ID: 3789
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205543
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. The authors of the document clearly did not have a good
grasp on the experience of local residents using the GGNRA, or give the reader
much context of the dense urban setting that surround the GGNRA. The document
should be revised to include the experiences of local residents as well as much
better characterization of the local setting (i.e. the urban environment). In my
personal experience in the areas that I visit almost daily in the GGNRA, conflicts
with dogs very rarely occur, dog walkers are extremely respectful, and dogs are
generally very well behaved. While incidents may occasionally occur (though I
have never witnessed an incident in my many years of visiting the park), there is no
clear evidence presented in the document of a major issue
Corr. ID: 4064
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207631
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS describes the many at-risk species that can be
found in the GGNRA and justifiably states that the GGNRA lands contain
important, biodiverse communities. The DEIS does not, however, provide clear
documentation of the overlap of most of these species with areas currently
accessible to dogs. Under current regulations, less than 1% of the GGNRA is
accessible to dogs, and the DEIS does not prove that this small amount of land has a
detrimental effect on the overall populations of these at-risk species. In cases like
the snowy plover where there are clearer data, the DEIS again does not distinguish
between the impact of the presence of dogs, on- or off-leash, and the presence of
humans in the birds' habitat.
Corr. ID: 4678
Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
Comment ID: 227538
Organization Type: Civic Groups
Representative Quote: Design: Daphne Hatch's bias is apparent in the design of
this study. The objective of this study is to prove her assumption that the present
management which allows off-leash dog use of Ocean Beach and Crissy Field is
inadequate to protect the WSP from harassment/disturbance and other detrimental
effects of chasing by dogs. We learn nothing about the relative harassment/
disturbance of the plover from any other source in this study. Ifplovers are harassed/
disturbed 50 times in 5.5 hours by ravens, and one time in that same time period by
a dog, is the harassment/disturbance by the dog even relevant? A comparative study
model would have been more informative with respect to actually determining what
management actions, if any, should be taken to protect the plover from
harassment/disturbance in general. Frankly, this comparative study should have
been undertaken in 1993 when the WSP was first listed as a threatened species,
before the decision was made (and later reversed by the Federal Court) to require
the leashing of dogs to protect the plover. However, it could have been undertaken
at any time. A comparative study is designed to remove one variable in a situation at
a time, and observe the change, ifany. An initial period of observation would
document the presence of predators (ravens) and their numbers, as well as the
frequency of harassment/disturbance from all sources absent any management
action. Next, the predators (ravens) being the most serious source of potential
disturbance/harassment are removed as much as possible.
Concern ID:

30173
176

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

The parks own data (LE data and visitor use data) does not support
restricting/limiting/banning dogs at GGNRA sites because the data do not present a
real issue or the issues are very small as a result of dogs at the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1510
Comment ID: 191427
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Your own data do not support your claim that off leash
dogs represent a safety concern and are a threat to non-dog people. From 20012006, the latest years for which data is available, there were only a total of 2,865
pet-related incidents recorded by the GGNRA; this is out of 226 MILLION dog
visits during the same period. Clearly either dogs are not a problem or you are
unable to enforce existing laws.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192040
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: iii)The DEIS provides no support for a significant impact
on visitor and employee safety from dog walking as indicated by the following:
- An extremely small amount of Law Enforcement (LE) time is currently devoted to
dog management issues. The DEIS states (p. 283)that "Approximately 1 percent of
LE (law enforcement) time is devoted to dog management- related issues." If dog
walking is such a major issue for visitor and employee safety as suggested in the
Need for Action, why is law enforcement only spending one percent of its time on
dog management issues?
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

To illustrate effort devoted by LE to pet related issues, the DEIS provides statistics
on incidents and case reports related to dogs and visitors during 2007-2008 in table
9 provided in Appendix G. The data in this table reflect the heavy emphasis on leash
law enforcement with over 70% of the 2,424 incidents defined as a leash law
violation. In contrast, only 9% of the incidents reflected violations for serious
infractions such as dog attacks/bites (2%), disturbing wildlife (2%), and hazardous
conditions/pet rescue ( 5 %). Moreover, over one third of the incidents recorded in
Table 9 were based on reports from the public, not on incidents where park service
personnel were present at the time of the alleged violation. With only 1% of LE
time devoted to dog management issues and with 70% of that time devoted to leash
law violations, the portion of LE time devoted to health and safety issues for visitors
and and employees related to dogs (as well as wildlife disturbance) is less than three
tenths of one percent.
Corr. ID: 3120
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203753
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am extraordinarily disappointed with NPS proposed
preferred alternative for the Golden Gate Parks National Recreation Area's dog
policy.
The DEIS treats recreation in GGNRA as an adverse impact, despite the fact that
GGNRA is a mandated recreation area, and not exclusively for conservation. DEIS
must include an evaluation of the benefits of recreation.
The NPS' DEIS frequently misrepresents proven science in pursuit of its over-broad
regulatory agenda. For example, the DEIS frequently cites potential problems with
off-leash dogs that "could" or "might" happen - even though there are no document
examples of these issues in the 30+ years of the existing off-leash rules. Claims of
impacts on bank swallows are unsubstantiated, and in fact run counter to 1996
GGNRA findings by Nola Chow that dogs do not impact the swallows (for reasons
unclear, this particular report was excluded from the DEIS). The DEIS asserting that
off-leash dogs represent a safety issue is woefully unsubstantiated. According to the
official incident reports on file with GGNRA, less than 2% of reported safety and
security issues in GGNRA are dog related, averaging 2 incidents per 1.3 million
177

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

visits. But with 98% of security and safety issues coming as a result of human
behavior, off-leash dogs are not the issue NPS needs to focus its resources on to
make visiting GGNRA a safer and more pleasurable experience.
The DEIS unfairly discriminates against responsible owners of well-behaved and
socialized dogs by designating limitations on GGNRA use for ALL dogs based on
the argument that something "might" or "could" happen.
Finally, banning off-leash (and in some cases on-leash) dogs from parts of GGNRA
is an extreme step, ignoring potential incremental steps such as additional signage,
warnings about habitat, natural barriers (such as vegetation near cliffs). GGNRA
could, for example, require special permitting for off-leash animals on order to
better track their conduct. Signs warning owners to respect specific areas during
specific seasons would undoubtedly be well respected (especially given NPS'
demonstrated willingness to unilaterally remove areas from access).
Corr. ID: 3595
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203694
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Snowy Plovers: Your own research - Forrest Cassidy St
Clair and Warren all demonstrate that dogs do not actually impact the diversity,
abundance and feeding behavior of the birds. The Hatch report observed 5692 dogs
and only 19 chased plovers. Your own studies prove that parents with toddlers,
surfers and other park users disturbed the plovers far more than dogs, yet I do not
see anything in the DEIS that is further restricting their access. Why are dogs being
singled out? Your environmental impacts are a whole bunch of "could occur" "may
occur" but I do not see a single study that backs this up. You mention Bank
swallows, and their nests, but they burrow in the cliffs, areas that dogs simply do
not go to. . Ultimately your environmental studies do not seem to support your
conclusions and you can be taken to task on this. I have tried to read the DEIS but I
have failed to come across any actual solid scientific data that supports your
premises. I see a lot of "coulds" and "mays" but no actual evidence an no baselines None. In fact, the one study I did read in full - the one above - demonstrated exactly
the contrary to the "results you would have preferred. You had all the time to back
up your claims with hard data. The fact is you have not been willing to do s discrediting the scientific basis of this DEIS, or, worse still, the data contradicted
your preferred solutions, and you have chosen to ignore it. I could not find an
comparative analysis of the "No Action" option. The impacts appear based on on
non-compliance to existing voice control and existing regulations. At some sites, the
DEIS prohibits dogs from beach areas to protect shorebirds and stranded marine
mammals, yet there is no documentation in the DEIS of current shorebird or marine
mammal impacts caused by dogs.
· So if you have no sound scientific data to support the environmental reason to
restrict areas to dogs let's look at the safety issue. Well in this case your data is
overwhelming in pointing to what are the causes of serious safety incidents - 98%
DID NOT INVOLVE DOGS. The problem is people, not dogs. Only 2% involve
dogs. This alone should really force you to re-think the whole reason for the DEIS.
Corr. ID: 4069
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207660
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS suggests that compliance with current dog
regulations is poor, but the document doesn't place the number of documented
incidences of noncompliance in context with the total number of visits by dogs. On
any given weekend day at Crissy Field, I would estimate around 700 dogs visit the
area. The DEIS lists around 250 leash law violations over a one-year period at
Crissy Field, which in the context of tens of thousands of dog visits over that same
period seems extremely low. However, the DEIS uses these incomplete statistics
178

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

about noncompliance to justify the implementation of the compliance-based
management strategy if compliance with new regulations falls below 75%.
Corr. ID: 4660
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209834
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The adverse impact statements claimed in the DEIS are
arbitrary and subjective, even if one doesn't consider the cumulative impacts on
Public Safety (e.g., dog behavior, other adjacent lands, health benefits, responsible
dog guardianship, etc.) with not clear explanation for the differences (e.g., number
of past incidents, number of visitors, etc.) Below is a table showing the highest level
impact claimed in the DEIS in Table 5. For example, there seems no justification for
listing Milagra Ridge and Pedro Point as Minor while Sweeney Ridge and Mori
Point are negligible. In fact, even using the questionable numbers on page 271, no
location other than Stinson Beach and Fort Funston have more than ten combined
dog "bite/attacks" and hazardous condition incidents. In reality, only Fort Funston
and Ocean Beach, with more than 2,000 average daily visits, had any serious
incidents in 2007 or 2008 on the trails or on the beach.
30175
The DEIS did not adequately analyze that allowing dogs in smaller areas would
condense/concentrate impacts compared to if impacts were spread out over an entire
area (like current dog regulations) minimal effects would occur.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1510
Comment ID: 191434
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: You suggest that dogs damage the environment, and that
can be true. However, you should consider that much of the current off-leash areas
at Fort Funston and Crissy Field are paved. It really doesn't help the environment
much to restrict dogs in those areas. In fact, if dogs are all concentrated into small
areas the damage will be greater than if the dogs are allowed to spread out. Fort
Funston and Ocean Beach are not pristine areas anyway.
Corr. ID: 1893
Organization: University of San Francisco
Comment ID: 200617
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Along those lines, these proposed changes may very well
end up creating some of the very problems that the dog management plan is
purportedly seeking to avoid. Again and again in the environmental field, we see
this same story- that when spread over a large space, an impact can have very
minimal effects, but when concentrated on a single area, the effects may overwhelm
the local ecosystem. There are very few open spaces where dogs are allowed along
the Peninsula. Sweeney Ridge is one of them. But the preferred plan concentrates
dogs to a very small area of Cattle Hill. So if all of the dogs that are currently spread
out over the entire area suddenly condense into a single spot, what will those
impacts be?
Corr. ID: 2328
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201933
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have spent time reading the GGNRA DOG DEIS and I
am concerned about the tone of the report. It's not really a process for finding a way
to provide a variety of high-quality visitor uses including areas where dogs are
allowed or a way to discuss how to offer national park experiences to a large urban
population.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Instead, the report seems to discourage cooperation between different park users and
it fails to imagine that park user groups can work together to resolve problems when
they come up. Instead, it could actually increase conflict between park users as
179

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

more and more people and dogs are crammed into smaller and smaller spaces.
Corr. ID: 4091
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208403
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The other development since the CF EA, not yet analyzed
in the draft Plan/DEIS, is the increased frequency and intensity of special events and
some increased recreational uses. Rather than reducing off leash recreation from
approximately 70 acres to Crissy Field now to approximately 20 acres of Crissy
Field under the draft Plan - effectively assuring conflicts by concentrating use and
therefore setting up a complete ban - the impacts of these uses should be examined
in the framework of the CF EA to formulate a fair and balanced plan.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30177
Commenters believe the adverse impacts of on-leash and off-leash dogs is being
underestimated in the DEIS or that dogs significantly affect the environment.
Corr. ID: 2284
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society and
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Comment ID: 201155
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In my experience, the negative impact of off-leash and
even-on leash dogs is being vastly underestimated. No matter what the leash laws
are, it seems people won't obey them. So, at a minimum any off-leash areas need to
be fenced, to clearly demarcate the approved off-leash areas. There must be no
confusion.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30178
Commenters do not agree with the blanket assumption that non-compliance will
result in adverse impacts to the environment.
Corr. ID: 3737
Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204263
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Non-compliance does not equal negative impacts - The
DEIS assumes that non-compliance with leash restrictions means there are negative
impacts on environment by dogs. Yet there is no evidence that impacts actually
happen. DEIS has to re-evaluate that assumption and must base any conclusion on
actual documented impacts.
Corr. ID: 4068
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207650
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The analysis of the "No Action" alternative assumes
essentially total noncompliance with current regulations, whereas the analysis of the
other four alternatives assumes the opposite¬-extensive compliance with the new
regulations. The "No Action" alternative analysis also assumes that noncompliance
with current regulations results in significant damage to the sites despite a lack of
scientific documentation establishing this fact. This unequal analysis of the
proposed alternatives creates a bias against the "No Action" alternative since the
assumption of compliance for the other alternatives guarantees they will always
have a lower impact on the area.

30671
Commenters think that some of the environmental impacts (water quality and soil)
as a result of dogs are overstated and/or they do not agree with the impacts stated in
the DEIS (specifically that dogs do not create erosion problems or fecal
contamination).
Organization: none
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 420
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

180

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

Comment ID: 181603
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: You talk about "fear of dog bites," yet offer no evidence
that this is a problem. While you talk about environmental concerns with dog waste
there again there is no evidence that dog waste is polluting the waters of the state,
and in fact if DNA were done, I think you would likely find the pollution, if any,
would be from people and birds.
Corr. ID: 1280
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195007
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The document does not explain why the latter substudy
contradicts the former reports. The document fails to show the evidence that
substudy provided and how that evidence was collected. The document fails to
analyze the impact of other sources of pollution, like the sewage treatment plant at
Fort Funston, garbage from people thrown on the beach, horse manure, oil spills in
the bay, chemical pollution from runoffs from creeks and rivers, and the dead seals,
fish, and seagulls left to rot on the beach by GGNRA. The document should analyze
the effect of all this contamination on swimmers, children wading, and surfers, and
explain why GGNRA has not issued warnings or restrictions against being in
polluted waters, if, in fact, the waters are polluted. It seems like the GGNRA is
manufacturing excuses to ban off-leash dogs from the mere 1% of the parks they
now enjoy. The charge that dog feces are polluting the ocean is very disingenuous
indeed, and give rise to distrust in me of GGNRA and its motives.
Corr. ID: 2201
Organization: Little Fluffy Clouds
Comment ID: 200704
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. Dogs do not have a negative impact on the environment.
I feel strongly that the singling out of dogs as the perpetrators of soil erosion and
damage on NPS land is absurdly overstated. They no more erode the land and
arguably do less damage than the daily sightings of hikers, casual walkers, horses,
mountain bikers or fishermen
Corr. ID: 4064
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207629
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Another weakness of the DEIS is the failure to prove that
any documented negative impacts on the area are due specifically to dogs. Because
site-specific studies of GGNRA lands do not exist, there is no way to determine the
extent of any negative impacts or to distinguish between impacts from dogs or
humans. For instance, the DEIS refers to erosion as a major concern at Fort Funston
and cites digging and climbing on cliffs by dogs as the cause. However, I have
frequently seen adults and children climbing up the coastal cliffs at Fort Funston
and, surely, dogs are not responsible for the graffiti that can be seen carved into the
cliffs. I have also witnessed people walking on the dunes at the southern end of the
Fort Funston beach and using paths other than the sand ladder to travel between the
upper section of Fort Funston and the beach. This behavior must significantly
contribute to erosion at the site, but no reference to human impacts on Fort Funston
are mentioned in the DEIS. Also, the DEIS states that after certain areas of Fort
Funston were restricted to dogs, an increase in bird presence was documented. This
is cited as an example of a negative consequence of allowing dogs at Fort Funston.
However, this land closure also prevented human access to these areas, which
should also be considered when drawing any conclusions about impacts to wildlife.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

31406
The DEIS does not adequately discuss impacts to species of special concern; by
focusing only on species listed under Federal and State ESA lists, the DEIS misses
impacts on non-ESA species of concern.

181

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3149
Comment ID: 203978
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Species of Concern - The DEIS does not fully describe the
sensitivity of some habitat areas including Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. The plan
considers species listed under the Federal and State ESA's but does not sufficiently
describe non-ESA species of concern as listed by the IUCN, the American Bird
Conservancy, National Audubon, and locally known species of concern. Species of
local concern include:
Allen's Hummingbird
Black Turnstone
Brant
Bryant's Savannah Sparrow
Burrowing Owl
California Thrasher
California Quail
Clarks Grebe
Elegant Tern
Heermann's Gull
Hermit Warbler
Loggerhead Shrike
Long-billed Curlew
Long-eared Owl
Marbled Godwit
Northern Harrier
Nuttall's White-crowned Sparrow
Nuttall's Woodpecker
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Pelagic Cormorant
Red Knot
Sanderling
San Francisco Common Yellowthroat
Short-billed Dowitcher
Snowy Plover
Surfbird
Thayer's Gull
Tricolored Blackbird
Varied Thrush
Wandering Tattler
Western Sandpiper
Whimbrel
Wrentit
Yellow Warbler
31409
Law Enforcement data provided does not really show the true numbers of
violations, as many incidents go unreported. There should be some estimate of the
number of total violations in the DEIS.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3149
Comment ID: 203979
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The EIS should estimate the actual number of incidents that
occur within the GGNRA. Table 6 (p. 230) indicates the recorded incidents
involving dogs in 2007 and 2008. It is stated that these numbers of incidents of
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

182

GA3000 – Impact Analysis: General Methodology for Establishing Impacts/Effects

visitors not complying with dog walking regulations is not equal to the number of
actual violations occurring at the park. Being that many violations occur which are
not observed or un-reported, some estimate of the total amount of violations should
be included in the EIS such that each documented violation would be representative
of a certain amount of actual violations.
31415
The importance of special status species populations in the GGNRA to the recovery
of the species overall needs to be provided in the DEIS. Impacts should be based on
impacts to the recovery of the species, not the localized population.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3945
Comment ID: 227101
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fully disclosed the significance of the GGNRA protected
species population to the recovery of the species and only reduce recreation if the
recreation is proven to significantly impact the recovery of the species and other
less extreme management changes are not available.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

31740
Findings on dogs chasing snowy plovers (presented in appendix G) are often
inaccurate and are actually accounts of dogs chasing other species that are not
endangered.
Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4678
Comment ID: 227518
Organization Type: Civic Groups
Representative Quote: Many of the findings in the Draft Plan/DEIS are founded
on a reference included in the document as Appendix G, "Law Enforcement Data"
(NPS 2oo8c). This reference document is critically deficient in substantiating
statements made in the characterization of existing conditions and in the analysis of
the environmental consequences. For example, an entry is as follows: "observed a
black dog chasing aflock of14 snowy plovers. I observed the dog chasing the
birdsfrom the water to the dunes and up and down the beachfor several hundred
meters north and south. The dog would charge at the birds and the Plovers wouldfly
awayfrom the dog. Each time the Plovers would attempt to land, the dog would
charge directly at them and cause them to takeflight again. I watched this happenfor
continuallyfor eight minutes timed by my watchfrom 1150 to 1158 hours. Then the
dog stopped chasing the Plovers and wandered in the hilly dunes to the northfor
several minutes. The dog then returned to chasing the Snowy Ploversfor afew
minutes more ... After the dog ceased chasing the Plovers, they stopped taking flight
and started feeding at the water line." Clearly, if this dog was chasing plovers, they
would not have returned to feeding at the water line after the chase was over.
Plovers feed at the high tide line when the water has already retreated. These were
sanderlings, birds that appear almost identical to the plover, are plentiful at Ocean
Beach (not threatened or endangered) and can be differentiated by different feeding
patterns and different resting patterns.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

GA4000 - Impact Analysis: Impairment Analysis-General Methodology
There were no comments for GA4000

GC1000 - Off-leash dogs: Support
183

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

29633
Off-leash dog activity results in better-behaved dogs, and provides meaningful
exercise and social interaction for both dogs and their owners. Off-leash dog
walking is essential to the health of many park visitors, particularly elderly and
disabled visitors. Dogs that do not receive daily exercise and socialization have
potential behavioral issues.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 222
Comment ID: 180696
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Off leash allowance encourages proper training and
socialization of dogs. It affords greater physical and emotional health of dogs and
their owners. And it therefore contributes to a better overall society.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Please support the happiness and health of our community by allowing dogs to be
off leash.
Corr. ID: 351
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181126
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: He also needs to play with other dogs to socialize and greet
other dogs naturally, which requires being off leash. It would be impractical to have
him on a leash.
On another note, dog owners are motivated to exercise with their dog, which
improves the health of the owner and creates a higher quality of life for the owner
as well as the dog.
Corr. ID: 729
Organization: San Francisco Resident
Comment ID: 182728
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not move forward with the proposal to limit the
off-leash accessible areas in California.
As a respectful dog owner who strives to provide a healthy, satisfying life for my
animal, I urge the National Park Service not to restrict off-leash dog areas in
California. In addition to the positive effects they have on the physical quality of
life of the animals and their owners, the area's off-leash dog parks strengthen the
community by uniting residents in a casual, social setting that encourages
interaction and dialog.
Corr. ID: 1203
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194831
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Health of our Canine Friends: Dogs, especially in the
City, absolutely need a place to playfully engage with each other and enhance their
socialization skills. Dogs on leash are more aggressive than those off leash. On
leash dogs cannot run, catch, play, scamper, visit each other in a healthy canine
manner. They become frustrated; they bark; they have no way to expend the vast
amount of energy that they generate. As a result of your proposed plan, dogs in the
city and likely in suburban areas as well, are much more likely to be less than
model citizens.
Corr. ID: 1433
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195620
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Their exercise is essential to their mental and physical
health. On leash and free play in dog parks are great benefits. But off leash walking
is at least as important for their development and good health.
Like their owners, dogs require daily exercise and socialization for good mental
and
184

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

physical health. This cannot be achieved inside a house or apartment or, for most
dogs, on a leash or in an enclosed dog pen.
Corr. ID: 1695
Organization: The Pooch Coach, LLC
Comment ID: 191108
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs need off-leash recreation to remain socialized +
allow for proper exercise. Without this ability, the dogs will be undersocialized and
under exercised, thereby possibly leading to potential issues with their behavior +
health.
Corr. ID: 1730
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191186
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Some days I am in so much pain I don't think I can get out
of bed but I know my dog has to run. She has kept me going for 3 years now. I
know many people with walkers and canes that would be dead today if not for
being able to take their dogs off leash. I see them in the rain walking with their
dogs.
Corr. ID: 3580
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203635
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to you about the Dog Management Program.
As a dog owner and resident in San Francisco, I am very disappointed to hear about
these pending changes. I am greatly concerned that you have not consider the
impact to human and dog well being. My understanding is that GGNRA has a
recreation mandate. I spend much of my free time enjoying the off-leash parks with
my dog Argos. Being able to bring my dog contributes greatly to my ability to
enjoy the parks. Furthermore, since we live in a city, it is hard for my dog to get
adequate exercise as it is. Without off leash dog parks available to us, he would not
get much exercise at all. There is much research on the psychological and physical
benefits to dog ownership; two articles in the New York Times recently highlighted
this research. Dog owners are less likely to be overweight and have cardiovascular
diseases because while walking their dogs, they get exercise themselves. More and
more hospitals and senior citizens centers are utilizing dog therapy. Speaking
personally, my husband adopted our dog to help me copy with a personal tragedy. I
particularly enjoy taking Argos on off-leash walks where we can play fetch. The
time we spend together at these parks are our happiest moments together.
29634
Off-leash dog recreation reduces conflicts and aggression between dogs. Forcing
off-leash dog recreation into smaller spaces would result in an increase in conflicts
between dogs, as well as incidents between dogs and humans.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1019
Comment ID: 191788
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned about the upcoming vote to take place
on April 14 concerning on/off leash dog areas in GGNRA. To take the off leash
option away would change a lovely, unique culture that is not harming anyone.
Dogs off lead are better behaved, dogs that are exercised are better behaved and
dogs socialized are better behaved, and not in a closed in area, but where they can
run and play without being confined.
Corr. ID: 1781
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200275
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: By preventing off-leash socialization you will be
worsening the very problem you're attempting to correct, in effect hurting public
safety. It is absolutely essential that dog owners are able to congregate to let their
dogs exercise and play so they do not become reactive and aggressive. If we close
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

185

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

the national parks in the city to these activities, where will the dog owners go?
There are other parks but these restrictions will increase the number of dogs at
those parks and create overcrowding which will result in dogs not getting outdoors
as often which means the dogs in the community will be less socialized and
therefore more reactive and aggressive.
Corr. ID: 1803
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191664
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 9) Off-leash play decreases the likelihood of dog
aggression in dogs. In comments to the SF Animal Control and Welfare
Commission on 2/8/07, Jean Donaldson, then head of the Dog Training Program at
the Sly/SPCA and a nationally recognized author on dog behavior said: "There is
not only no evidence that allowing dogs off-leash for play opportunities increases
the incidence of aggression, to a person, every reputable expert in the field of dog
behavior in the United States is of the opinion that it is likely that off-leash access
decreases the likelihood. of aggression." She also said: "Interestingly, it could very
well be that the safest dogs are those that attend off-leash dog parks." And she said:
"There is no research demonstrating that dog parks or off-leash play contributes to
any kind of aggression, including dog-dog aggression."
10) A well-exercised dog is a well-behaved dog. Dogs that are not adequately
exercised can develop behavior problems such as barking, destroying property in
the home, etc. Behavior problems are one of the primary reasons that people
surrender dogs at shelters. San Francisco has a "No Kill" goal that no potentially
adoptable animal in a city shelter (SI' Animal Care and Control, SF/SPCA, Pets
'Unlimited). Representatives of the SF/SPCA have said that the Preferred
Alternative will make it harder for the SF/SPCA to perform their mission to reduce
surrenders to city shelters and make San Francisco a truly No Kill city.
Corr. ID: 2338
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202162
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please find a way to continue off leash open space. Part of
the reason it works is because the space is so large. Dogs of different temprements
or sizes can find their own place to be. Most socialogical studies show that
crowding causes conflict in most any species. Your extreme proposal will cause
crowding in the small remaining area. I am fearful that conflict will arise where
nearly none existed before.
Corr. ID: 3674
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204762
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS fails to consider that the GGNRA is the
front/back yard for a large metropolitan area. The fundamental purpose of creating
the GGNRA was to provide open space for recreation (including dog walking as a
form of recreation) for residents of the Bay Area. NEPA requires evaluation of
impacts on the "human environment", but the DEIS fails to do so by failing to
adequately address how the proposal affects "recreational" values for these local
residents. I believe off-leash recreation is extremely important for dogs. Not only
does it reduce problems between dogs, but it also helps foster happy, well-adjusted
dogs, who don't cause problems with people. Living in an area of Oakland with
very limited access to off-leash recreation, I see the difference between dogs where
I live now, and dogs where i used to live in San Francisco. They aren't socialized as
well. Dogs need to spend time off-leash, recreating with other dogs.
Corr. ID: 3715
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202264
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is not only no evidence that allowing dogs off-leash
for play opportunities increases the incidence of aggression, to a person every
186

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

reputable expert in the field of dog behavior in the United States is of the opinion
that it is likely that off-leash access decreases the likelihood of aggression.
There is no research demonstrating that dog parks or off-leash play contributes to
any kind of aggression, including dog-dog aggression. It was brought to my
attention a couple of months ago, that claims were being made that such research
existed. And so I did an exhaustive literature search as well as consulting at length
numerous colleagues in dog behavior in the United States. All were amazed at the
suggestion in view of no such research.
Trish King, my counterpart at the Marin Humane Society, has been publicly quoted
several times as having authored research concluding off-leash play contributes to
aggression. I spoke to her at length about this and we corresponded in the last
couple of weeks. She has not performed or published such research. She is
furthermore, and I quote, "mortified", unquote, that anyone would suggest or imply
that. She believes off-leash access, if anything, prevents aggression.
Corr. ID: 4538
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209704
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I know for certain that restricting off-leash access for dogs
will not only have a major impact on dog behavior it will have a major negative
impact on local dog parks. I live just 1-1/2 blocks from Duboce Park and prefer not
to take my dogs there because I feel now it's often overcrowded'limiting off-leash
access will only make this and other neighborhood parks worse.
29635
Some commenters expressed that they would be unable to provide their dogs the
necessary exercise on-leash . Dogs off-leash are able to run much more, and if they
were on-leash they would be restricted to the fitness requirements of their walker.
Off-leash dog walking is needed a needed practice, and should be supported.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 391
Comment ID: 181179
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have a 3 year old lab who loves to run and chase a ball.
We find this exercise impossible while attached to a leash. Just as humans need
exercise, so do dogs. Please keep responsible dog owners within the rights to run
their dogs.
Corr. ID: 629
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181319
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Almost equally important is the benefit to humans of
walking their dogs outside, and allowing those dogs to get real exercise by running
around off-leash. It does not provide enough exercise to most dogs to be walked
on-leash all the time.
Corr. ID: 2910
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202714
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep GGNRA open to voice control dogs. Dogs
need to exercise and just can not get enough exercise on a leash. I can walk or run
with my dog 6-8 miles a day and it is not enough for him. When he is off the leash,
he can chase a ball, run around with other dogs (good for socialization), and run
circles around me. So if I walk 6-8 miles he is getting at least twice that from
running around me. GGNRA voice control areas allow dogs and their owners to
exercise together. I understand there are some irresposible dog owners but please
do not let that ruin it for the majority of responsible dog owners. Also, there are so
few places that do allow dogs off leash, please do not reduce it more.
Corr. ID: 3179
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203754
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

187

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

Representative Quote: I think that this plan to close so much of the GGNRA to
off-leash dogs and their human companions is basically a huge, complicated
solution to not much of (if any) a problem.
As a weekend visitor to Crissy Field and Fort Funston, I am there at peak times and
I have never witnessed any sort of problem with dogs attacking or hurting people.
On the contrary, the dogs I see are in heaven: getting exercise, socializing with
other dogs and having a marvelous time. Also, their owners are talking with other
dog owners, making pleasant conversation, relaxing and getting exercise. There is
so little total acreage that is accessible to humans with their off-leash dogs in the
park as it is.
Off-leash exercise is a must for many dog breeds. They simply must have off-leash
exercise. My husband jogs with our Brittany regularly, but he can't possible run fast
enough or long enough to exhaust our dog. Dogs who do not get regular, quality
exercise are more aggressive and just plain cranky. They also bark more --a real
nuisance in crowded urban areas like the Bay Area.
I think this plan will overload the off-leash areas in San Francisco and Oakland.
I think this plan with its draconian restrictions will only serve to encourage
scofflaws and add to the resentment. I think that it will result in a lot of
confrontation and ill will. I would not want to be a park ranger trying to enforce
this!
Corr. ID: 3183
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203757
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs need to run! There are very few places left that allow
off leash exercise. For people such as myself, who are too old to run with their
animals, the beach is the best environment for this activity. I am fortunate to have
the ability to take my dogs to the private stretch of Stenson Beach once a week for
some much appreciated ball chasing in the ocean. Most of the people I have
encountered while participating in this activity genuinely enjoy watching my dogs
play in the surf. I have a leash with me at all times and clean up after my dogs. The
beach is actually one of the few places where people are pretty consistent about
cleaning up after their dogs and keeping their dogs under control. I am personally a
little tired of the attitude that all dogs must be leashed because a few may cause a
problem. By all means, if someone is allowing their animal to behave
inappropriately ticket them. Allow the remainder (the majority) to enjoy the beach
environment with their dogs off leash. It's basically one of the last frontiers of off
leash activity. What better place to enjoy that activity but in our National Park
System.
29636
Off-leash areas in the GGNRA provide important space for recreation, which can
be difficult to find in the Bay Area. This is especially important given the large
number of dogs in San Francisco and the surrounding areas that require off-leash
exercise.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 195
Comment ID: 182307
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep the parks open and accessible to dogs and
people who and care for them. So little of the city has space for dogs as it is, to
further limit the spaces available for dogs to run and play would be a tragic loss of
my rights as a dog owner and citizen of the county and state.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

188

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

Corr. ID: 1757
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191491
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I appreciate the reasoning behind some of the
proposed changes, I believe that we still need to keep a balance of leisure activities
with our pets. There are limited areas in the San Francisco area where we can take
our pets and enjoy some off-leash play with them and I'm concerned about further
removing access to these areas. There are better ways to mitigating some of the
concerns for which the plan was created: fines for not picking up dog waste, clearly
delineated on-leash and off-leash areas where park visitors can choose their setting,
more fenced-in dog play areas to protect wild life, etc.
Corr. ID: 1971
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200343
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel strongly that the GGNRA lands that currently allow
dogs should not be further restricted.San Francisco community has been a leader in
advocating animal welfare and the human-animal bond, and taking away access to
these areas would certainly have a negative impact. Because this is an urban area,
there are very limited recreational areas where we can actively enjoy the outdoors
and get the physical exercise we need.There are too few parks in the city and local
Bay Area and the dog accessible and off-leash open areas are even more restricted.
Corr. ID: 3225
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202624
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We need somewhere to go off leash. There is a way to
make this work without entirely closing these areas off to the dogs off leash. There
are so many dogs and so many dog owners in this City, that if you eliminate off
leash areas, you are not servicing a critical need and significant population of the
City/State/US residents of San Francisco, Marin County, San Mateo County and
EastBay visitors (who come into the City to walk their dogs off-leash in these
beautiful areas of the City).
Corr. ID: 3712
Organization: Private citizen
Comment ID: 202253
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As an owner of multiple dogs, the ability to take my dogs
to hiking trails and beaches legally is something that has become an intrinsic part of
our lives. It is something that we do on a weekly basis, as long as weather permits.
These outings are so much a part of what makes the bay area a such a special and
wonderful place to live for both people and their dogs. Both dogs and their
companions hike, and relax. This fosters easy-going, happy and relaxed states of
mind that in turn is also passed along to the community in the form of our
interactions with each other. We are responsible dog owners who make sure that
our dogs are well-behaved, free of disease and we always have poop bags on hand.
There are already so many parts of the GGNRA where dogs are prohibited. I feel
that this new dog plan is another way to slowly eliminate dogs from the GGNRA
altogether. That will force dog owners to either use the parks and trails illegally or
have to stay on city streets which are already congested and not a place for
recreation.
A study by National Geographic showed that there are more dogs in San Francisco
than children under 18 years of age. All of these people and families need places to
go and hike and run.
Please don't take away the few places left that responsible dog owners can take
their dogs off-leash
Concern ID:
CONCERN

29637
Regardless of whether you own a dog or not, it is pleasurable to watch dogs
189

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

running free. Many people cited this as a source of joy within their experience in
the GGNRA. Dogs, particularly off-leash dogs, are part of the identity of the city.
Organization: None
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 301
Comment ID: 181039
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm not a dog owner, nor lover, but I LIKE the dogs
running around Crissy Field and the East Beach, Presidio, SF. The owner's are
responsible, clean up is diligent. I'm a native. My wife and I walk to the bridge
every weekend we're in town and have at least a decade before the Haas built the
promenade. It's a beautiful, wonderful area. Let the dogs alone.
Corr. ID: 898
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191248
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been in these areas many, many times, and found
immense joy in the dogs on the beach. I have seen responsible pet owners pick up
after their pets, and show people how to interact with them. I have never ever seen
any bad behaivor that was not swiftly taken care of, and I have rarely even seen any
bad behaivor. this area needs to remain off leash as one of the few areas like this for
dogs to have this sort of recreation.
Corr. ID: 1184
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193562
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am an amateur bird watcher. I do not have a dog. And I
support allowing dogs to have off-leash areas. I believe that if you post signs saying
"Caution: Dogs Cannot Chase Wildlife or the Off Leash Status Will Be Revoked".
Peer pressure will be far more effective than issuing tickets to stop errant behavior.
STATEMENT:

Having numerous off-leash areas for dog recreation is important for both humans
and dogs. Both get to socialize and exercise in a healthy manner. At off-leash areas
it is remarkable on how fit both the dogs and the owners are at all ages. Please do
not let a few sour grapes ruin the passion of so many.
Currently, I get to visit the dogs off-leash which has brought me great joy as I bird
watch. There is plenty of room for birds and well behaved dogs.
Corr. ID: 3230
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202677
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Although I agree that wildlife needs to be protected there
is no evidence that dogs are harmful or endanger these bird. I would say that most
dog lovers are also lovers of all animals both domestic and wild and would not like
to see any harmed. For years there has been an are curtained off for the Snowy
Plovers and I know that while most dogs are of leash the owners make sure they do
not go onto the protected area.
Protecting wildlife and allowing dogs off leash is not mutually exclusive, both can
occur. Allowing off leash dog areas is beneficial to humans, it provides great joy to
see your dog run after a ball, it is motivation for me to walk with my dog. Walking
on leash is no where near as enjoyable. As city dwellers it is cruicial for our human
well being to have off leash dog areas particualry near and on the beaches.
Corr. ID: 3557
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203475
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Here in San Francisco, the dogs are very much part of, and
an indentifying characteristic of the community we live in. The City is an
incredibly dog friendly city, which in turn, makes it just a friendly city. Our dog
doesn't run off leash as he has never really mastered the coming back part and has
one too many times swum out farther than his ability-but that doesn't stop us from
enjoying the area or relishing in the pure joy you see on the faces of these dogs
190

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

running free-in an urban oasis-and their people taking in the scene, talking to
friends and making new friends. I have a two year old daughter-and I can't even
begin to describe the joy she takes in watching the dogs play, swim, run and
"dance."
This is about the dogs, yes, but it's also about the people. I don't want to live
somewhere where joy is kept on a leash. It will permeate all aspects of our
community.
San Francisco is the last place in the country where I expected joy to be kept on a
leash. Life is hard enough-why would we take such action to take something away
as vital to our community?
Corr. ID: 4072
Organization: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Comment ID: 207760
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In areas where dogs are permitted off leash, both the dog
owners and the non-dog owners among us value the ability of dogs to run leashfree. Dogs are an essential part of the landscape at Crissy Field, Fort Funston, Muir
Beach, and other areas, and the draw of these places lies largely in the opportunity
to interact with and watch dogs enjoying the open space. I know from personal
experience with my golden retriever at Crissy Field and Fort Funston that many
people enjoy and appreciate the joy of a dog splashing through the ocean in pursuit
of a ball or stick.
29638
Off-leash dog walking does not have a detrimental impact on natural resources,
especially wildlife. Many justifications for removing areas with off-leash dog
walking are not validated, and a balance between resources and off-leash dogs can
be reached.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 334
Comment ID: 181101
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very aware of the need to preserve nesting space for
the Snowy Plover. I am a conservationist and work at The California Academy of
Science. My dog and I have respected the nesting area near the pier and never go
there off leash.
Dogs and their owners need space to run and enjoy the coastline. Many of the
reasons given for imposing leash laws, such as dog attacks to beachgoers and dog
walkers not being responsible for picking up, are not realistic and do not reflect the
what goes on at Chrissy Field each day.
San Francisco is known as a city that welcomes 'Life' in many ways and having the
space to let a dog run free should not be something one needs to forfeit when living
here.
Corr. ID: 387
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181175
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA should allow dogs off leash on its lands. As
long as the owners/walkers are responsible and voice control the dogs, the impact
on wildlife and other recreational users can be minimized.
Corr. ID: 1032
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191819
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am also a conservationist and have managed nature
centers in the bay area and run watershed awareness programs for Alameda
County. If I thought dogs were seriously endangering wildlife, I wouldn't advocate
for their off-leash privileges.
Corr. ID: 1518
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190677
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

191

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

Representative Quote: But I must say that it is over blown and to restrictive to
peoplpe who have lived - a life time in this area. I am a native and have enjoyed
this area since childhood. The native species have not been affected since that time.
The only adverse affect has been our failure to stop the onslaut of humans coming
in. I have exercised my dogs off leach in all these areas, and will continue.
I love Sharp Park Gold Course and have let my dog swim in the lagune for many
years and have not seen any reduction in the number of frogs or snakes.
Corr. ID: 1606
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190844
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a San Francisco dog owner and dog supporter, I cannot
agree w/ your proposed plan. Off-leash dog parks/areas are already difficult to
come by and there is NO reason to restrict them even further. Dogs for the most
part (grand majority) pose no threat to the habitat and outside visitors. It is
extremely rare to see an aggressive or un-controlled dog running off leash or even
being walked among other dogs on-leash.
29639
The parks should remain open to off-leash dog walking. This is important to those
visitors who enjoy utilizing the park with their dogs. There are plenty of areas for
those who do not enjoy dogs within the GGNRA and at other local parks. Off-leash
walking brings people in contact with nature, allowing them to learn about it want
to protect it.
Organization: Soceity Dogs
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 507
Comment ID: 181901
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep these areas so dogs can run around off leach.
A healthy dog needs to get its energy out and play just like kids and there are very
few safe places that you can take your dog to enjoy the outdoors and run as it is.
Corr. ID: 804
Organization: Sierra club
Comment ID: 186045
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One of the great pleasures of the GGNRA is the near
complete absence of regulation. It is a place where people are free to enjoy on of
the most beautiful places in the world with very little restriction.Keep the dogs free;
they are a pleasant addition to this beautiful park.
Corr. ID: 1032
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191821
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Bay Area is unique in the great gift we have in the
Regional Parks and National Recreation Areas. Part of this great gift is the
immense pleasure of being able to hike with one's dog in the off-leash areas of
these parks. If you reduce the off-leash access in these parks, you will be greatly
reducing the gift that the bay area gives her residents.
Corr. ID: 1099
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192280
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am one of the thousands of people who enjoy the off
leash areas in the Bay Area. I am there with my dog every possible opportunity I
get. To deprive us of this benefit to enjoy these open spaces would be an absolute
travesty. Please do not remove the opportunity for us to enjoy nature with our best
friends.
Corr. ID: 1296
Organization: representing herself
Comment ID: 195030
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a resident of the Bay Area for 27 years, I ask for
continue flexibility and inclusion in the regulations of the park - a hallmark of our
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

192

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

local culture.
Please do not restrict the use of the Park by private citizens and their dogs.
I oppose the decrease in off-leash areas in the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 1966
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200502
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please think long and hard about taking away off leash dog
use of national park land. The off leash dog parks in San Francisco are crowded
already, and if you take away use of these lands they will be much harder and more
expensive for city parks to maintain. Also the parks in the city are mostly unfenced
and are in high traffic areas, potentially hazardous for the dogs and automobile
traffic.
Corr. ID: 2050
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193304
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Visitors already have plenty of places to visit where dogs
aren't allowed. Can you just leave the dogs the little off-leash areas that they have
left?
Corr. ID: 2820
Organization: Sierra Club
Comment ID: 201128
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is part of responsible dog ownership to give one's dog
adequate exercise every day. For dogs any bigger than pint size, this means they
must be allowed to run off leash for part of that time. This is a simple need of the
animals. Anything short of this is not humane. It must be our job to assure that
there are places convenient to where people live where dogs can be exercised off
leash. Dog parks are not the answer.
Just as parks and recreation authorities need to be sensitive to the needs of the dogs,
so owners need to take responsibility for their dog's behavior. They must watch that
their dog doesn't get into an altercation with another dog, clean up after it, leash it
when near wildlife, and otherwise keep it on voice command when it is not on the
leash.
All of this is common sense and should not require expensive studies.
Corr. ID: 2990
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203738
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: San Francisco is a unique place and the beautiful areas
with off leash dogs are a wonderful thing. I am currently NOT a dog owner, but I
have found that the majority of the time the dog owners in the off leash areas are
very responsible for their dogs.
There are a lot of dogs in the city that need a place to run. There are absolutely not
enough viable places to do this if the new restrictions take place.
There are plenty of places where there are already leash laws in place... Please
allow dog owners and dog lovers to have the opportunity to continue to enjoy our
part of the park, the way we have been able to in the past.
Corr. ID: 3494
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203372
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Third, by restricting more GGNRA land to dogs and pet
owners you will place an incredible burden on existing San Francisco off-leash dog
areas, and give those of us living in San Mateo County fewer and fewer options for
taking care of our animals properly. Around one third of Bay Area residents own
dogs, and many of these dogs need daily off-leash exercise to avoid canine
193

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

behavioral problems. The more you make it difficult for busy people to exercise
their dogs, the more likely it is that these dogs will have behavioral problems and
end up in shelters. The alternative is to restrict dog ownership, especially ownership
of medium and large dogs, to wealthy people who can afford to own private land.
To provide sizable off leash access at places like Ft Funston is part of the mission
of GGNRA to provide for the needs of all Bay Area and San Mateo County
residents regardless of income and living situation. There are dozens and dozens of
parks and wildlife areas in the Bay Area and northern California that do not allow
dogs. We need the GGNRA to expand tiny percentage of dog-friendly parks and
trails, not restrict them further.
Corr. ID: 3786
Organization: Cayuga Improvement Association
Comment ID: 205540
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I really do think there is a way for people to enjoy the
GGNRA and to protect nature and to allow dogs off leash. I actually see allowing
dogs off leash is a way for people who would have resigned themselves to walking
their dogs on city streets or just going to a dog park to get out and see nature and
want to protect it. The more areas we open up to more people the more people will
see that open space and wildlife should be protected.
Corr. ID: 4453
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208498
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep the GGNRA open and available for off-leash
dog play so City dwellers can develop the love of nature required to support
environmental protection nationwide.
29641
There should be some areas open to off-leash dog walking. Removing these areas
will impact city parks and streets, and may result in increased noncompliance with
the regulations.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 819
Comment ID: 186082
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would be so upset if dogs were prohibited from being
off-leash in the GGNRA. Please do not close off these beautiful areas to our dogs
and create an unnecessary leash law.
Corr. ID: 1120
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192376
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am not a dog owner but I do not agree with this dog
management plan. I honestly don't see many dogs on city streets off leash currently
and if this plan goes through, I feel all that will change. I enjoy not having dogs
running free on city streets. And this is probably because most dogs in the city go
to the off leash dog areas like Funston and Chrissy Fields so dogs can run free and
safely away from traffic. I think if the off leash areas are limited and/or taken away,
there WILL be more dogs on and off leash walking on city streets.
Corr. ID: 1673
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191071
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not adopt a policy that prevents people & their
dogs from the freedom of walking without a leash. It is very important to consider
that not only are dogs benefiting from the freedom but people too.
Corr. ID: 1766
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191518
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned about the upcoming vote to take place
on April 14 concerning on/off leash dog areas in GGNRA. I am an avid walker and
take my dog to many of the areas that are under consideration. I love living in. SF
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

194

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

partly because of how friendly and open the spaces are. I watch regularly how dog
owners pick up litter as well as their dogs feces. We have happy dogs and people
living here and I think that is really special. To take the off leash option away
would change a lovely, unique culture that is not harming anyone.
Corr. ID: 1822
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191929
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We strongly disagree with GGNRA's potential banning of
off-leash dogs from the areas they are currently allowed. These places are the few
left in San Francisco and Marin where we can run our dogs to properly exercise
them. Well-exercised dogs are good citizens and good family members.
Corr. ID: 2253
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201010
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We need more off leash territories in the city of San
Francisco. Eliminating natural space for dogs to run around grass and sand, beach
and trees will only lead to more dogs being off-leash in areas that concerned parties
feel are safe as they are legally only on-leash. It is unreasonable to assume owners
will drive 30-40 minutes to areas outside the city for dogs to roam daily, and it is
also inhumane to expect dogs to be onleash at all times outside the home, excepting
within muddy, sandy small dogpark enclosures
Corr. ID: 3564
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203544
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been taking my canine companion, Ringo, to Fort
Funston for over four years. I and all my friends have been most respectful of this
area. And having dogs there makes it so much more of an interesting experience
than it would be otherwise. The area is beautiful and remains that way with humans
and dogs frequenting the area. It would be a great loss to SF should such areas be
inaccessible to off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 3610
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203996
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not take the Draconian move of banning dogs
from our public spaces. Dogs bring so much joy to lives - study after study shows
that people who own pets are happier and better adjusted. People who are out
walking their dogs are some of our most responsible, involved citizens: people who
love our beautiful Bay Area, care about wellness and health. The vast majority of
dog walkers are conscientious - don't punish everyone for the few that aren't.
Educate dog owners, enforce fines for the ones who misbehave, but don't just ban
everyone. I've lived here my whole life (half a century) and dog owners are far
more responsible and engaged than they were in the past. People's lives are tough
right now: don't take away a source of joy and happiness.
29642
Commenters supported off-leash dog walking, but believe it should be restricted in
certain areas for the protection of natural resources, particularly wildlife and
endangered species.
Organization: Golden Gate National Parks
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2394
Conservancy
Comment ID: 202360
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am both a strong supporter of the Golden Gate National
Parks Conservancy and a dog owner who enjoys some of the designated off-leash
areas of the GGNRA with my dogs. While I do not believe that we should put
endangered species at risk, I do believe that there is a way to regulate recreational
use that would provide designated off-leash areas that do not threaten wildlife
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

195

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

habitat and that a flat ban is an overreaction to the issue.
Corr. ID: 2505
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200723
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: WHILE I ENJOY ALLOWING MY DOGS TO GO OFF
LEASH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ALL AREAS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR
THAT ACTIVITY. IF WILDLIFE IS AT RISK THEN DOGS AND PEOPLE
MUST FIND OTHER AREAS TO ROAM FREELY
Corr. ID: 2538
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200777
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am speaking as a person who loves dogs and understands
that they need areas in which to run off-leash, but who also believes that such areas
must be created far away from wildlife, especially endangered species. Allowing
dogs to disturb wildlife and harm or destroy such wildlife's natural habitat is
unacceptable. I support banning off-leash dogs, and even on-leash dogs, in habitats
where their presence is a danger to native and/or endangered animals and plant life.
Corr. ID: 3322
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202927
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I understand the value of off-leash recreation areas for
dogs. I only ask that such areas be enclosed and located where is will not adversely
impact the habitat of endangered, threatened or candidate species. This allows dogs
to have an outlet for the exercise and socialization they need, and allows those
species (and other park users) to enjoy the park in their own ways that are equally
deserving of protection.
Corr. ID: 3382
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203126
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to share my comments on the off-leash policy.
I am a dog owner and love to let my dogs run when I can, but only in responsible
areas. Dogs should not be allowed access to harass wild life. This is the policy at
Pt. Reyes National park for example and it is a great rule. The park is calm,
beautiful and clean from pet messes. Pets are allowed in designated areas only.
Dogs should have restricted off-leash areas or a dog park that protect them from
wild life and more importantly the wild life from them. In addition, pet owners
often ignore their pet's behavior and messes in public areas. I speak from
experience here. Wild life and dogs don't mix. The primary goal should be to
protect wildlife and this can be accomplished very simply with a dog park area.
Corr. ID: 3921
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205723
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree we need some sort of reform. Seeing the animosity
arise in the city over this issue made me realize that its not working as well as it
could be.
I still strongly believe we need to maintain off leash dog walking areas for dogs
under voice control
Corr. ID: 4345
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209488
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I do indeed support wildlife and habitat
conservation, there also absolutely must be conservation of sufficient habitat for
dogs and their people to play off-leash. Multi¬use open space that includes offleash dog walking is compatible and sustainable with all other recreational uses and
with the preservation of habitat and wildlife within the GGNRA. The EIR
"preferred plan" simply fails to conserve sufficient habitat for the dogs to play offleash, the additional restrictions proposed lack common sense or factual support,
196

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

and ignore the GGNRA mandate to truly serve the wide-ranging Bay Area
community.

GC2000 - Off-leash dogs: Oppose
29750
Off-leash dogs have a negative impact on wildlife, particularly threatened and
endangered species, as well as on other natural and cultural resources. Many dog
owners allow their off-leash dogs to chase shorebirds, enter sensitive habitats,
trample plants, and dig.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 299
Comment ID: 181037
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to express my support for the proposed new
restrictions on off-leash dogs in the GGNRA. As as Sunset district San Francisco
resident, I see first hand the frequent abuse of the park by dog owners. Too many
owners allow their dogs to roam freely ( when supposedly under voice control or on
leash), chasing shorebirds and deficating freely.
Corr. ID: 953
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191563
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Further, the current off leash areas are getting totally
destroyed with dogs running off trail and digging up plants. Dog owners think it's
cute and not destructive. I have pointed it out to dog owners who do not respond
politely and do not stop their dog from destroying the park. Other dog owners even
come to the defence of the owner. And the few owners that do say they are sorry
and know that they are breaking the rules, will call their dogs and the dogs don't
respond. Then the person has to go off trail and chase after the unleashed dog.
There really should be no off leash areas for these reasons. So if you must appease
his unruly group, please have off leash areas completely fenced off.
Corr. ID: 1086
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192221
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Too often, dogs on leash end up off leash, with bad
consequences for native wildlife which have already lost much of their habitat.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Considering how humans have ruined so much habitat for wildlife, some sacrifices
are in order to keep natural areas natural. It's selfish for people to disregard the
needs of nature.
These are not city parks, but natural lands.
I used to run my dog on the beach when I was young and didn't know any better.
My dog and I had fun but she did chase birds. I wouldn't do that again.
There are some beaches where people can run their dogs off leash. It's only right
that birds have a bit of safe beach where they can feed, rest and raise their chicks.
Corr. ID: 2660
Organization: NPCA
Comment ID: 195437
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is wholly unreasonable for the park to continue to permit
unregulated activities that disturb wildlife like western snowy plovers and marine
mammals. Wildlife take refuge on Golden Gate's beaches to rest, breed, and rebuild
energy for survival; yet unregulated off-leash dog recreation in these areas has
resulted in habitat encroachment and wildlife harassment by dogs. As a telling
197

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

example, the park has reported that unleashed dogs represent the most significant
recreational threat to wintering western snowy plovers.
Corr. ID: 3271
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202803
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to protect the wildlife in and around the park,
and to ensure that offleash dogs do not continue to be the greatest peril to the
survival of park wildlife. I am a dog lover and "owner" of several companion
animals, but I would not think of allowing my dogs free reign in an area that is
fragile to begin with. I realize the protection and oversight of these areas may not
be a priority in light of current economic realities for the city, but it's imperative,
nonetheless. Once gone, these species will not be replaced.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
And I applaud you for limiting off-road access to these areas as well.
29751
Commenters felt that their health and safety had been threatened by off-leash dogs,
even if they liked dogs, as well as their experience at the park. They noted that
there was little response by dog owners to their concerns when threatened. Offleash dogs also result in more feces that are not seen by their owners, which can
have health and visitor experience impacts.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 306
Comment ID: 181049
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The sight of a large off-leash dog bounding toward me is
truly scary. I like dogs and I have owned dogs, but with a strange dog I do not
know what to expect and fear being knocked down or worse. Also, as a nature
lover, I deeply resent the damage that dogs do to bird and plant habitats. I can see
dogs on my city street any day; I go to GGNRA to see species that I cannot see at
home. These species have as much right to survive as do domestic pets. I am deeply
opposed to off-leash dogs in GGNRA and other public parks.
Corr. ID: 1049
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192130
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not understand the oft militant stance of many dog
owners-that their dogs must run free to properly exercise, and that they are not
prepared to compromise at a park that is visited by numerous tourists and
walkers/joggers like me, who have no dog, and want to just enjoy the beauty and
serenity of the park.
Corr. ID: 1305
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195042
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As an owner of an unruly, aggressive dog, I would LOVE
to see leash laws enacted and enforced. Too often we have bad encounters because
people have their dogs off leash. Enacting and enforcing a leash law will keep
everybody safe.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Also, off-leash dogs tend to run everywhere, thus disturbing wildlife and ruining
the plant life. We stay on trails to protect nature, so it stands to reason that our dogs
should too.
Corr. ID: 1964
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200493
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I wanted to send a letter of support for your decision to ban
dogs off leash in GGNRA. I support this because it will allow me to once again
enjoy the park without the harassment of dog mobs and dog owners. I have been
provoked twice by dog walkers with dog packs who treated me as if they owned the
198

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

park. Both times I simply made comments about keeping the dogs away from me (I
have been bitten once by a unleashed dog and am not comfortable around
them...not in SF). I do not need to or want to be intimidated by roaming dogs and
dog owners which seems to be the case, esp. at Ft Funston.
Corr. ID: 2691
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195512
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the leash requirement for nearly all
locations since off-leash dogs that owners "claim" to be voice-controlled can
overcome this control and easily get away or be out of hearing distance. Also, the
use of long, extendable leashes often results in uncontrolled dog behavior or they
wrap around their owner (one recently died as a consequence of this) or other
walkers and other dogs. I should not have to feel as if every time I walk that I have
to plan for self-defense from the dogs, their long leashes if they have one, and in a
number of cases, self-righteous dog-owners who view their "babies" as having
more rights than any human, both adults and children.
In some areas of the GGNRA such as Fort Funston, it is now dangerous to bring
young children given the large number of large dogs that are not sufficiently
controlled. There are too many recent news items of unleashed dogs attacking
adults, children and other dogs - with tragic consequences.
Corr. ID: 2939
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202402
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A few years ago, I took my family out to the beach at
Chrissy Field for a picnic. We sat on the Beach sand to be near the soothing sounds
of the water. After spreading out a nice repast on the picnic cloth, along come two
huge dogs running right across the middle of our food, completely startling my
parents and us and ruining our food. I said to the owner "call you dogs", she
snapped at me, that this was a dog area and she could do what she wanted. She was
very nasty, completely ruining our day. She acted as if she owned the beach and we
did not belong there!!
Corr. ID: 4210
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208860
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most dogs are being run off-leash in all areas. The socalled guardians seem amused when their dogs chase animals, dig, run up to other
people. The so-called "voice control"? Please! This is the favorite farce of the
people running dogs. Some of the time, they cannot even see their dogs. I recently
witnessed an incident on the Presidio at Crissy Field in which an unleashed (pretty
much unaccompanied) dog chased a gull and in so doing galluped by a man in a
wheelchair who was attempting to wheel down a slight slope. As the dog ran by, it
bumped against the man's feet in the wheelchair, greatly startling him. No one was
hurt, but we wondered if anyone was with the dog. After about 45 seconds, a man
did appear who seemed, maybe, to be the dog's guardian. We could not tell as the
only behavior indicating any relationship came from the dog, not the man who did
absolutely nothing but ride by on his bicycle. By all means, yes, please, please
control this out-of-control homo sapien behavior.
29752
GGNRA should be in accordance with other NPS sites in prohibiting off-leash
dogs. It would be easier to enforce rules if all dogs were on-leash, as they are at
other parks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2155
Comment ID: 200523
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

199

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

Representative Quote: I like dogs, but do not want them roaming free in the
National Parks. All dogs should be on a leash at all times while in the park! I've
been approached by off-leash dogs numerous times in the park and have been
growled at and barked at. It's not fair that I should be afraid of someone's pet while
I'm enjoying a National Park. There are plenty of Dog Parks here in San Francisco let's not turn our National Parks into National Dog Parks.
Corr. ID: 2511
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200749
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I don't believe that dogs should be allowed off leash in a
national recreation area. I do believe that preservation of wildlife should be a
priority.
Corr. ID: 2531
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200766
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In every other National Park I've ever visited (and that is
quite a few of them), dogs are never allowed off of a leash. I was quite surprised to
discover that they are allowed off of a leash in the GGNRA.
The point of course, is to protect the natural environment, wildlife, visitors, and the
dogs themselves. So I don't understand why unleashed dogs are permitted in this
particular park.
I don't want it to sound as if I don't like dogs. On the contrary... we are a dog
owning family. And we take good care of our dog, and always work to keep her
safe.
I would urge the NPS to keep the rules consistent across all parks, and require dogs
to be leashed at all times. It's the safest thing for all involved.
Corr. ID: 4470
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208702
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As you know, the GGNRA has many threatened and
endangered species including the SF garter snake and red-legged frog. Please
protect all the wildlife in the Park, the way National Parks are supposed to, by not
allowing dogs to run loose. Dogs have other places to run; the wildlife does not.
29753
Commenters feel that there are too many dogs in the GGNRA to allow them to be
off-leash. Many owners do not use effective voice control, and are not in command
of their dogs. Additionally, commenters feel that it was unlikely that dog owners
would comply with regulations regarding off-leash dog walking.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 897
Comment ID: 191242
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The idea of "voice control" in lieu of a leash is ludicrous. I
have yet to observe a dog that is 100% responsive to voice commands. On a
number of occasions I have encountered groups of dogs on single track trails
running ahead of their "master" some 200 feet, and out of sight of said master.
Where is "voice control" or any control for that matter in these situations?
Corr. ID: 1068
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192191
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The so called voice control areas are a complete joke. I
have seen dozens of dogs running wild, jumping on people and barking in a
threatening fashion. The owners call the dogs but the dogs pay absolutely no
attention. The dogs of Marin county are spoiled and untrained.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

200

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

Corr. ID: 1496
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191339
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For minimum public safety any dog in the National Park
should be on a leash.
There should be no off leash areas for two reasons: first, as you know, many dog
owners will abuse that privilege by allowing their dogs unleashed into leash areas.
Second, dogs are animals and therefore totally unpredictable, as anyone who has
been around them and whether bitten or not, can attest. Even when on leash they
injure people, particularly large size dogs that owners cannot control. For that
reason I believe the study is remiss in not addressing the hazard of large size dogs
in the park.
Corr. ID: 1648
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191033
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogwalkers have become a major problem in the GGNRA
because existing leash laws are generally ignored. There are simply too many dogs
in the GGNRA to allow for offleash (unless there is a fenced-in dog-run).
29755
Although off-leash dog walking has historically been allowed in many parts of the
GGNRA, this does not mean that it should be automatically allowed in the future.
The impacts on resources need to be evaluated. Although dog walkers may feel
entitled to off-leash dog walking in all areas, this does not automatically make it the
best solution.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2314
Comment ID: 195288
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 5. The fact that off-leash dogs have "traditionally"
occupied many areas of GGNRA (Ocean Beach, Chrissy Field) does not imply that
this tradition must continue. Such customs have to be constantly reevaluated in the
light of new information about dog impacts on people and wildlife. The increasing
numbers of dogs using these areas, for example, is in itself enough reason to
reevaluate such practices.
Corr. ID: 2806
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201102
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog owners keep on citing the pet policy of 1979, a time
when there were less people, less dogs and thus less conflicts. Times have changed
and so must policies. It does not work to have off leash dogs in a dense urban
setting and I feel that off leash recreation should be limited to private property.
Meaning that the GGNRA should not allow any off leash dog areas. Many people
including myself avoid areas with dogs but would enjoy them if there were no
dogs.
Corr. ID: 3909
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205569
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog owner and I take my dog to designated offleash dog parks throughout San Francisco and Marin(where there are many
already!). There is no need to have our nation's National Parks also serve as a
defacto dog park for a few local residents and commercial dog walkers. It is very
difficult to walk your dog on-leash when everyone else's dog runs up and jumps on
me and often threatens my on-leash dog.
Corr. ID: 4159
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208719
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

201

GC2000 – Off‐leash dogs: Oppose

Representative Quote: With so many pets in our area, this growing attitude that
"my dog" is entitled to "run free" is just irresponsible, harmful, and, frankly, selfish
and rude. Sadly the number of such owners is growing.
Owners of pets have the responsibility to provide space at home for the pet to
exercise or the owners need to be willing to travel to a dog park or other designated
dog area, or walk the dog with a leash. I have many friends who do this and their
dogs are happy and healthy. The national parks belong to people.

GC3000 - General Comment: Support current management
30536
Current laws are adequate to protect park resources, and new laws do not need to be
enforced. No further restrictions are necessary, as the current rules are working.
This area is an urban park, and recreational rights must be maintained, as was
agreed upon during the formation of the GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 289
Comment ID: 181016
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These restrictions are unnecessary and unwarranted. The
existing rules have worked for a long time...but the Park Service continues to show
its determination to have its way including the manner in which the public hearing
process is being managed without an open microphone for speakers at the various
locations.
Corr. ID: 1489
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191292
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These areas are located in the middle of a big city. It is
unreasonable to apply rules created for areas such as Yosemite and the Grand
Canyon to a "national park" in a densely populated city. Bay Area residents have
been coming to these areas with their dogs for as long as people have been using
them.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

There have been no significant problems associated with off-leash dogs. I've been
going to these areas for the last 18 years with my dogs and my son from the time he
was an infant. Why should this change?
Corr. ID: 1797
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200296
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: May I ask that you keep all areas of the GGNRA which are
currently open to off-leash dog walking, open to that usage.
These areas were given to the GGNRA with the understanding that traditional
usages would be preserved. Those usages are of course different than those at say,
Yellowstone. Attempting to recreate a dogless environment in an area in which
dogs have run for years would be a violation of that agreement.
Corr. ID: 1834
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191973
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Our preference is that the Park Service adopt Alternate "A"
leaving the 1979 Pet Policy in place without changes; it's the old saying, "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it". It is a policy that has served us well until the Park Service
assumed responsibility, and initiated its aggressive and inappropriate management
of these areas. We also support opening ROLA's in the San Mateo GGNRA Lands.
Corr. ID: 2869
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202797
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

202

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

Representative Quote: In brief, it is my opinion that the 1979 Pet Policy is good
legislation and if it is not broke we don't need to fix it. In 1978, the GGNRA took
the position that "the ordinary guidelines outlined in the Code of Federal
Regulations do not really apply in an urban area," and that "people and their
animals have been visiting the park for too long to apply an all-inclusive arbitrary
policy." Based on that position, the GGNRA, with a great deal of public input,
drafted what is now known as the 1979 Pet Policy; and it is working just fine.
Corr. ID: 3092
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201436
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support staying with the "Alternative A: No Action,
continuation of existing management" proposal.
Living in a city means density. People don't have yards for their dogs to run free.
And dogs need exercise. Our parks are our back yards and the designated areas
where dogs can run free are precious and few.My husband and I often go to Crissy
Field and walk on the beach and by the field, just to see and pet the happy dogs we
find there.
NPS regulations might be appropriate in rural destinations, but in an urban park,
they need the flexibility to alter the rules.
Corr. ID: 3761
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204658
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my opposition to dog management
rules proposed by the Golden Gate National Recreation Areas.
The current restrictions are more than adequate to protect wildlife, the land, to
encourage the urban parks' use, and to accommodate park users who do not like
dogs.
30537
Current off-leash dog walking should be kept open. Dogs and dog walkers need to
have an opportunity for extended off-leash dog walking, which can be hard to find
in the area. So little of GGNRA land is already allowed for off-leash walking, it
should not be restricted.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 276
Comment ID: 180896
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep these spaces open (off-leash) to dogs. There
are really no other options in the City where you can have an extended off-leash
experience. It is important to the health of dogs and the health of the community to
preserve access to those spaces
Corr. ID: 1545
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190733
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I don't believe there needs to be any action at this. Off
leash areas in San Mateo are already scarce.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

GGNRA concerns are premature.
Current environmental concerns do not warrant changes to off leash areas
Corr. ID: 1756
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191489
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We urge you to implement the 1979 Pet Policy as a
Special Regulation for the GGNRA. The 1979 Pet Policy was the product of
extensive negotiation, and has served us well. It comprises less than I% of the
entire GGNRA acreage, and is the controlling legal authority of the GGNRA at this
203

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

time.
Corr. ID: 1839
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192000
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I hope you will consider retaining off-leash access for dogs
in GGNRA. I feel very strongly about this, not just for the health, safety, and wellbeing of our dogs, but also of our families.
Dogs provide tremendous service to many people and families, and to relegate
them to on-leash walks at human place, with little opportunity for native interaction
with nature and themselves is not adequate and not fair.
Corr. ID: 2945
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203416
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a dog owner and walker in San Francisco, I do not want
to see more restrictions on off-leash areas in GGNRA. Already 1% of the recreation
area is off limits to dogs. To restrict it further would be unfair to dogs AND their
owners (tax payers that help fund the GGNRA). Dogs naturally need areas to roam
free and run - this promotes a healthy mental state within the animal. By reducing
this freedom, canines will be insufficiently exercised and will pose more of a threat
to the local community as their stress levels increase.
By restricting more off-leash areas within GGNRA, thousands of dogs and their
owners will move to the city parks, which will effectively become destroyed.
Everyone has to make compromises in life, so why can't the GGNRA make one to
allow dogs in the areas it always has?
It is unethical to place this potential burden on the city parks, which hundreds of
thousands in San Francisco enjoy.
Please don't restrict off-leash areas in the GGNRA!
Corr. ID: 3781
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205165
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is important to keep the GGNRA open to people with
their dogs and continue to allow off-leash dog walking in areas already open to
people with dogs and off-leash walking as allowed in the 1979 GGNRA Pet Policy.
I propose that you maintain current usage, your Alternative A.
Corr. ID: 4145
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208635
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Since a new plan is not currently in place, Alternative A is
the best plan. There are a huge number of dog owners in the Bay Area who depend
on the GGNRA for off-leash dog recreation, and the number is only growing.
Limiting their access to less than 1% not only makes the GGNRA a less desirable
place to go, it diminishes the Bay Area as a whole as a desirable place to live. Dog
owners would have one less reason to put up with the high cost of living if their
wonderful places to recreate are taken away. Returning to the 1979 Pet Policy,
which had been working so well for so many years, appears to be the best solution
for our active outdoor community.
30538
Choosing alternative A, or the current management, would allow for continued dog
recreation, which is important to the health, happiness, and quality of life of
residents and dogs in the area. This is the most balanced option for the community.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 395
Comment ID: 181187
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

204

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

Representative Quote: Please don't implement laws that would reduce our quality
of life in this beautiful area. It seems to me things are fine the way they are.
Corr. ID: 645
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181436
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: However, the restrictiveness of your ANPR for PET
MANAGEMENT IN GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA is not
balanced and does not reflect the values of the community in which GGNRA is
located. In my considered judgment, the current rules which allow dog and non-dog
areas, leash and non-leash areas, are much more balanced and more closely reflect
the values of the community in which GGNRA is located. I urge you to eliminate
or amend your proposed rules.
Corr. ID: 1348
Organization: Save Off Leash.com
Comment ID: 195188
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to plead with the GGNRA to PLEASE keep
the parks open to dogs and off-leash walking throughout the parks. This extreme
proposal will completely change the way we experience the wonderful parks and
beaches that have been such an asset to the people and dogs of San Francisco.
Corr. ID: 4060
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207605
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support maintaining the current, traditional off leash dog
regions on GGNRA property throughout the Bay area which have been in place for
decades. As has been demonstrated by public space planners, dog owners and open
space enthusiasts, restricting these areas to leash only space will only crowd
municipal parks and reduce an important cultural, health and community activity
for many Bay area residents.
30539
Implementing any new dog management will have more negative impacts than
positive changes. The benefits to the environment would not be great as dogs have
little impact on the environment currently. Any restriction would greatly hurt the
users of the GGNRA who recreate with dogs.
Organization: Montara Dog Blog
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 463
Comment ID: 181741
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In summary, I would like to push for "Alternative A" to
pass. The other alternatives are unfair to people and dogs who moved to these areas
in hopes of having a life with greater access to outdoor resources. Changing the
level of access to these areas is also inappropriate since many of the dogs who
frequent the areas are incredibly active and may actually become problematic or
aggressive around other dogs and around people if they are not exercised
adequately. Finally, the environmental impact of dogs is insignificant and certainly
less than that of horses, which are not being banned.
Corr. ID: 534
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181944
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Draft Dog Management Plan represents a disaster for
dog owners in the bay area, effectively banning them from any meaningful
interaction with the California coastline. I STRONGLY URGE you to DISMISS
the draft policy and instead maintain the current policy or EXPAND the places to
which dogs may enter.
Corr. ID: 1014
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191777
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a San Francisco resident and dog owner for over 50
years I feel strongly that the GGNRA should maintain the current amount of off
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

205

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

leash areas.
If the GGNRA wants to put its officers on the beaches and trails to cite those who
are acting inappropriately that would be welcomed. It is more commonly observed
that other people are damaging the habitat, not dogs.
I am not alone in feeling strongly that the status quo should be maintained.
Corr. ID: 1174
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193550
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I understand and am in favor of rules/restrictions for
each individual area, I am not in favor of a "no dog policy". To be completely dog
restricted in these beautiful hiking/walking/beach areas we have available would
not only be a sad buden for our pooch, but for myself and my husband as well. I am
most in favor of the LEAST dog restrictive areas but at a minimum would consider
the status quo and/or some additional dog restrictions on the most fragile of areas
only.
Corr. ID: 3512
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201257
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This misguided "solution" to the problems of endangered
wildlife would only cause larger problems for the City of San Francisco, crowding
the city parks with people who can no longer exercise their companion animals in
the GGNRA. People, dogs and wildlife have coexisted peacefully in these areas for
over three decades, and can continue to do so under the current regulations. Thank
you in advance for not changing the policy.
Corr. ID: 3737
Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204245
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I oppose the Preferred Alternative because it is too
restrictive. There is no justification in the DEIS for major changes. I support
formalization of 1979 Pet Policy PLUS off-leash access in the current GGNRA and
on new lands that the GGNRA acquires in the future.:
30540
The current management plan should be continued, as evidence to support a change
in policy has not been provided. The data presented do not support the
implementation of additional restrictions.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1587
Comment ID: 190812
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I will submit formal comments but I support no change to
existing off-leash access for dog owners to Bay Area beaches.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The existing regs should protect sensitive dune and snowy plover areas. I am a
responsible dog owner - pick up after my dog and respect restricted areas,
The proposed regulations do not make enough of a case that dog use will harm the
environment.
These areas are urban recreation areas and not wildlife habitats.
Corr. ID: 1789
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200278
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to leave the 1979 Pet Policy in place. The report
does not document the need to change a policy that was put into place that allowed
the NPS to administer these lands. The GGNRA is different from most national
parks, and hence a dog policy at GGNRA that is different from the rest of the
properties in the NPS system is appropriate. The data provided from 2007 and 2008
206

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

show very few incidents of misbehavior, such as biting or harassing wildlife, by off
leash dogs. The 1979 policy is working, and does not need to be changed.
Corr. ID: 2138
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193437
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no hard evidence of damages to the environment
directly from off leash dog recreation - mostly from human use. Bird habitats are
more affected by erosion or bulldosers trying to control erosion. Dog owners pay
equal taxes & deserve recreation on park lands as well. Keep the voice control as it
currrently is.
Corr. ID: 3774
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205083
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Further, the proposed broad limitations in the DEIS are
largely without site-specific science that demonstrates that the perceived
degradation of the quality of the GGNRA's natural resources are actually
attributable to dogs vs. other factors.
After careful consideration, I support a modified Alternative A (the "No Action
alternative") and would also include the "New Lands" areas in San Mateo County.
Corr. ID: 4013
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206790
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At it's best, the plan is a weak and flawed attempt to
address a very small number of issues within a much larger & required
management plan regarding the GGNR. Disgracefully, the DDMP attempts to do so
by restricting some of the GGNRA's most numerous users and generous supporters.
Even worse, it uses biased and misleading scientific data in the attempt to support
the plan. I strongly endorse that the 1979 GGNRA dog plan remain as is and in
favor of Plan A (no change) for all areas/resources until a more comprehensive and
inclusive EIS/management policy for the entire GGNRA is designed
Corr. ID: 4624
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208417
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly believe that multi-use open space that includes
off-leash dog walking is compatible with all other recreational uses and with the
preservation of habitat and wildlife within the GGNRA.In the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement the National Park Service inappropriately singles out dogs. Its
conclusions are not based upon sound science nor long-term monitoring of sitespecific conditions.
The existing 1979 Pet Policy has served the community extremely well for more
than 30 years. I strongly support Alternative A, the No Action alternative.
30541
Amid budgetary concerns, it is most sensible to maintain the current dog
management in the GGNRA. Money spent implementing a new plan could be spent
elsewhere on issues that are more important.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 557
Comment ID: 182031
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: That said, and under the circumstances of continued fiscal
shortfalls for your budget, you and your organization would be best off in allowing
the status quo to pervail...
Corr. ID: 2168
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200593
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Enforce the policies you have now instead of adding new
ones that we don't need and can't afford. Let dogs run leash-free where they now do
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

207

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

and police parts of the recreational areas where they are supposed to be on leash or
not at all. Enough tickets given out in the forbidden areas will convince the dog
people to stick to the legal areas for leash-free dog fun. Clear signs designating the
leash-free areas will also keep non-dog people from venturing into these areas. Do
this and everyone can enjoy the magnificent GGNRA lands equally.
Corr. ID: 3295
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202855
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel that this whole process and its possible results are an
affront to basic humanity, to co-existing in an urban environment. The approach of
the National Park Service is underhanded and roundabout, with the obvious
outcome of banning dogs entirely from these Recreational Areas.
That being said, I am writing today as a parent and dog owner. We go to Crissy
Field pretty much every day of the year, rain or shine. The toddler and the dog run
across the field, play on the beach, and on beautiful days romp and wade together
in the channel that runs between the "estuary" and the bay. Should the "Proposed
Changes" go through (in any permutation), most of that would be taken away from
us. It is 100% unreasonable to expect that dogs be kept away from the channel area,
barring putting up a fence around the whole area of beach that the channel might
possibly meander to.
It is my request that NO CHANGES be made to the existing leash laws in the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The funds that would be put into instituting
the proposed changes would be much better spent towards enforcing the random
wrong-doer than towards punishing each and every dog owner who has managed to
peacefully coexist on these lands for almost 40 years. The Poison Pill clause that
has made its way into your document (whereby if there are any transgressions then
the leash laws can and will be further restricted) should be removed.
Please consider the area in which the NPS is trying to institute these changes. It is
one of the most densely populated areas in the country, which is blessed with some
beautiful open spaces and coastline. Should the GGNRA areas be made off limits to
off-leash dog use, where are the dogs and their owners going to end up? In the
cramped, fenced-in dog runs placed sporadically around San Francisco? Talk about
setting us up for failure?
It is my fervent hope that our Recreational Areas remain untouched by the NPS's
agenda.
Corr. ID: 3591
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203675
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am not a dog owner, but i do so enjoy being out on
GGNRA beaches and watching the dogs running freely. It makes my heart soar to
see such beautiful unbridled joy. This plan to eliminate 90% of the off-leash areas
in San francisco and Marin is terribly wrong and short-sighted. From what i'm told,
these areas in dispute were promised as off-leash areas when the land was
transferred to the GGNRA back in 1972. Where are these dogs and their dog
owners supposed to go? You must allow dogs to run off-leash! This is a city, with
limited outdoor recreational land, and you must respect the recreational needs of its
inhabitants. I respectfully request you leave things as they are, and spend your
limited funds on more pressing concerns.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

30625
The current regulations should not only be adopted, they should be codified as a
Section Seven Special Regulation to prevent further changes in policy, and to
208

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

maintain historical recreational access.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2808
Comment ID: 201104
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am strongly in favor of keeping the GGNRA open to
dogs and off-leash dog walking. I implore the GGNRA to stop pushing its extreme
proposal that will negatively impact tens of thousands of tax-paying and voting
residents living in San Francisco and Mann. I understand that Congress could
resolve this conflict by codifying the GGNRA's 1979 Pet Policy as a Section Seven
Special Regulation, and mandating that all properties added to the GGNRA after
1979 maintain historical recreational access. Please do NOT eliminate or restrict
dogs or off-leash dog walking in San Francisco or Marin.
Corr. ID: 4126
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208550
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The public would best be served by institution of the 1979
Pet Policy to include new land acquisitions as the Section 7 Special Regulation for
the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4232
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208577
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Off-leash recreation should be INCREASED in the
GGNRA, I throw my support behind the status quo = the 1979 Pet Policy. Just
formalize it with a Section 7 and move on to a REAL ISSUE, not this manufactured
one.
30626
The justification for the new preferred alternative of bringing the GGNRA in line
with other NPS properties is not enough of a reason to restrict dog walking in the
park, so the current restrictions should be continued, as stated in the original
mandate. The GGNRA is within a large urban area, making it unique from many
other NPS properties.
Organization: San Francisco resident
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4016
Comment ID: 206843
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe the system in-place is working (on many levels)
and could work better if smaller, more localized strategies were undertaken to
preserve cultural resources, landscape and wildlife habitats. Simply reducing the
cherished dog-walking areas, throughout the Bay area for the sake of corresponding
to Federal guidelines, is a waste of the positive efforts of the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4048
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207343
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: compliance with (36 CFR 2.15) is not a valid motivation
for a change from the 1979 Dog Management Plan. The GGNRA is *not* a
National Park, it is a National Recreational Area. The existing practices prior to the
area becoming a GGNRA and the 1979 provisions along with the existing
endangered species provisions are adequate for the mixed use of the recreation area.
Corr. ID: 4234
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208592
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA was designed as an urban recreation area that
can accommodate both recreation and conservation, and that the existing 1979 pet
policy should not be altered. The citizens of San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo
Counties have shown that they support the existing pet policy, and it has been
upheld by the courts, as the existing pet policy is consistent with the original
mandate for recreation upon which the GGNRA was founded.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

209

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

30627
Commenters suggested that the current management is sufficient, but included
several suggestions for additions to the current management to improve it. These
suggestions included improving signage and enforcement, as well as making all
new lands or more space than is currently available open to off-leash dog walking.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2354
Comment ID: 195374
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that restricting and prohibiting off-leash dogs in
so many GGRNA lands is not the solution to the perceived problem--rather, if there
are issues with dogs on these lands (which I don't agree is the case), then the
solution is better enforcement of current rules.
Corr. ID: 3212
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202527
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the
GGNRA. I believe off-leash dog activity in the GGNRA is essential to the wellbeing of both dogs and humans. Dogs get needed exercise which keeps them wellbehaved and these particular off-leash areas allow for unique and healthy human
social interactions.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I have become familiar with the proposed GGNRA changes. I oppose the Preferred
Alternative because it is too restrictive. I would like to see the Park Service revise
the dog management plan to retain and formalize the existing GGNRA dog policy
(aka the 1979 Pet Policy) plus provide for balanced off-leash areas in San Mateo
County and new lands and remove any proposed rules to reduce or ban dog
recreation based only on violations; compliance-based management strategy cannot
be part of any plan.
I would like a revised plan to measure the impact of dog recreation on the health
and well-being of people. I would like to see disadvantaged groups and others able
to provide unfiltered comments on their preferences and barriers to using the
GGNRA. I, also, believe the GGNRA should provide better signage and that a
revised plan should include awareness programs.
Corr. ID: 3500
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201182
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not agree with the GGNRA's current preferred
alternative as it significantly restricts and eliminates off leash dog walking in many
areas within the GGNRA. The proposed changes to the existing conditions (1979
Pet Policy) and to the new lands in San Mateo County are not based upon sound
science or long-term monitoring of site-specific conditions.
The proposed "compliance-based" approach punishes many for the perceived
transgressions of a few. It is a set up for failure and should be modified to create a
baseline of current conditions and then measure impacts vs. compliance. The
GGNRA should partner with the community to make the plan work, not assume an
adversarial relationship with failure the goal.
After careful consideration, I support a modified Alternative A (the "No Action
alternative") and would also include the "New Lands" areas in San Mateo County.
The current plan should be modified to provide clearer rules, more signage,
improved vegetative barriers, and education and outreach as part of the overall
program.
Corr. ID: 3533
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201288
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual

210

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

Representative Quote: It is essential for the GGNRA to consider reasonable and
balanced alternatives for dog walking on new lands and existing lands. While I am
concerned about the long-term preservation of the GGNRA's natural resources and
want to protect these important natural areas, I believe other options (besides
restricting dog-walking access) should be considered first. I favor an approach that
balances recreational use (including dog-walking access) with preservation. I think
that a multi-faceted approach that incorporates education/improved signage and
physical/vegetative barriers is preferable to restriction as a first choice. It is
imperative that the DEIS include such an alternative as a reasonable option.
I support a modified Alternative A (the "No Action alternative") and would also
include the "New Lands" areas in San Mateo County. The current plan should be
modified to provide clearer rules, more signage, improved vegetative barriers, and
education and outreach as part of the overall program.
Corr. ID: 3640
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204093
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not agree with the GGNRA's current preferred
alternative as it significantly restricts and eliminates off-leash dog walking in many
areas within the GGNRA. The proposed changes to the existing conditions (1979
Pet Policy) and to the new lands in San Mateo County are not based upon sound
science or long-term monitoring of site-specific conditions.
I favor an approach that balances recreational use (including dog-walking access)
with preservation. I think that a multi-faceted approach that incorporates
education/improved signage and physical/vegetative barriers is preferable to
restriction as a first choice. It is imperative that the DEIS include such an
alternative as a reasonable option.
The proposed "compliance-based" approach punishes many for the perceived
transgressions of a few. It is a set up for failure and should be modified to create a
baseline of current conditions and then measure impacts vs. compliance. The
GGNRA should partner with the community to make the plan work, not assume an
adversarial relationship with failure the goal.
The DEIS fails to consider that the GGNRA is the front/back yard for a large
metropolitan area. The fundamental purpose of creating the GGNRA was to
provide open space for recreation (including dog walking as a form of recreation)
for residents of the Bay Area. NEPA requires evaluation of impacts on the "human
environment", but the DEIS fails to do so by failing to adequately address how the
proposal affects "recreational" values for these local residents.
After careful consideration, I support a modified Alternative A (the "No Action
alternative") and would also include the "New Lands" areas in San Mateo County.
The current plan should be modified to provide clearer rules, more signage,
improved vegetative barriers, and education and outreach as part of the overall
program.
Corr. ID: 4088
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208343
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Hybrid Alternative, includes the 1979 Pet Policy
(Alternative A: No Action-existing conditions), include the New Lands, and the
implementation of management measures, which include but are not limited to
more, better and clearer signage, a robust educational program that would include
partnering with local animal welfare groups such as the San Francisco SPCA,
Marin Humane Society and the Peninsula Humane/SPCA at a minimum. Other
measures include the use of environmental or vegetative barriers, and low-level
post and cable fencing to protect a plant species such as the blue lupine. I also
support the creation of a "recreation team or panel" who can assist the GGNRA
211

GC3000 – General Comment: Support current Management

with issues regarding all recreational visitors in a public forum on a quarterly basis.

GC4000 - General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA
29758
Being able to walk dogs in the GGNRA is a valuable part of the experience of
many visitors. GGNRA access improves the health and well-being of visitors, who
rely on this resource to get exercise. Access to the GGNRA for visitors with dogs
must be allowed.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 356
Comment ID: 181134
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not take away any hikes that currently allow
dogs. If anything, we need to add more! Hiking with one's dog is a great way for
individuals to get physical activity while also exercising their dogs.
Corr. ID: 388
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181176
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: PLEASE, PLEASE let the dogs be !!!!!
Dogs and their owners need exercise and should be able to utilize the GGNRA like
everyone else
Corr. ID: 1110
Organization: SF Resident Voter
Comment ID: 192298
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Without proper exercise and space to release energy and
socialize, our dogs will develop many physical and behavioral problems. The
proposed Dog Management Plan is unfairly restrictive to dog owners, and does not
match or serve the needs of the surrounding community. The community can only
be served by having more urban parks and more open space, not less. We should
oppose the federal government's position of eliminating the "recreation" from OUR
parks and territories. If it's not broke, than don't fix it.
Corr. ID: 3992
Organization: John Muir Health
Comment ID: 207423
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am an executive at John Muir Health in Contra Costa
County. Please reconsider your "Dog Management Plan." Taking hikes, etc. with
the family dog is a very valuable opportunity of exercise and social contact. Your
proposal to ban such activities I feel significantly diminishes opportunities for
improving the health and well-being of our population.
29759
Concern ID:
Restricting dogs from the park will not provide protection of resources in the
CONCERN
GGNRA, and will significantly affect those visitors that enjoy having dogs at the
STATEMENT:
park. Restricting dog will also cause problems at other areas that allow dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 556
Comment ID: 182029
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Our dog is part of the family, and for him to have this
experience outside in such a beautiful city is invaluable to us. I strongly believe
dogs and wildlife can co-exist, that dog owners can be responsible to pick up after
their dogs, control their dogs, and that people, dogs and environment can all be a
part of the same outdoor space and respect it at the same time.
Corr. ID: 1603
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190841
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned that prof. dog walkers will (already
are) move into McLaren Park. Its getting to the point where I can't walk my own
dogs...Please don't close these GGNRA areas!! There isn't enough open space for
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

212

GC4000 – General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA

dogs as it is.
Corr. ID: 3804
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208423
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think the GGNRA should keep its promises to San
Franciscans like me. The GGNRA promised to keep the access to dogs and their
owners as they stood when they were GIVEN our CITY land.
If dog off leash areas are taken away and dog friendly areas are taken away, our
dogs are still going to have to be exercised causing congestion and frustrated dogs
and owners in neighborhoods.
Please keep your promises. Please keep Fort Funston, Muir Beach, Crissy Field,
and all other access areas available to all San Franciscans, and their pets.
Corr. ID: 3834
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209307
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The current proposals to restrict my access to ocean front
property in San Francisco is beyond comprehension. I understand the need to
protect natural resources, but excluding me and my dogs from Fort Funston doesn't
accomplish that goal
29760
There are already not enough places in the Bay Area where people can visit with
their dogs, including in state parks, and the GGNRA is already too restrictive. The
areas open to dogs in the GGNRA should remain open to dogs. It would be unfair
to remove access to this resource.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 582
Comment ID: 182101
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not further reduce the available area that dog
owners have to let their dogs run and play off leash. Dog owners are finding it
increasingly difficult to find open spaces where their pets can exercise.
Corr. ID: 3223
Organization: Bad Girls Book Club, NCIWC, Indigo
Piping Systems
Comment ID: 202610
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As an avid dog lover who loves the outdoors, I find that
the GGNRA is already far too restrictive of dogs in the Parks. For example, we
don't feel we can bring our dog to Pt Reyes because of the excessive dog rules, so
we often just don't go. Alternatively, we love bringing our dogs to Pt Isabel in
Richmond. Dog owners are very appreciative of a chance to exercise in a beautiful
area. I see the vast majority do pick up after their dogs and are considerate of other
people. Our dogs are giant breed dogs and, even in off leash areas, I always leash
my dogs when I see the elderly or toddlers approaching for their safety. (Our dogs
are gentle giants, but could accidentally knock a frail person over.)
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Please do not further restrict the chances for us to visit parks with our beloved
companions.
Corr. ID: 3698
Organization: San Francisco Dog
Comment ID: 204818
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is very wrong for the government to take away the right
of dog owners to have access to the system of parks and open spaces where they
can bring their dog to exercise and run free when it is not infringing on anyone else.
I have visited Fort Funston many times and the dogs there are well behaved and
under control of their owners and dog walkers. There are only dog people walking
213

GC4000 – General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA

in that area with a few other sight seers who love the dogs. The open land is
supposed to be for the people to enjoy not for the officials to take away. It is for
recreational use of the people who live in city areas. The government is supposed to
be for the people, it is paid by the people, and should be answerable to the people.
Do not take away our rightful recreational property. Do not turn against those
things that have been entrusted to you as public servants for the people of this area.
Corr. ID: 4259
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209161
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It's bad enough the state doesn't allow dogs in all of their
parks(except the parking lot and restricted paved areas). PLEASE DON'T bar dogs
from national recreation areas too. We won't have anywhere we can go. If you're
worried that off leash dogs will molest wildlife - have a leash requirement JUST IN
THOSE AREAS. People who love the outdoors love their dogs too. The number of
parks that accepts dogs is too limited. If you're arguing that dogs make a mess look at Baker Beach, which is very clean. All you need to do is provide enough
trash cans and bags.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29761
Dogs should not be banned from the parks in the GGNRA. It would negatively
impact dog owners and other park users if dogs were not allowed in the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 2987
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203669
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA draft dog management
plan and "all action alternatives" that further reduce or ban dogs. Please keep our
open spaces dog-friendly and plentiful. The Park Service should revise the dog
management plan to:
· Recognize dog recreation as a safe and healthy recreational activity and as
important to the health and well-being of people, dogs, and communities, especially
those in densely populated urban areas
· Justify any changes with objective, reasonable scientific studies and findings and
remove the many exaggerations, speculations, and misleading statements. Don't
treat dog recreation as a hazard and nuisance despite facts to the contrary; it's
compatible with other urban recreation
My boyfriend and I recently moved to the Outer Richmond specifically to be close
to Ocean Beach. We have a 3 year old Husky who needs the open spaces such as
Ocean Beach and Ft. Fuston for exercise. Just as we both place high importance on
our own fitness, it is equally as important for Scando. It would be a travesty if
beach and other recreation privileges were taken away for our canine friends.
Please do not ban the dogs.
Corr. ID: 3002
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200823
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: When I go running in Spring Lake Park, I bring my dog
partially for protection--and will not enter the park for a run without him. Before
you punish responsible pet owners, like myself, I would encourage you to do an
indepth study of the effects that banning dogs from the parks would have on all
involved. I have not read one compelling reason to ban dogs from the parks and
feel that it is the effort of a few people who do not like or understand dogs. Please
do not sign such a wide-stretching ban without a more indepth study to be fair to all
involved.

214

GC4000 – General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA

GC4010 - General Comment: Ban all dogs from GGNRA
29763
Dogs should not be allowed at all in the GGNRA. Dogs are not allowed in state
parks, open spaces, and other national parks, and keeping the GGNRA in line with
these policies makes sense for resource protection and enforcement.
Organization: Self
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 67
Comment ID: 181812
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs should not be allowed in any National Park, National
Seashore, National Monument, or National Recreation Area.
Corr. ID: 1091
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192230
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: BAN THE DOGS. Here's why.
Dogs that go off leash violate the core purpose of the GGNRA by harming wildlife
and wrecking the park experience for the large majority of other visitors.
We do not have the funds for the level of enforcement that would ensure dog
owners obey ANY leash laws.
Even though it is only "some" of the dogs there are enough problem ones, and the
damage THEY cause is large enough, that the only affordable way to prevent that
damage is to ban the dogs.
Corr. ID: 2345
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202163
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Urine drenched sand, fecal debris is not how the GGNRA
can protect the environmental integrity and beauty of our shoreline. It is harmful to
wildlife and people. The Dog Management Draft Plan does not propose enough
protection.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Please, expand the vision. Dogs OFF the beach, better enforcement of leash laws,
MORE NO DOGS PERMITTED places for people to walk, relax, bird, play and
enjoy our natural resource. No dogs in the National Parks. Enforce it and make it
happen
Corr. ID: 3902
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205554
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Our national parks should provide the best possible visitor
experience for people, not dogs. Dogs and wildlife do not mix. Dogs should
generally be banned from national parks, national recreation areas, etc. If they are
allowed, the areas should be limited to reduce conflict with wildlife and they should
always be on a leash to reduce conflict with other visitors. Please ban dogs from the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, or at a minimum, require leashes and only
allow dogs in limited areas.
Corr. ID: 4024
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207018
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is simplest and ultimately best to follow the example of
the Peninsula Open Space and many other federal lands, which is to prohibit dogs
in most areas. It will be too difficult for the NPS to enforce complicated and subtle
rules. Too many owners have a sense of entitlement at the peril of the world around
them, and until our pet culture changes to one of consideration, dogs should not be
allowed to run unleashed on GGNRA lands. This may be a case of where a few bad
handlers ruin the situation for everyone else, but in my copious experience, it is on
every occasion I venture out that I witness a dog destroying habitat or interfering
with a citizen's peaceful enjoyment of the land.
Corr. ID: 4547
Organization: Not Specified
215

GC4010 – General Comment: Ban all dogs from GGNRA

Comment ID: 209738
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In closing, I am hoping that you will prohibit dogs from
entering the Golden Gate Park National Recreation Area. National Parks, county
parks and state parks do not allow dogs and I feel that dogs should not be allowed
at Mori Point either.
29764
Dogs negatively influence the wildlife and the experience and safety of visitors at
the GGNRA. For this reason they should not be allowed in the parks. No dogs is
the easiest way to protect these resources and provide clear rules.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2339
Comment ID: 195391
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are just too many dogs in urban areas, and too many
irresponsible dog owners everywhere. Please do what you can to prevent dogs from
our parks and public areas for those of us who pay taxes and fees to have a nice
walk in the park, not stepping in smelly dog poop, nor being hassled by rowdy,
mean dogs that run into and bump up against us on the trails.
Corr. ID: 2529
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200754
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please -- no dogs! If they're allowed, old people, blind
people, and disabled people are as good as banned. I've been attacked so often in
my city parks in San Francisco by dogs whose owners are nowhere to be seen that
I've given up going to parks I used to frequent. Don't let that happen in the
GGNRA.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Also, it's been proved by study that dogs have an even worse impact on wildlife
than previous thought, by the University of Utah. Here's a link to a Daily Mail
piece about a study in the "Bioscience" journal
Corr. ID: 2891
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202971
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One problem is the domination of parks and open spaces
by dogs. Please remove dogs from our open spaces and parks and make them safe
and welcoming for people of all ages. We should not have to worry about dog
feces, urine, and pets running wild and terrorizing our children
Corr. ID: 2961
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203458
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I thoroughly support restrictions on dogs in GGNRA.
A few months ago, while on a walk on the Miwok trail, nearing the coast trail, I
came across a young woman who was a professional dog walker.
She had 10 large dogs in her care and all of them were running unleashed right in
the midst of a no dog sign! One of the dogs jumped up on me and
knocked me down. When I pushed the dog off of me, I went to check it's tag to see
if I might be able to alert it's owner. The dog walker became belligerent and
threatened to hit me! It was an unpleasant and totally unnessesary encounter.
I see this aggresion mounting more and more.
I have numerous encounters with dogs on the trail that are unpleasant, sometimes as
simple as a muddy dog jumping up on me or 2 dogs suddenly wildly barking at
each other.
At Rodeo Beach dog owner flock to the beach to let their dogs run free, chasing
birds and other wildlife. The owner have with no regard for other
people who simply wish to enjoy nature as it is.
216

GC4010 – General Comment: Ban all dogs from GGNRA

These dogs are running wild, tearing up the fragile plant life and hunting for quail
and other wildlife. We have a precious resource of wildlife and a natural setting
that is getting eroded by domestic pets. Pet owners need to consider responsible
care for their environment and not assume that the parks are there for their
exclusive use.
I would like to see a NO DOGS ALLOWED rule that is actively enforced.
I would even be willing to help out with the enforcement.
Corr. ID: 3262
Organization: National Parks Conservation
Association
Comment ID: 202773
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a dog lover and owner, I am writing to urge the Park
Service to take stronger actions to control the access of dogs to the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. We dog owners have many places that we can take our
dogs that do not threaten or endanger wildlife. We don't have to take them with us
when we want to enjoy the GGNRA and its beaches. The future of wildlife is far
more important than the enjoyment that dog owners get from having their pets with
them. It's time to put a leash on scofflaw dog owners!

GC5000 - On-leash dogs: Support
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29865
Commenters supported on-leash dog walking, and felt there should be little or no
restriction to the areas where on-leash dog walking is allowed.
Corr. ID: 186
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182298
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In short, allow on leash access, increase the areas open to
reponsible dog owners, and eliminate off leash access altogether.
Corr. ID: 3095
Organization: Self
Comment ID: 203089
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: (1) On lease dog walking should be allowed in the vast
majority of areas -- with a very limited area designated for people who don't even
want on least dogs in the same area;
(2) Off leash dogs be allowed anywhere that their presence is not likely to cause
material environmental damage (such as beaches), with limited portions of those
areas (or times) being designated "no off leash dog" to accommodate people who
don't want to be faced with off leash dogs;
Corr. ID: 4114
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208495
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a responsible dog owner and on-leash proponent, I was
shocked to learn that the "preferred alternatives" to GGNRA land would drastically
limit on leash dog access.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29867
Dogs in national parks or public areas should be leashed. Having dogs on-leash in
national parks is more in line with NPS policy.
Corr. ID: 632
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182499
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There should NOT be ANY "off leash" areas in ANY
217

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

property under NPS control.
GGNRA should not be any different than any other National Park, nor any other
urban NPS facilities.
Corr. ID: 785
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186007
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: all dogs should be on leash at all times when in public
areas.
Corr. ID: 1046
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192126
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It's about time that Golden Gate complies with NPS
policy!! Dogs should have always been allowed ON LEASH ONLY in certain
areas.
Corr. ID: 1915
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192594
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog walking should be on leash on public sidewalks, not
in National Parks, unless a specific trail is rated for on leash dogs. Every town
should have a few dog parks, where dogs may run free- but not in the national
parks.
Corr. ID: 2058
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200512
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a regular volunteer at the Presidio Park and am
concerned about the Dog Management Plan for our National Parks. I strongly
believe that all dogs should be on a leash and all times while in our National Parks.
29925
Keeping dogs on-leash is safer for the dogs themselves, but also for owners and
other visitors. Having dogs on-leash greatly reduces health-related incidents
between users.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 25
Comment ID: 204161
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) Nobody can control the fear of others, but we can
enforce leash laws that allow owners to control their dogs, even if the dog does not
respond to voice control. I have encountered people who are morbidly afraid of
dogs, either through personal experience, irrational fear, or cultural learnings. The
solution is simple: I simply move my dog to one side and place myself between the
dog and the person
Corr. ID: 1307
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195044
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs need to be leashed in a enviroment where others
(dogs and humans) share. There is too much room for mishap when they run wild.
As I said before I am a dog owner and walker and I have no problem what so ever
walking my dogs on leash.
Corr. ID: 2063
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200503
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support a leash law for the GGNRA.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I frequent the parks of the GGNRA with my 7 year old son. Numerous times we
have been confronted by off-leash dogs while enjoying the park. It is not
comforting for a dog owner to say, "she won't bite" or "he's harmless" because even
the most well behaved dogs can be unpredictable. I want to enjoy my time in the
park, not worry about dogs.
218

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

The National Parks are for all to enjoy and are not for dogs to run free. There are
dog parks or other open areas for dogs. The National Parks are delicate lands that
we should protect. The human impact is already causing enough damage to these
natural areas. We don't need off-leash dogs tramping through protected lands.
Please keep dogs on leashes in our parks!
Corr. ID: 2944
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203423
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Having recently been set upon by an unleashed dog in the
Presidio as I walked by the dog and owner on a paved road, I would like to say that
any policy that does not require ALL dogs (whether nice, darling, or just plain
mean, untrained, and uncontrolled) to be leashed in the park areas endangers those
of us taxpayers who walk on your paths. I now understand why I see people my age
(over 65) carrying golf clubs when they are on foot in your precincts and nowhere
near a golf course. I certainly wish I had been carrying one when the dog in
question decided to assault me.
I'm sure you know more than I do about the dog manure issue arising from dog use
of the park. But from my observation this is a problem you should address.
Corr. ID: 3629
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204109
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my support for developing and
adopting regulations that will require dogs to be restrained by leash while in
Golden Gate Recreation Area.
As a professional dog trainer and free lance writer, I have written on the importance
of leashes for the management and protection of dogs. Maintaining dogs safely on
leash is vital for the health and safety of humans using the recreation area, wildlife
and the dog. Loose dogs can and will pose a risk to visitors in the Recreation Area.
A dog jumping on, chasing, startling or even playfully nipping at a runner, rider or
cyclist can cause a wide range of injuries. Dogs will chase wildlife and cause
damage, disturb natural behavior, injury and potentially death. Wildlife poses a
variety of health and safety risks to unleashed dogs. In my region, coyotes have
attacked small, unleashed dogs in local parks. There are multiple parasites and
diseases that can be transmitted to domestic dogs and the dogs can pass on to
humans. It is vital that dogs be restrained with a leash when walking in public
areas. However, many owners ignore leash laws. Even in national parks where
there is a law requiring all dogs to be on a lead no more than six feet in length, I see
constant violations.
If there are designated off leash areas in the vicinity, then dog owners should be
directed there. If not, then creating a designated and fully fenced off lead area is a
suggestion I would pose. Adopt leash regulations and create a dog-specific area
where they can run off lead.
Corr. ID: 4475
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209394
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel very strongly that dogs must be on leashes in areas
used by the public.The dogs run freely and are aggressive. It is a fundamental
safety issue for the rest of us to be able to walk there without fear of being jumped
on and frightened.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29927
When dogs are on-leash it allows for multiple user groups to co-exist in the
GGNRA. Having dogs on-leash benefits visitors who are either afraid of dogs, or
219

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

do not want to be approached by them in the GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 521
Comment ID: 181939
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you allow dogs access in all areas, you would be
ignoring the needs of others, such as birdwatchers, hikers and parties who just want
to commune with nature. Dogs might be ok in certain less sensitive areas if they are
ON LEASH.
Corr. ID: 575
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182080
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To be honest, my preference would be to ban dogs
altogether from our parks. However, I do understand how important dogs are to
many people, and the great pleasure they take in having their dog accompany them
on the trails. To me, the requirement that a dog is on leash is a reasonable
compromise between dog owners and dog dislikers. While I don't love a dog on
leash when I encounter him, at least I do not feel threatened. If we must have a
place where dogs go off leash, let's have a specific place, well sign-posted, such
that people like me can simply avoid it.
Corr. ID: 2251
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200994
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In order to share space with other visitors, dog owners
need to put their dogs on leash at all times in all places that allow dogs. When dogs
are off leash, the space becomes a "special use area." Therefore, there should be no
off leash dog areas.
Corr. ID: 4026
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207084
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For those that do have voice control:
ROLAs option, my recommendation would be to have access limited and restricted
to dawn-8 a.m. and 5 p.m. - dusk (or 4 p.m. until dusk during PST).
Another ROLAs option would be to have a similar policy that was instituted in
1979's advisory commission for Marin County's Whitegate Ranch. That policy
allowed for an Advanced Dog Training Area where use is restricted to owners and
dogs that have successfully completed basic obedience training and are in process
of advanced obedience or special skills training (i.e. search and rescue, etc).
On-leash
During the other times I strongly recommend an on-leash dog policy.
We share this open space with hikers, birders, children, bikers, seniors, and
wildlife. Everyone can enjoy this amazing environment if dogs are on leash or if
people have the voice control for the ROLA option.
29928
Enforcement of the rules is easier when dogs are on-leash. This saves the park
money, time, and preserves park resources. Having on-leash dog walking as the
rule also helps to deter most dog walkers from non-compliance.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2288
Comment ID: 201167
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: How can we afford law enforcement in the parks to make
sure owners of dogs are keeping their animals under voice control, at least if they
are required to be on a leash, other owners will remind those breaking the law to do
the right thing
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

220

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

Corr. ID: 2882
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202914
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Anything other than a ban or a leash requirement is
impossible to enforce, and those are the only fair and reasonable alternatives.
Corr. ID: 3390
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203134
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a docent in an Urban National Park (Franklin Canyon Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area), I can can tell you from
experience that dogs off-leash, represent a real threat to wildlife and to other park
users. Even when there is an on-leash rule, there is still a problem as it is often
ignored, but it is still a significant deterrent.
Corr. ID: 4261
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209155
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most of all, rules are only as good as their enforcement,
and in times of budget cuts, we are always looking to save money and that might
mean less enforcers of the rules on Federal lands. Please enforce ON LEASH rules
for the public safety and for the wildlife in these beautiful areas. This not to
mention the annoyance of stepping in dog poop as you hike down a rustic trail.
29929
Many dog owners do not truly have voice control over their dogs, and many dogs
are not easily controlled under voice control when there is wildlife or other
distractions around. Many dog walkers also do not seem to take care in dealing
with the waste and other impacts from dogs to wildlife, other visitors, and
resources. Having dogs on-leash would lessen these problems, and improve the
experience at the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 238
Comment ID: 180783
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I value California native species and habitats. I do not feel
that dog walkers have the right to let their dogs run uncontrolled in these areas.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Voice control is NOT control. Enclosed areas would be acceptable for off- leash
dog running.
I value children and people who are either disabled or fearful of uncontrolled dogs.
That is another reason dogs need to be leashed.
Perhaps some owners clean up after their dogs. Unfortunately, a lot do not; and
because of those unconscious people we have to deal with contamination in scenic
areas. Another reason to keep dogs on leash.
Personally, I am tired of the strident demands of the dog owners and walkers. They
are but one small but too vocal group.
For all the reasons above, I completely support the GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan.
Corr. ID: 338
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181109
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the plan and wish NPS well in its attempt to
protect GGNRA.
Dogs need to be controlled to protect wildlife and visitors. Voice control means
221

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

many things to many people and the bottom line is that voice control is ineffective
in crucial situations. If a dog is to be allowed on NPS property it must be on a leash
six feet or shorter with the other end of the leash held by a person at all times -even service dogs
Corr. ID: 1787
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200270
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support on-leash dog-walking generally, and I always
keep my dog on a leash when she isn't fenced in at home or at a dog park. I feel that
many people who claim their dog is under "voice control" merely have a dog that
will come when called most of the time. To me, true voice control is reserved for
professional dogs, such as police canine units, and obedience champions. I worry
that most off-leash dogs will ignore their owners in a stressful situation, where
voice control would be most needed. Examples could be: Encounters with a wild
animal, two intact males who suddenly decide to fight over a nearby female, or a
dog who misreads the actions of child as that of a puppy who needs discipline. In
any of these situations, I think even well-trained dogs might ignore their training.
Corr. ID: 3644
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204116
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think dogs should be required to be on a leash at all
times. While a dog may be under voice command most of the time, if it gets excited
chasing a bird for example, it probably won't be.
Corr. ID: 4642
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208830
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog impact on wildlife and vegetation - are simply
managed by keeping dogs on the trails, under control, either on leash or under voice
control as currently allowed. Most difficulties arise when dogs are off leash and the
owner does not have true control ("control" is defined as being able to consistently
call your dog to your side even when there is something they would rather do).
Unfortunately few dog owners have this level of voice control. When hiking, I
myself, am often frustrated by the need to intercede when another dog approaches
while the owner makes futile attempts to call their dog.
Training to achieve this level of control is possible but does not come easily;
without it, dogs should remain on leash. Enforcing leash restrictions where they
currently exist would address nearly all of the dog-related concerns. For those areas
where dogs are currently allowed off leash, I would argue that we need a better
means of identifying those individuals who understand the concept of voice control.
29930
Having dogs on-leash in the park provides better protection to natural resources.
Having dogs on-leash lessens the impact of dogs on wildlife, native vegetation, and
threatened and endangered species.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2437
Comment ID: 200767
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please devlop a management plan for GGNRA that
requires dogs to be kept on leashes. Dogs are great pets, but dog owners must
understand that their unconstrained presence in a wild area disturbs and endangers
wildlife there.
Corr. ID: 2970
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203666
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs belong on a leash. In order to give the widest range
of interests the ability to share the park, dogs belong on a leash. Dogs cause
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

222

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

significant environmental disruption when allowed to run freely. Not only that but,
many people are afraid of dogs, and allowing the dogs free access to the park will
essentially bar these same people from also enjoying the park.
We instituted the park system to protect the wildlife there, allowing off-leash dogs
is counter to that protection.
Corr. ID: 3817
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204876
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I frequently visit GGNR areas with my dog and really
appreciate having beautiful spaces to take a dog. I always keep her on leash and
have never encountered an off-leash dog that was aggressive. Still, for the sake of
preserving fragile habitats, I would support requiring all dogs be on leash, and
perhaps limiting the number of dogs per visitor to ensure that they can be under full
human control at all times (which would mean commercial dog walkers would
reduce their use of the parks.)
I encourage the committee to consider options that would still allow visitors to
bring 1-2 leashed dogs into GGNR areas.
Corr. ID: 4275
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209088
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have lived near the Presidio for over 30 years and utilize
Baker Beach, Lake St. Park, Crissy Field, the hidden trails of the Presidio and the
Marin Headlansd at least once per week I encourage GGNRA to re-strict and regulate trails for dogs. They should always be
on leash in these areas. I have seen dogs near seals on the beach. I am greatly
concerned about the wildlife in the GGNRA. Dogs should be on leash and there
should be designated areas for the dogs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29934
Dogs can still be happily walked and enjoy their time while on-leash. Because of
this, on-leash dog walking is a good option.
Corr. ID: 959
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191590
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mind you- I don't hate dogs. I know they can be walked
and run with on-leash-happily for both dog and owner. I've done it.
But keep them on leash in public. This is the law and it's about public safety.
Corr. ID: 1113
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192352
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am all for requiring dogs to be on leash in the GGNRA
outside of enclosed special areas for the protection of the wildlife as well as safety
and sanitary issues. I am a longtime dog owner and have had no problem taking
good care of them, all happy healthy and long lived, without allowing them to run
around willy nilly in national park areas
The balance would be to add some more, and good quality in good locations,
enclosed dog parks and let people walk with dogs on leash in natural areas - this
way there will be places for dogs to play and you can still enjoy walking around the
beautiful areas with your canine buddy.
Corr. ID: 3634
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204546
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I want to STRESS that I do now and have owned dogs for
223

GC5000 – On‐leash dogs: Support

the last 30 years and like them very much. But I can honestly say that I always have
put them on the leash during my hikes. Dogs are incredibly adaptable. Once they
know the routine they enjoy trotting alongside their owner(s) perfectly happily,
getting the necessary exercise and enjoying their outing. They do not need to be put
in situations where they can bother others or disrupt people enjoying the beach. The
same goes for their chasing wildlife. If something moves, a dog will chase it. We
all know that. I have seen dogs running after very small fawns, for example, and at
times catching sea birds.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29935
Having dogs on-leash will encourage more exercise for visitors and improve
overall health.
Corr. ID: 1412
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195349
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One way of getting humans to exercise more would be to
require leashes everywhere in the GGNRA. This would mean that if the owner
wants the dog to get exercise, the owner would most likely have to get exercise. (or
get a dog walker). At the moment, I observe dog owners sitting or standing in the
park and not getting aerobic exercise while there dogs are wandering all over the
park often off of voice control. Furthermore, dogs on leash would also allow people
who have avoided the parks due to off leash dogs to get exercise as well.
Overall, leash requirements would improve human health by increasing human
exercise.

GC6000 - On-leash Dogs: Oppose
29846
Dogs on-leash are more likely to be aggressive towards people and other dogs. Onleash dogs are more likely to get frustrated and feel more protective of their
owners, which can cause aggression
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 7
Comment ID: 181410
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please, please, please do not implement this plan.The dogs
learn social skills and are able to interact much easier off leash. On leash, dogs
become protective, often leading to altercations; the best way to avoid this is to
keep the parks the way they've always been.
Corr. ID: 4340
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209476
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On leash, Ozzie feels as though he needs to protect us.
This makes him occassionally act aggressively toward passing dogs, and is the
complete opposite of how playful he is when he's off leash. When Ozzie's on leash
it's not a relaxing experience for either of us.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29849
It is difficult for some visitors, particularly those that are disabled or elderly, to
adequately control their dogs on-leash. Having dogs on-leash also limits the
exercise dogs can obtain to the exercise abilities of their owners, which may not be
sufficient.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3399
Comment ID: 203140
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A leash rule may be an easy answer but it is far from fair
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

224

GC6000 – On‐leash dogs: Oppose

or right. The nature of the experience with the dogs off-leash - in which we are
letting the dogs socialize, run, play, etc. - fosters a type of camaraderie that is
increasingly rare in today's society, and it would be a great loss to our community
were it to become unavailable. A small minority of owners may not be as
responsible as they need to be, but to deny all dogs the opportunity to run free is
unconscionable. They simply cannot get enough exercise if they are always
leashed. When the rights of some are restricted, it is called discrimination. How can
it be that a few people can disallow the many access to a public space and restrict
their freedom? When one space becomes restricted what's to stop the spread of
restriction?
I am angry over how discriminated against we dog owners are. What other group is
consistently labeled by the actions of a few?
Corr. ID: 4317
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209413
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to comment on the rush to judgment proposed
in the new guidelines restricting off-leash access to the GGNRA. Rather than
formalizing the 1979 Pet Policy, the proposed new regulations are draconian in
their scope.
No concern appears to have been shown for those of us, whose main recreation is
walking with our dogs in the GGNRA. Elderly dog owners and many others cannot
adequately exercise their dogs while the dogs are on leash
Corr. ID: 4540
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209779
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA site at Fort Funston allows me and so many
other urban residents the recreation that we need. Having increasing mobility
problems, I try to walk frequently and purposefully as often as I can, and the hike
from the Fort Funston parking area to the on-leash-from-here sign to the north (I
don't know the name of that area; there is a lovely bench where one can fully relax
for awhile and enjoy the view) makes a perfect distance. I do know, however, that I
would not want to take that walk with two or three of my dogs on leash. I have
large dogs, and at 10 1/2, 9, and 2 1/2 years old, their walking paces and needs are
very different, and walking two or three of them on leash for a distance would be
quite uncomfortable for me.
29855
Leashing dogs would not solve or address many of the issues caused by dogs in the
GGNRA, including issues with waste and other environmental impacts. It is
unlikely that requiring dogs to be on-leash would result in any changes. Many
visitors would ignore the on-leash regulations, and it would be hard to enforce these
rules.
Organization: Self
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1860
Comment ID: 209623
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In summary, I request and recommend that off-lease
policies not be impacted but rather address the direct concerns of dog feces and
environmental damage with stiff fines for violators. Both issues can not be
corrected by leashing a dog so let's correct the behavior of the irresponsible
minority by citing violators.
Corr. ID: 2136
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193432
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Any Natural Resource Area where the potential for
significant impacts from allowing dogs off-leash exists should be excluded from
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

225

GC6000 – On‐leash dogs: Oppose

dog use, period. Allowing on-leash dog use in these areas requires constant
monitoring to ensure that dogs are not released off-leash. Such oversight and
enforcement is unlikely without an increase of ranger patrols which, in the past
have been practically non-existant.
Corr. ID: 3754
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204259
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It would be ideal to keep dogs out of all biologically
sensitive areas, which includes almost every site on the list. This includes leashed
dogs if only because their owners often ignore the leash once in situ.
29857
Having to walk dogs on-leash would have negative impacts on the experiences of
some visitors in the GGNRA. Some visitors may not enjoy having dogs present onleash. Alternately, others may feel that having to keep their dogs on-leash lessens
the experience of the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1673
Comment ID: 191072
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If my dogs were on-leash - one I wouldn't be inclined to
use the park and the park should be for the public for everyone to use. I wouldn't
have to stay in my apt. or be relegated to using only the dog parks.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

-Also, if the dogs are on leash - I - ME = I = Don't get to take in or appreciate the
beauty of the park.
Corr. ID: 3701
Organization: Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Comment ID: 202230
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Leashed and off-leash dogs have negative impacts on
many segments of our citizenry. Leashed and off-leash dogs can interfere with the
ability of visitors to appreciate the GGNRA or even result in some visitors avoiding
parts of the GGNRA thus reducing the ability of the GGNRA to provide for "?the
enjoyment of future generations?"
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29859
Some visitors felt that walking their dog on-leash was inhumane. Dogs need to be
able to run, and this is best achieved by off-leash dog walking.
Corr. ID: 931
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191403
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a huge proponent of off-leash areas for dogs. Dogs
provide tremendous service to many people and families, and to relegate them to
on-leash walks at human pace, with little opportunity for native interaction with
nature and with themselves is not adequate and not fair.
Corr. ID: 1986
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193165
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs need to run as well as we do leash makes this
impossible. These proposals read leash, leash, leash leash. Very unfriendly.
Corr. ID: 2121
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193400
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Walking a dog on leash on the beach is inhumane! My dog
would not understand this and would think he was being punished!

Concern ID:
CONCERN

29860
Having a dog on-leash presents a greater hazard to cyclists that having dogs off226

GC6000 – On‐leash dogs: Oppose

leash.
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 395
Comment ID: 181186
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Frankly, having my dog on a leash would be more
dangerous to cyclists that speed by us if I'm on one side of the trail and she is on the
other than if she is off leash. We try not to chose trails with a lot of bikes,
especially on weekends.

GC7000 - General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan
30527
The proposed Dog Management Plan benefits native wildlife and plant species by
protecting areas within sensitive habitat from impacts of off-leash dog walking. The
plan also provides important protection to threatened and endangered species.
Restricting dog access to the park will allow for fewer dog interactions with
wildlife and impacts from dogs on plants.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 300
Comment ID: 181038
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I whole-heartedly support restricting dogs in our federal
parks.
Our parks and beaches have become over-run with off-leash dogs who's
owners ignore signs warning of sensitive habitat. I support protecting
wildlife, wild birds and native plants.
Corr. ID: 447
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181702
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am both a dog owner and a member of the Audobon
society. I completely support protecting vital bird habitat. There is only one Pacific
flyway and we need to protect this vital habitat for migrating birds. It makes no
sense to allow a species to disappear just to give our dogs places to run.
Corr. ID: 1084
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192219
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support protecting wildlife by restricting offleash dogs. I am a native San Franciscan and I an inspired by seeing wildlife
thriving in nature. To my dismay, even areas with signs requiring dogs to be onleash, have been over-run by off-leash dogs. I have seen wildlife chased by dogs.
The areas where I can go birdwatching have become so limited, I have resigned
myself to hour plus drives to go to remote areas where no dogs are allowed. I
applaud your efforts to create a sanctuary for wild animals in the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 1754
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191486
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Taken as a whole, the Preferred Alternative is the best of
the plans offered. It balances the interests of the general public with those of dogs
and their owners in a fair manner. It protects highly sensitive wildlife areas such as
the nesting places of snowy plover and bank swallow, while providing ROLAs
where dogs can run free within sight and voice range of their human companions.
For example, it recognizes the importance of the recently restored area of Crissy
Field, and at the same time provides a ROLA in part of the old airfield. It is a
workable compromise.
Corr. ID: 2049
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200540
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As much of a dog lover as I am, I strongly believe that our
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

227

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

domestic companion animals should never trample on the habitat of wildlife,
particularly endangered and threatened wildlife. There are many other places in the
area where we can walk our dogs off-leash. I strongly support the preferred
alternative and the restriction of off-leash areas in the GGNRA. Thank you for your
service
Corr. ID: 3022
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200995
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support these rules wholeheartedly. They still allow dogs
to share our parks, but do so in a responsible way. I have been a volunteer in the
Park since 1993, and have seen the damage that a small number of uncontrolled
dogs can cause - along with the impact of the high numbers of dogs, even when
they're under control. It's frustrating to see habitat restoration work destroyed by
dogs digging and romping; as a bird lover, it's painful to watch dogs chase birds
who are trying to rest or feed; it's annoying to encounter ill-behaved dogs who jump
on people, tussle with other dogs and steal food from picnickers while their
inattentive owners ignore the situation.
30528
Commenters supported the plan as it would improve visitor experience for those
park users who do not enjoy the presence of dogs. Visitors who were afraid of dogs
would have more opportunities to have a no-dog experience in the GGNRA. Some
visitors who enjoy dogs felt that their experience would be improved by having
more controls on dogs, particularly off-leash dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1053
Comment ID: 192149
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a ten-year-old boy who has practically grown up in
the Golden Gate National Parks. I was born just a few blocks from the Presidio, I
go to school just outside of the Presidio, and my mom takes me to the parks all the
time. My favorite places are Crissy Field, Lands End, and Rodeo Beach. I volunteer
at Lands End, go to the Crissy Field Center summer camp, and regularly see
movies at the Disney Museum.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I have been raised with dogs, and I love dogs. I think the dog plan that the National
Park Service has proposed is very reasonable, because I don't think that dogs should
have exclusive rights in the parks. Really, I don't think that dog WALKERS AND
OWNERS should have exclusive rights in the parks. Why should they have priority
over kids and babies and snowy plovers and lizardtail and monkeyflower? We all
have to live together and in harmony, and the dog owners should not be the boss of
everyone else.
I really love the parks, and I want them and their plants and animals and habitats to
be around for everyone to enjoy.
Corr. ID: 1856
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200314
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have had many conflicts (on the brink of violence) with
many many dog walkers in San Francisco (marina green, ocean beach, fort point)
and in the marin headlands. I have stayed away from some very attractive areas of
San Francisco due to overly aggressive dog owners (lands end, fort funston, lake
merced, the presidio). I feel that the preferred alternative is a reasonable
compromise but anything that allows for more off leash dog areas than proposed in
the preferred alternative would not be acceptable to me.
Corr. ID: 3140
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202633
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
228

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

Representative Quote: I SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS TO BETTER MANAGE
DOGS IN THE PARKS!
As a San Franciscan with a small child, I am tired of vying for open space with
rough, unleashed, unruly dogs. I am tired of dog poop everywhere.
There are way too many irresponsible dog owners, and they have a negative impact
on our parks.
In the last few weeks, I have noticed dog poop all over Ocean Beach (at Lawton).
In April I watched an off-leash dog, at least a hundred yards from its owner, pee on
another beach goer's bike and teeshirt!! And on Mothers Day in Golden Gate Park
an unleashed dog ran over our picnic blanket.
My 3 year old is scared of dogs. Can you blame her?
30529
The preferred alternative strikes a fair compromise between dog owners and other
user groups in the GGNRA. The plan provides adequate areas for all park uses and
retains ample areas for dog walking both on and off-leash, while allowing areas for
a no-dog experience. The plan also provides important protection of park resources.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 281
Comment ID: 180942
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a dog-owner, I feel the recommendations set forth in
this proposal are an adequate compromise for all visitors to the GGNRA. I was left
with the impression that dogs were banned in as few areas as possible, while
maximized dog access through on-leash requirements. I belive on-leash regulations
are in the best interest of all park visitors - it allows for dog-owners to enjoy their
pet companions in our public lands while respecting non dog-owners and protecting
the dogs themselves.
Corr. ID: 337
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181105
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have reviewed the maps and comments for preferred
alternatives for all of the San Francisco GGNRA units. I believe that the preferred
alternatives represent an equitable balance between those who prefer to bring dogs
and those who don't. They also fulfill the mandate of the NPS to protect and
preserve our wildlife and natural resources. I also believe that the preferred
alternatives are realistic considering the limited amount of resources that can be
used to enforce the adopted policy.
Corr. ID: 789
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186013
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I applaud the Park Service's work in constructing this plan
and feel that it is a balanced approach that will allow citizens with dogs reasonable
access while protecting park resources as well as citizens who don't want their park
experience to be impacted by dogs.
Corr. ID: 2074
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200501
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the dog plan. I have nothing against
dogs, and I feel that they should have the opportunity to get unfettered exercise, but
not at the expense of the rest of the world. At Crissy Field, even leashed dogs can
be a major nuisance, or rather their owners can, when the owner walks down one
side the walkway and his or her leashed pet prowls the other side.
Corr. ID: 2189
Organization: Sierra Club and Save the Bay
Comment ID: 200584
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is vital to preserve and protect sensitive natural
resources, particularly endangered bird specifies like the Snowy Plover and other
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

229

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

animals. The proposed NPS plan for limiting dog walking within GGNRA should
be adopted without change.
This plan offers a good balance of access to dog owners while protecting wildlife
and the quality of park experience. I am disappointed that many dog owners
opposed to the plan cannot recognize the importance of protecting all animals in the
park.
Corr. ID: 2504
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200720
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The park's mission is to protect the natural and cultural
resources, not allow recreation to undermine it.
The park should better accommodate diverse park user groups, such as runners,
horseback riders, families, and those with service animals, by offering more than
one trail and more beach areas free from dog recreation.
All off-leash areas should be enclosed to protect park users, wildlife, and other
natural areas. Also off-leash areas should be located and limited in scope to not
have negative impact on sensitive wildlife habitats.
Thank you creating a better park experience at Golden Gate National Recreation
Area, and for giving imperiled species a chance to survive.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

30530
The restrictions placed on dogs under the proposed plan will improve health and
safety conditions for visitors in the park. The control of off-leash dogs will help
reduce dog-related incidents.

For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29742 (HS4010),
Comment 200496
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 20
Comment ID: 181450
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan makes a great deal of sense and moves toward
protecting both the wildlife and human safety in open park spaces. Please
implement these stricter rules and regulations for the benefit of the vast majority
who simply wish to enjoy the beauty of the Bay Area in peace and safety.
Corr. ID: 430
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181617
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Kudos for this plan to restrict off-leash dog use at many
GGNRA beaches. As a mother of a 2-year old who has been chased, barked at and
snarled at by dogs on local trails and beaches, I firmly believe dogs are dangerous
animals that need to be kept under control -- and "voice control" means nothing
when the owner is not even in sight or paying no attention.
Corr. ID: 501
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181875
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the general direction of the proposed policy
change, because it would improve visitor safety and reduce user conflicts. The
policy is also finely tailored, and responsive to the individual circumstances and
priorities in dozens of specific locations across the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 2035
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200346
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
230

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

Representative Quote: I fully support the proposed restrictions on off leash dogs
in the GGNRA.
I have 2 small children and I feel like I can't use the Chrissy field beach due to off
leash and agressive dogs. Dogs often bark and target small children--making the
beach unusable. And, dog themselves get into brawls off leash and it is dangerous
for nearby children and people.
I currently live near a SF park with a fenced in dog area--this is the only way that
this park is usable for people with small kids. Without a fenced in off leash dog
area--most other parks in SF are unusable because people take their dogs off leash -whether it is permitted or not.
Corr. ID: 3124
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201547
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am in favor of the Dog management plan. In the last few
days, I have seen dogs being washed in the shower, dogs brought into the
bathroom, dogs off leash in the pick nick area and parking lot, dog poop on the
lawn and beach, a pit bull style dog fighting with some big fluffy dog both off leash
that the owners were trying to pull apart at crissy east beach. Dogs growling at
people on the beach.
30531
The proposed plan has well-divided user spaces, so that all visitors to the park are
accommodated. These areas are well thought out based on the environmental
resources present at all the sites, and help mitigate impacts to these resources.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 835
Comment ID: 186142
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've looked over the Executive Summary, and it looks
fairly balanced and well-thought-out. I like that there will be some off-leash areas,
some on-leash areas, and some areas dogs, and I like that these decisions seem to
be based on the relative environmental impact of dogs in different areas (such as
the Crissy Field wildlife restoration area, and the Ocean Beach snowy plover
protection area).
Corr. ID: 1633
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200216
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the preferred alternative. It balances the need to
protect the park's resources, as required by law, and still provide more then
adequate opportunity for dog owners to bring their dogs to the park. Please limit
dog use and protect the park's precious natural resources for this and future
generations of Americans. The GGNRA is public land - owned by all Americans,
not a private dog run for San Francisco dog afficiandos.
Corr. ID: 3150
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202844
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I appreciate the work that has been done by GGNRA on
the dog issue. I support the preferred alternatives (shaded areas in the plan). I
believe the represent a balance between the needs of dog walkers and those that
come to parks to enjoy a dog free experience.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I feel it is especially important to protect the beach areas. I have witnessed many
instances where off-lease dogs chase down sea birds that are foraging in the surf.
Corr. ID: 4143
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208603
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my support for the preferred
231

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

alternative, with some basic adjustments. I base my support on the following:
- the preferred alternative makes the best attempt to maintain dog walking, and
general public enjoyment, in the park while respecting natural and cultural
resources
- the preferred alternative makes the best attempt to maintain dog walking in the
park with consideration for the variety of public uses, particularly in heavily used
areas
- the preferred alternative makes the best attempt at clarifying the need for dog
management in a national park in an urban area that does not have a gate or clear
boundaries
30532
Commenters supported the preferred alternative because it will help place
restrictions on commercial dog walkers. Many of these commenters felt that such
restrictions would lessen many of the impacts on visitors and natural resources in
the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4669
Comment ID: 209181
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Plan allows more access to dogs off leash than any
other national park in the country. It puts reasonable restrictions on professional
dog walkers who make a profit off public lands. It preserves our natural lands and
protects wildlife. It protects visitors and park employees, some of whom have been
bitten, charged or otherwise harassed by dogs off leash and, I might add, by their
owners_ It also protects dogs by ensuring that everyone follows the same rules.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The GGNRA belongs to all citizens, not just those with dogs living in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Everyone deserves a place where they can enjoy the quiet
respite that a national park provides, especially in an urban area. No other national
park allows unrestricted access to dogs off leash. Neither should the GGNRA.
30533
There are many other areas for off-leash dog walkers to enjoy in the Bay Area, and
the plan provides ample space for off-leash dog walking. Off-leash areas should be
limited in the GGNRA to provide more areas for other user groups, and to protect
resources.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 908
Comment ID: 191282
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the NPS preferred alternative for the GGNRA
Draft Dog management plan. As a Mill Valley resident and daily user of many of
the designated trails and recreational areas, I have had an ongoing concern about
the environmental / wildlife damage done by dogs. Even in areas currently
designated as leash required, I encounter more off-leash dogs than on-leash dogs. I
believe that the preferred plan provides sufficient dog resources on public lands.
Corr. ID: 1156
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192907
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We are dog lovers/owners ourselves, and we would never
take our dog on a public beach unleashed.. We see absolutely nothing wrong with
the GGNRA plan to require dogs to be on leashes on the beaches and in GGNRA.
The fact that some areas will still allow off-leash dogs is, quite frankly, generous to
dog owners.
Corr. ID: 4669
Organization: Not Specified
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

232

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

Comment ID: 209177
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is quite illuminating that almost all parks and trails in the
municipalities surveyed allow dogs only on leash or in designated areas. The Plan
allows dogs off leash in more areas than any national park, and more than in most
local parks as well, including those in San Francisco.
30534
The proposed plan provides clear and enforceable rules, which will make it more
likely that visitors will comply with the regulations. In addition, the compliancebased management will also help to provide incentives for compliance with the new
restrictions.
Organization: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3059
Comment ID: 201238
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree that no new off leash dog areas be created inside
the GGNRA. In my opinion, off leash dog recreation is a need that should be met
by city and county parks.
I agree with the document that attempts to create easy to understand/ enforce areas
for dog-focused recreation and other forms of recreation. This is the only way that
the public can understand closures, as the seasonal closures at areas like Ocean
Beach and Crissy Field have been so poorly complied with.
I agree with the compliance based management described in the plan. Allowing
park users opportunities to improve their behavior before more restrictions are
placed appears more than fair, and a 75% compliance level is a very generous level
to expect.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30535
The proposed dog management plan is beneficial for those users who would like to
continue to ride horses in the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 2177
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200631
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I looked over the GGNRA Draft Dog Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement As a horseback rider, I was satisfied with the
sections that included continued use of horseback riding in the GGNRA park
system.

GC8000 - General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan
30628
The proposed plan punishes the majority of dog owners, who are respectful of
GGNRA, follow the rules, and clean up after their dogs. It is not fair to implement
such a policy, which targets those who are non-compliant by taking away the rights
of the many who do comply with the rules. The Park Service should reject this
plan, and instead work with dog groups and other users of the park to develop a
plan that better meets the needs of users of the GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 229
Comment ID: 180728
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The vast majority of dog owners are respectful, lawabiding citizens who clean up after their pets and follow the rules. Please don't
punish these people and their dogs by implementing a plan like this, which is
directed at those who are disrespectful and irresponsible.
Corr. ID: 329
Organization: Not Specified
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

233

GC7000 – General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan

Comment ID: 181093
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a resident of the city of San Francisco and a dog owner
myself, I STRONGLY URGE you to work with the dog-advocate community to
develop a more workable solution than the one that is currently being proposed.
Corr. ID: 1180
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193557
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: regulations should be implemented to penalize the
violators, not the entire dog population. Most people who take the time to bring
their dogs to an off-leash area love their animals and do their part to maintain the
property and surroundings. Most dogs aren't a threat to the environment and other
people so please reconsider the penalties and limitations these new regulations will
bring.
Corr. ID: 1861
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200295
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We recognize there are owners whom we would like to be
more responsible with their dogs. But they are few in number - incidents involving
dogs in GGNRA are less than 4% of all incidents in the park. Penalizing all dog
owners for the behavior of a truly small minority is not the right approach.
Corr. ID: 2321
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195267
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Banning dogs or allowing on-leash dogs only in these
wonderful parks punishes the majority of dogs and their owners because of the
irresponsibility of a few owners. It would be like banning all cars because some
drivers drive recklessly. Or banning all nightclubs because some people get drunk
and violent. Fine the irresponsible people, not those who have well-behaved dogs
and are doing nothing wrong.
Corr. ID: 3075
Organization: Nature Conservancy, American Society
of Hospital Pharmacists
Comment ID: 201286
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: After reviewing the GGNRA Draft Dog Mangaement Plan/
EIS, I find the NPS alternatives too restrictive with respect to off-leash dog
recreation, and are therefore unacceptable. As a member of the Nature
Conservancy, park user, taxpayer and stakeholder , I strongly urge the NPS to work
with the representatives of SFSPCA and Eco-Dog as equal partners in developing a
management plan that is balanced, progressive, and forward thinking.
30629
The proposed dog management plan severely restricts the recreation of dog owners.
These areas are necessary to maintaining the quality of life for dog owners in the
bay area, as well as their health. If the plan is enacted, it will force dog owners to
walk their dogs in situations that are more hazardous for dogs and owners.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 275
Comment ID: 180894
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One of the best things about living in San Franciso is the
unique opportunity dog owners have to enjoy the city's natural resources with their
pets. Please don't take away off-leash dog walking priveleges in the GGNRA. The
quality of my life, and the lives of many Bay Area residents, will be greatly
diminished if the proposed changes to the dog management plan are enacted.
Corr. ID: 1371
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195234
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Draft Dog Management Plan would reduce our
enjoyment and use of the park considerably. The more restrictive uses would
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

234

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

definitely change my activities with my dog as I would imagine it would for other
dog owners. There is tremendous value to going to off leash areas, such as Ocean
Beach, with my dog. I urge the city not to change the current dog management
rules.
Corr. ID: 1880
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200607
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog owner who would be affected by the proposed
policy, but I object not only because it will affect me, but because it will prevent
people of all ages from enjoying beaches and trails with their dogs with no sound
basis for doing so. The management plan provides no support for its conclusion that
exclusion of users with dogs is the best solution to occasional user conflict.
Moreover, the study specifically cites concerns about habitat, particularly birds, but
cites no studies to support those concerns.
30630
The proposed plan will negatively impact the health of many Bay Area residents,
particularly those who are elderly or disabled, and walk regularly with their dogs.
Restricting dog access will mean these visitors can no longer use the parks, or will
not be able to get sufficient exercise for themselves or their dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1203
Comment ID: 194830
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Health of our Elders: Fort Funston and other off-leash
areas in the Bay Area has become a haven for older people to walk their dogs,
socialize with other seniors, and form a community that makes their lives more
fulfilling. The vitality of this community will be greatly diminished if your
proposal goes into effect. Their health and vitality is greatly increased as a result. If
anything, off-leash dog walking ought to be encouraged, especially for seniors, as a
way to lead more healthy and fulfilling lives.
Corr. ID: 3039
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201044
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a 33 year old mother, who lives on the beach in
Northern California. For most of my life, I have had at least one family dog. They
have been part of our family, joining us in almost every outing, from daily beach
walks to annual camp outs. They have also been the inspiration to be active in
nature, during times I may not have been normally. On days where I may have been
lazy or too stressed out, instead, my dogs have urged me to get outdoors, to breathe
some fresh air, to appreciate my outdoor surroundings. In our hectic lives, it is
these times that help keep us grounded, relieve our daily stresses and therefore
allow us to become better people.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

During most of my walks, my dogs have been off leash and under my voice
control. They have been able to run freely and play, jump in the water, and meet
other dogs. It is one of the most enjoyable parts of my day.
Closing or limiting the ability to bring dogs on trails, parks, and beaches is a
heartbreaking thought.
It means you are denying an important ritual, and depressing the psyche for many
people. It means more stress, caused by not having the ability to walk easily and
accessibly. It means declining health both mentally and physically by not getting
daily exercise outdoors.
It means less active people outdoors-those who care for our environment because
we appreciate it on a daily basis.
I urge you to allow access for dogs and their owners on our beaches, trails and
235

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

parks for the general health and sanity of our communities. It is crucial to our well
being .We all need to be able to enjoy the outdoors with our best companions.
Corr. ID: 3877
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205771
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I write to oppose the current GGRN dog-management
plan. Current off-leash parks have long histories of serving the residents of San
Francisco, and their canine companions, well, without undue restraints on non-dogaccompanied residents. To reduce the off-leash area is to create harm to the health
and mental health of all residents of this beautiful city. My dog died in August
2010, but I continue to go to Crissy Field and Fort Funston for my walks, especially
because I want to be able to see and greet the many beautiful dogs being given the
fresh air and exercise they need.
Corr. ID: 4012
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206324
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan and protest it's unfair impact on single senior women who hike
with their dogs for health. With a history of heart disease in my family, my
physician has recommended hiking for exercise for physical and emotional health. I
hike with my dog for safety. It is not realistic to think that I can do a vigorous hike
on the slopes with my dog on a six foot leash.
Corr. ID: 4231
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208569
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan. The GGNRA can accommodate both recreation and
conservation. It was designed as an urban recreation area, and one of the biggest
recreation needs in an urban area is dog-walking. Dogs such as my Irish Setter, and
many other large breed dogs, cannot get enough exercise on leash; they need to be
able to run.The draft plan disregards the health and well-being of people, dogs, and
the community. It arbitrarily excludes the Bay Area residents who exercise
regularly with their canine companions. This plan discriminates against all people
with dogs, including tourists, seniors, families, the disabled, minorities, and others.
30631
Commenters were opposed to the proposed restrictions, and felt that it was
unnecessary to have rules that differed from the rules of the city and county where
the parks are located. The proposed plan would be difficult and costly to enforce,
and sets users up to be in non-compliance. If enforcement does not occur, this plan
will not result in any changes.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 335
Comment ID: 181103
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: while I am a law abiding citizen - I vote, pay taxes, am
fairly active - I seem to be completely out of step with your current plans. I guess
I'm ultimately unclear why the Federal government can create pet rules that are
different than the cities or counties where these parks are housed.
Corr. ID: 1501
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191356
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: That false premise is that in a place like GGNRA you can
resolve differences between competing users by drawing lines on maps and
imposing rules on those maps that say you can do this here but not there, you can
do the other thing there but not here, except in the following cases, and you can't do
any of it in this place and all of it in that place. It won't work. It is horrifically
complicated, too hard for the average park user to understand. It will encourage
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

236

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

them to violate the rules when no one is looking and you can't possibly police this
yourselves. The aggrieved parties at this site or the other will continue fighting to
amend the rules and the lines -- forever -- so its a prescription for unending
resentment and conflict.
Corr. ID: 2042
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200536
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm still not happy with the options you've created for dogowning families in the city. They're not realistic, you don't have the staff available
to enforce them, and they just won't work for our city.
Corr. ID: 2964
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203636
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to voice my opposition to the preferred
alternative, and my support for a no-change policy or a new alternative, which
would allow dogs everywhere that is currently off-leash, plus create sufficient offleash opportunities in San Mateo County.
Additionally, a new alternative should remove the compliance-based management
strategy. I believe the preferred alternative would substantially change my quality
of life, as well as that of my dog, by removing social and exercise outlets.
I believe that the preferred alternative violates the mandate for the" maintenance of
needed recreational open space" contained in the legislation that created the
GGNRA.
There are not enough trails with off-leash access in the Preferred Alternative.The
contraction of areas available for off-leash recreation will significantly compromise
the park experience for people with dogs, and contribute to crowding and traffic
problems, especially in San Francisco's parks, as more and more people are forced
into smaller and smaller areas.
A new alternative should target enforcement on the small number of people whose
dogs misbehave, rather than excluding the entire class of people with dogs from
most of the GGNRA.
Finally, the level of enforcement required by the Preferred Alternative is excessive
and unsustainable. Targeting people walking their dogs irresponsibly and leaving
responsible dog walkers alone would be a much more efficient use of GGNRA
resources. The DEIS states that it will cost nearly $1million to enforce the Preferred
Alternative, through the hiring of more Park Rangers or Park Police. In an era of
shrinking federal budgets, this seems a poor use of scarce financial resources.
Existing Park Rangers could more easily enforce already existing rules such as
picking up pet litter or no chasing of birds. These enforcement actions are all that
are needed to ensure responsible dog walking and minimal impact on natural
resources and other park visitors from off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 3788
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205323
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think the Dog Management Plan is too ambitious in terms
of micro management. It's application and enforcement could lead a lot of cost and
ill will from the public. I am not convinced that it is necessary. Hence, I believe
Alternative A is best if the Plan has too be imposed
Concern ID:
CONCERN

30632
Dog owners already have so little access to areas in the GGNRA with their dogs, to
237

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

restrict this further as is proposed in the DEIS is unfair to dog owners. These areas
need to be available for dog walkers, for their safety, and visitor experience.
Having these areas will not impact other NPS properties.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 370
Comment ID: 181153
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a responsible tax payer, registered voter and registered
dog owner, I am appalled by this proposed plan. Currently only 1% of all the
National Golden Gate Recreational Area allows dog access and now to propose
limiting that by 90% is an outrageous.
Corr. ID: 808
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186050
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA's Dog Management Plan is wrong, and
should be defeated. A tiny percentage of land of the GGNRA is available for offleash dog walking, and off-leash dogs do not affect in any meaningful way the
management of other areas in the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 1374
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195241
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: An on leash dog provides little to no more risk to the
habitat than the person using the trail but provides a huge measure of security and
safety to a women hiking on such a trail by herself. I am already unable to take
advantage of many of the beautiful trails in the Bay Area for this reason and
proposing further inhibitions of this type are extremely disappointing. In fact, I
would not support any politician who proposed or supported such changes. I would
avidly support laws enforcing existing rules such as heavy fines and enforcement of
waste pick-up or ensuring dogs are on leash, but consider laws prohibiting leashed
dogs on a trail both a safety issue for myself and not justifiable.
Corr. ID: 2993
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203704
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing as a voter, taxpayer, and responsible dog
owner to oppose the GGNRA draft dog management plan. It goes too far in
banning and restricting dogs. Walking and hiking with my dogs is one of my main
forms of recreation. It's good for my physical and emotional health. Most of the
California state parks and the federal parks are not dog friendly, which makes it
more essential that the few places where dogs are allowed be maintained. I think
the draft management plan greatly exaggerates the issues related to dogs in the
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3067
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201253
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm writing to oppose the GGNRA draft dog management
plan that reduces opportunities to enjoy hiking in open spaces with my good dog
companion Luke. Having my dog accompany me on the Coastal Trail makes me
feel safe and secure when we encounter homeless denizens of the Trail, take a
twilight stroll, or visit the trail during inclement weather and few other people.
There would be no reason to go on the Trail if he had to be left at home.I don't want
to see my tax dollars go towards limiting options to physical exercise and healthier
choices, because it's far better to get outside and play rather than sit at home and
mope. That's exactly what we would do, Luke and I, since we don't have a car and
cannot drive to a park far away that permits a dog to run and frolic with other dogs.
Please keep the Coastal Trail a place where I can go with my dog and get away
from the stress of the city.
Corr. ID: 3990
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207399
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
STATEMENT:

238

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Representative Quote: I am writing to strongly oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan. While I understand and support your conservation efforts, I
believe this current plan does not adequately reflect the importance of off-leash dog
walking areas in, or near, San Francisco.
While I do believe the current plan relies on some questionable studies to draw
certain (questionable) conclusions, I am not a scientist, and therefor cannot speak
directly to these points. Instead, I simply want to voice my concern that this plan
does not adequately consider the negative impacts on all Bay Area residents.
For the past 8 years we have taken our dog to Fort Funston twice a week. This is a
necessary and important routine in our lives to maintain the health of our dog, and
ourselves. Fort Funston, and other parks mentioned in your plan, provide essential
off-leash areas in a way that a standard dog park cannot. While San Francisco does
provide (limited) off-leash dog parks, the bulk of them are far too small to be of
any real value for medium to large dogs.
The GGNRA land is an integral part of Bay Area life. It provides the only truly
open space within reasonable distance. The current policies in place already
severely limit dog access to GGNRA land, and these proposed restrictions will
unfairly reduce that access even further - leaving many dog lovers with no viable
options.
Corr. ID: 4274
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209089
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a resident of San Francisco, CA, I am writing you to
express my earnest concern regarding the Draft Dog Management Plan released by
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area ("GGNRA") on January 11, 2011.
Currently, 1% of the GGNRA-controlled land allows for dogs to be off leash and
under voice control. If the proposed plan is passed, it will effectively eliminate the
off- leash areas of over 90% of that 1% and will significantly change usage and
enjoyment of this recreational area for the thousands of dogs and dog owners in the
city. If passed, it will also have an extremely negative impact on the
population/usage of existing city parks and neighborhoods, which would be forced
to absorb the overflow from GGNRA-controlled land.
30633
Many commenters were opposed to the proposed plan because of the impacts it
would have on city and county parks. These impacts would result in dangerous and
unhealthy situations, and some dogs do not do well in these kind of parks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 399
Comment ID: 181191
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are over 100,000 dogs in San Francisco and they
need somewhere to go. Fort Funston and the Presidio are wonderful places for dogs
to run off leash. This is one reason San Francisco is beautiful and unique. By
restricting off leash walking in the GGNRA this will destroy our neighborhood
parks. There are just too many dogs and not enough parks already.
Corr. ID: 1583
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190807
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The negative impact on the city parks will be enormous if
off leash dog walking is prohibitted at GGNRA areas = where will all those dogs
go? Stern Grove, Dubore Park, Golden Gate Park, etc. Those facilities cannot
handle greater dog traffic. For this reason alone this policy should not be adopted.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

239

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Corr. ID: 2796
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201143
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We are writing to oppose the proposed Dog Management
Plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. We are long-time residents of
San Francisco. We have been responsibly walking our dogs at Fort Funston, Crissy
Field, Marin Headlands and other locations in the GGNRA for many years. Our
current dog has recently earned his Canine Good Citizen certification from the
AKC. Our dog are always either on-lead or under voice control.
We are long-time environmentalists and strongly support laws and regulations that
protect the environment, but not this one.
Daily walks with our family, friends and our dogs in the GGNRA is an important
part of our social life. It also plays a major role in our exercise program for keeping
healthy.
Wildlife in the GGNRA needs protection but the proposed GGNRA plan is too
extreme. The San Francisco Bay Area is a heavily populated urban area where
multiple needs have to be balanced. The proposed GGNRA plan does not
sufficiently protect the needs of people compared to the needs of a relatively small
number of birds.
In addition, prohibiting dogs in the GGNRA will force dog owners to use other dog
parks in the city causing overcrowding in the dog parks and parking problems in
surrounding neighborhoods.
We respectfully urge you to actively oppose this extreme and counterproductive
proposal.
Corr. ID: 3186
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203837
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs that are not adequately exercised can develop
behavioral problems such as barking, destroying property in the home, etc. This
obviously creates a ripple effect, extending into the neighborhoods and
communities throughout our fine city. If the few existing off leash areas were
further prohibited as proposed by the GGNRA, the result would be devastating for
all. All of the parks in San Francisco that are not part of GGNRA land, will be
overrun by dogs. The DEIS does not adequately address dispersion issues. The
DEIS does not adequately address the environmental and social impact of forcing
large numbers of people and dogs into much smaller areas. Reducing the amount of
area available for off-leash will significantly degrade the park experience for people
with dogs. It will increase conflicts. Even more importantly, the DEIS does not
address the environmental and social impact on small, neighborhood parks in cities
like San Francisco next to the GGNRA. Because the GGNRA is located
immediately adjacent to one of the most densely populated areas in the United
States (San Francisco), it provides much needed recreational open space for Bay
Area residents. If that open space is lost to recreational access, people and their
dogs will move to the much smaller city parks and they will not be able to absorb
the hundreds or thousands of people with dogs each day that will be kicked out of
the GGNRA. As further proof that the GGNRA did not consider impacts on city
parks in San Francisco, the Preferred Alternative suggests the nearest legal offleash area in San Francisco to Fort Funston is Lake Merced. That off-leash area has
been closed to off-leash for years and has been turned into a native plant restoration
area and habitat for the endangered red-legged frog among other animals. Yet this
is where the DEIS suggests people with dogs go. This exemplifies the lack of
240

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

common sense and awareness present in these overly restrictive plans. For the sake
of all San Franciscans, a better alternative must be reached.
Corr. ID: 3519
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201262
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to ask you to stop the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area from implementing its dog management plan.
My friends come from Castro Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno just to walk their
dogs. It is such a sense of community walking Mori Point and at times it's my
meditation after a hards day work. Working with dogs, there are more dogs than
you may realize that do not do well in dog parks. My dog has been bullied in dog
parks and hence will not go in them without hiding under a park bench. She is
wonderful off leash running free and it's a true pleasure to watch.
Dogs without proper exercise can end up with behavioral problems which may
mean dropping a dog off at the shelter. I also volunteer at the Peninsula Humane
Society and they surely don't need more dogs in their shelter. People also need
daily exercise, and some people wouldn't even be out walking if it wasn't for their
dogs. As you know there are health benefits from daily exercise, such as weight
loss, controlling blood sugar and cholesteral, as well as mental benefits.
Corr. ID: 3600
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203733
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Owning a dog implies a commitment to treating the animal
well. That entails giving the dog sufficient exercise. If GGNRA enacts its current
proposal, I will have no where to take my dog for exercise. Those areas that will be
left, will be overrun by the 100,000+ dogs that reside in this city.
I need the protection of my dog and my dog needs to be treated well and get the
exercise she needs. Without that, I run the risk of my dog changing her nature and
becomming more aggressive and less reliable which puts me at risk.
GGNRA has not substantiated that there is actual damage from dogs. It has implied
that there might be. Before we eliminatae dogs from these areas we need to be
assured that there is actual damage that can not be avoided by some other means.
Corr. ID: 3688
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204214
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA is a multi use facility and it is my
observation that the current rules are fair to all. Severely curtailing permitted
current uses will only place added burdens on our already over-burdened City park
facilities.
I respectfully urge that you continue the current multi-use regulations which have
proven to be fair to the overwhelming numbers of users of Park facilities. To do
otherwise is to unfairly penalize pet owners and the desires of our elected officials.
30638
The original intent for creation of the GGNRA was a park to serve an urban area.
Recreational uses included off-leash dog walking, and to remove this use under the
proposed plan goes against the mandate for the GGNRA. Off-leash dog walking is
part of the history and culture of the GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 40
Comment ID: 181770
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

241

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Representative Quote: Walking your dog off leash long predates GGNR. It is part
of GGNR's history and culture and therefore it deserves to be preserved. This plan
does not do that. It appears deliberately designed to limit access or provide access
only where it is difficult or impractical to use.
Corr. ID: 754
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 185436
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: the Preferred Alternative severely restricts recreational
access for people with dogs, a fundamental violation of the reason the GGNRA was
created.In the legislation that created it, the reason for the creation of the GGNRA
is listed as "the maintenance of needed recreational open space." Off-leash dog
walking is among the recreational activities listed as traditionally occurring in the
land that was to become the GGNRA. There is no off-leash access in San Mateo
County in the Preferred Alternative and that must be changed.
Corr. ID: 3130
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202033
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: the legislation that created the GGNRA, the reason for the
creation of the GGNRA is listed as "the maintenance of needed recreational open
space." Off-leash dog walking is among the recreational activities listed as
traditionally occurring in the land that was to become the GGNRA. When dogs are
walked in a responsible way (as most are), there is no conflict with the environment
or with other park users. Target people not walking their dogs responsibly, but
leave the vast majority of us alone.
The 1979 Pet Policy allowed dogs off-leash on less than 1% of GGNRA land. In
other words, 99% of all GGNRA land is off-limits to dogs now. There is muchmost-GGNRA land where humans will see either no dogs or dogs only on-leash.
On the Oakwood Valley trails, for example, I frequently count the ratio of people
with and without dogs and it is usually about 12-15 people using the trails with a
dog and even at popular times of the day (Saturday morning, for instance), 1 or 2
people walking without dogs.
All evidence points to the status quo as being the best of the options presented in
the new proposal. It's the policy in effect since 1979, and over 99% of people and
dogs seem to co-exist under current policy with no trouble. I would support some
reasonable changes-perhaps new restrictions, such as licenses for dog walking in
the GGNRA, and/or fees, for "commercial" dog walkers, which even the dog
walkers' associations supports.
Corr. ID: 3581
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203641
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan. I have attended a number of public meetings on the subject and
have studied the findings in the report. As a San Franciscan who has been involved
in the area of park advocacy, I am very distressed to think that we are about to
remove most of the off-leash areas in the GGNRA. I served on a citizen's advisory
committee in the mid-1970's when the GGNRA was just in its infancy. The idea to
create an "urban park" by replacing outdated military sites with all types of
recreational needs was so exciting. This was to be a unique park. It was not a
pristine wilderness but rather the reclamation of restricted and areas that had been
off-limits to our citizens. Dog recreation was encouraged as a way to bring people
out to the new park lands. It worked and in fact worked well for over 40 years.
Which is why this is so distressing. The proposed rules will seriously impact
thousands of our citizens.
Corr. ID: 3715
Organization: Not Specified
242

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Comment ID: 202261
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Having read the proposed plan at great length and attended
several of the NPS Open Houses I write to oppose the GGNRA draft dog
management plan. I find the NPS is once again skewing evidence and scientific fact
to mislead, exaggerate, speculate and manipulate and forming conclusions that are
neither based in fact nor supported by science or the law.
The GGNRA is large enough, at more than 75,000 acres, to accommodate both
recreation and conservation. Originally designed as an urban recreation area and
not as a pristine wilderness area, like Yosemite and many other National Parks,
NPS now seeks to alter the mandate of its creation. It is worth noting that the courts
have repeatedly upheld the existing 1979 pet policy. They have said that it was
consistent in both fact and intent with the original mandate for recreation upon
which the GGNRA was founded. The area now in contention, upon which the NPS
wishes to leash dogs, is in fact less than 1% of the total acreage of the park.
This plan would disenfranchise an entire class of park visitor in favor of other
classes. It disregards the health and well being of people, dogs, and the community
and arbitrarily excludes Bay Area residents who exercise regularly with their
canine companions, discriminating against all people with dogs, including tourists,
seniors, families, the disabled, minorities, and others. Moreover the NPS is
blatantly disregarding their avowed purpose to "provide a variety of visitor
experiences" by ignoring the obvious needs of a large part of the visitor constituent
- those who are dog owners. They are being singled out and excluded in favor of
hikers, walkers, mountain bicyclists, equestrians, bird watchers, fishermen,
naturists and beachgoers.
Corr. ID: 4072
Organization: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Comment ID: 207761
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Adopting severe restrictions limiting access based on the
will of a few individuals is directly contrary to the goals of the GGNRA, which was
created for all people to enjoy. In the open spirit with which the GGNRA was
created and to avoid the costly, time consuming dispute that will undoubtedly ensue
should the GGRNA adopt the Preferred Alternative, the GGRNA should reject the
Preferred Alternative and uphold its commitment to ensuring open recreational
access to land designated as such by Congress.
30639
Allowing dogs to run off-leash is inconsistent with the NPS goals of conservation.
Off-leash dogs also provide a hazard to the public, and restrict users of the park.
Compliance is already an issue, and the proposed plan does not go far enough to
protect other park users.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 626
Comment ID: 181300
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a long-time user of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area and a dog owner, would like to express my strong concerns about
the proposal to allow dogs to roam leash- free. The preferred alternative, as written,
allows national park land to be used for an intensive recreational use that is
inconsistent with conservation and would result in public safety hazards and
limitations on the broad community's enjoyment of the public parks, as well as
limiting equal access for disabled communities and communities of color.
Corr. ID: 2313
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195289
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I wholeheartedly support Michael Lynes, conversation
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

243

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

director for the Golden Gate Audobon Society when he says that the proposed rules
don't go far enough. AND I sincerely hope that the NPS doesn't give in to the all
too powerful dog lobby of San Francisco. Quite frankly I think the recent SF Board
of Supervisors decision is very misguided.
Hold your ground and protect our wildlife, environment and public spaces.
(Note: public NOT animal/dog spaces)
Corr. ID: 3768
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204821
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a frequent visitor to GGNRA lands of San Francisco
and San Mateo County for more than 20 years, I have noted that the majority of
dog walkers do not follow the leash or voice control requirements. The proposed
new dog management policy is too weak to protect natural resources/wildlife
(plants and animals), people who have a fear of dogs, and other dogs who are on
leash.
30640
Off-leash dogs interact with each other and park users better than dogs that are onleash. The plan restricts the areas for off-leash walking, which should be left the
way they are. Reducing these areas will adversely affect some users of the park,
who rely on off-leash dog walking.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3764
Comment ID: 204810
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA management plan for
off-leash dogs. I have two small dogs, 20 lbs. each and as a city dweller, a fourth
generation San Franciscan living in Cow Hollow, the accessibility to Crissy Field
has been exceptional as a place I have gone almost every weekend for the past six
years. Words can't describe how important this area is for dogs to play, run and
socialize - we've been so lucky to have it. If you take it away, or limit our access, it
would be a crime. Dogs need socialization - they're much better adjusted, interact
better with other dogs and humans
Corr. ID: 4329
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208869
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: am writing to urge you not to implement the proposed
changes to the off-leash areas in the GGNRA. I have lived in San. Francisco for
fifteen years and have a family including a young child and a three-year-old puppy.
We especially love hiking as a family with our dog on Montara Mountain (where
we usually only run into a few other people or dogs), as well as Ft. Funston, Crissy
Field, Ocean Beach and Muir Beach. We enjoy seeing people of all ages, races,
family units, and well-socialized dogs out at these beautiful places. I believe that
part of the wonderful charm of San Francisco is the openness and tolerance of the
people, which is reflected in how beautifully the dogs play when out in these open
park spaces. In over a decade of using these spaces heavily'with and without a dog'I
have not encountered any dog fights in any of them. (The only violence at all that I
can think of is hearing on the news that someone was stabbed in the Ft. Funston
parking lot, by another person, of course, who was not a dog owner.)
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

This plan, if implemented, will make the Bay Area less healthy and more
dangerous for both people and dogs. Everyone who works with dogs is well
familiar with the fact that a dog who is allowed to run and play in open spaces and
play and socialize with other dogs is less neurotic and much better behaved than
dogs who are left at home or tied up in the yard--those dogs are the ones who
become aggressive and hard to control. An excellent example of this is the great
244

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

behavior of all the dogs who showed up at the protest march on Mar. 21.
30643
Having the park as entirely dog free or no dogs on the beaches and/or trails is
unfair. The impacts of banning dogs from the parks need to be studied in more
detail before such a plan is enacted. This will negatively impact the experience of
many park users.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 551
Comment ID: 182021
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I don't support this proposal at all. While I think it is fine
to make certain designated areas a dog free zone, moving to uniform dog free is too
much. For example, the eastern part the beach on Chrissy field could be made dog
free, while the western part would be a place where dogs are allowed to play.
Corr. ID: 794
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186023
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm a bit stunned that you all are considering the total ban
of dogs on our beaches.
Corr. ID: 838
Organization: Resident
Comment ID: 186151
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It was absolutely devastating to hear the news that our
rights to enjoy the hundreds of trails in our community with our dog could be
banned.
Please consider our plea to stop the ban to allow dogs on GGNRA parks and trails
Corr. ID: 877
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190042
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never seen any damage to the land or other
creatures. These proposed ordinances make no sense- don't seem to add any
protection to the area and feel very punitive to us dog owners and nature lovers
who use and love these spaces. I have not seen or heard any sensible rationale for
the proposed changes. All the dog owners we know are very supportive and careful
about their use of the land.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

We strongly urge to reconsider the ordinances.
Corr. ID: 917
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191331
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With all due respect, this appears to be sloppy policy.
The completeness of this plan deserves scrutiny. The purposes, rationale provided
are subjective and the plan does not present a balanced analysis of current and
future state policies and enforcement.
If this plan were to be implemented, it would have to be considered poor practice
until all the economic, social, environmental, cultural, biological, oceanic and
residential impacts have been quantifiably measured and accurately assessed.
With a large percentage of the NPS land already off limits to canines, it is
puzzingly how noticable benefits will be realized by making 100% of NPS land off
limits to canines. What is the return on investment of the cost of enforcement,
monitoring and process? I assume tax payers will foot the bill for that cost?
As with all plans, there are "winners" and there are "losers". It would appear that,
should this plan be implemented, the loser will be the NPS for pushing through an
245

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

incomplete plan and most likely an incremental, unnecessary cost burden to tax
payers.
Corr. ID: 1309
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195051
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Instead of banning dogs, why don't you enforce laws such
as dog licenses fees, vaccination proof and require that vicius dogs wear muzzles?
San Francisco is a city full of young residents who have dogs, do you want them to
leave the city because there is no place for their dogs?
Corr. ID: 1814
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191803
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think that removing dogs from GGNRA parks and trails
would be an absolutly rediculous and unfair policy. Banning dogs from these trails
would force an unecisary amount of people to have to change were they walk their
dogs. This proposition is extremly unfair and allows horses to still use these trails.
Horses are just as bad for the trails as dogs if not worse. Banning dogs from the
trails does not make sense and will be extremly unfair to many dog walkers, and
their dogs.
Corr. ID: 1963
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200492
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It would be heartbreaking for dogs and dog owners if dogs
were prohibited from Bay Area beaches. Especially in an urban area such as San
Francisco, where there aren't many places where dogs can run and mingle, it seems
critically important that dogs be allowed on the beaches. In Sonoma County, many
of the state- and county-run beaches allow dogs, and it seems to be working out just
fine. Please reconsider making this policy changes, and instead continue to allow
dogs on the beach.
Corr. ID: 2343
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195385
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep the GGNRA open to off-leash dogs!! As a 12year resident of San Francisco, I can honestly say that going to Fort Funston and
Crissy Field with my dog is one of my favorite things to do here in my city. It's safe
to say that they are also my dog's favorite places too! This issue is not just about
dogs, but about the quality of life for the pet owners that get so much enjoyment
out of visiting the GGNRA. Please consider alternatives to banning off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 2887
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202932
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a life-long San Franciscan, who has extensively
walked/run/surfed/pic-nicked at Fort Funston, I strongly oppose the current
proposal. The problems associated with dogs off leash are greatly exaggerated.
Please don't ruin the enjoyment of using the beach as a place to run and play with a
dog when the actual problems associated with dogs off leash can be handled in a
less intrusive case-by-case manner. A blanket policy to require leashing pets on a
huge open public beach is a bad policy.
Corr. ID: 3032
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201033
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am completely floored over the attempt to ban dogs from
being off leash. I do understand the need to preserve wilderness, and I myself am
an advocate for protecting land and animals. However, there must be balance, as
with everything in life. If this land is taken from the dogs, they will have no where
safe to play in the city. The land has been being shared with dogs, humans, plants
and animals for the last 1,000 years. I do not want this plan to pass.
Corr. ID: 4561
Organization: Not Specified
246

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Comment ID: 209906
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to strongly protest the efforts of the GGNRA
in restricting dogs from running off a leash on GGNRA lands. First I would like to
establish why the GGNRA was created: Congress created the GGNRA in 1972 to:
"to provide public access along the waterfront and to expand the maximum extent
possible the outdoor recreation opportunities available to the region." The proposed
dog ban appears to be in direct opposition to that mandate.
30644
There is no evidence to support implementing the proposed plan. The justifications
presented are largely anecdotal, and are not based on hard evidence. Many of the
statistics given do not indicate a change is needed. Additionally, some necessary
areas of impacts, such as the impact on the urban environment, was not studied.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 587
Comment ID: 182124
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly oppose the proposed plan. The recommended
action would severely restrict the ability of responsible dog owners (and their pets)
to use and enjoy what are already very limited recreation areas. Yet, there doesn't
seem to be any factual support for why the recommended option was chosen
beyond anecdotal reasoning.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192027
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS should have focused on real, material problems
with dog walking such as use of leashes in busy areas; collection of pet waste;
dealing with aggression by some dogs; discomfort with dogs on the part of some
visitors; and any significant environmental issues. Importantly, to provide a basis
for the assessment of dog walking in the context of other activities, the preparers of
the DEIS should have obtained (but failed to do so) some good, solid data on the
overall number of visitors to each site and the breakdown of visitors by activity,
including dog walking, as well as by domicile (San Francisco, Bay Area, etc.)
Instead, the DEIS relies on qualitative estimates on level of activity by visitors.
Moreover, in each section of the report, rather than identifying and documenting
real issues with dog walking, the preparers of the DEIS highlight trivial problems
and risks, often with no context and no support for claims. As a result, the DEIS
does not accurately characterize the effects of dog walking on visitors and the
environment. Due to these weaknesses the DEIS lacks credibility, and the resultant
"Draft Dog Plan" lacks any foundation.
Corr. ID: 2959
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203662
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think this proposal is shameful. I've reviewed the
statistics and see the majority of citations are for leash infractions. The number of
people who've been bitten by a dog are exceedingly FEW ... and while it's
unfortunate that some people have dogs who are not controlled, it's not a reason to
end this amazing era of dog friendly community we enjoy regularly.
Corr. ID: 3870
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205700
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's Draft Dog
Management Plan because it fails to include any site-specific documentation of
existing conditions and their analysis thereof.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The document states in general the impacts caused by dogs without any reference
to actual impacts already caused. As the GGNRA is made up of vast lands, specific
247

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

places as well as specific impacts must be documented to support the Plan's
conclusion.
There is also a lack of information on the resource degradation, i.e. what these
resources are. To justify the conclusion, the Draft Plan must be able to demonstrate
how the degradation of these resources are specifically caused by dogs, as opposed
to impacts caused by humans, other wildlife and predatory plants and species. In
other words, I ask that the GGNRA look more specifically at each area, document
the impacts of all park uses, disclose all information to the public and come up with
a new alternative.
Corr. ID: 4630
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208645
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not agree with the GGNRA's current preferred
alternatives as they significantly restrict and eliminate off leash dog walking in
many areas within the GGNRA. The proposed changes to the existing conditions
(1979 Pet Policy) and to the new lands in San Mateo County are not based upon
sound science, the appropriate considerations for an urban recreation area or longterm monitoring of site-specific conditions.
Amazingly, there are major areas of impact that the DEIS is required to study that it
did not. The law is clear that the DEIS must look at impacts to not only the natural
environment, but also to the human environment (health and community), and the
urban environment (the surrounding areas). These studies are conspicuously absent
from the DEIS making it a grossly biased document and, by default, its
recommendations of Preferred Alternatives are highly flawed.
Corr. ID: 4712
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209794
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The here and now (site specific data) A related problem with the draft EIS is that it does not address site specific
conditions and resources.
The draft plan and draft EIS are in some respects about 20 plans and EISs, because
they examined each GGNRA area.
The courts have consistently explained that difficulty does not excuse lack of
adequate data and study in an EIS. And the bulk or size of an EIS does not equate
to its adequacy.
- In many places, the draft EIS lack any description of actual site specific impacts
on which closure decisions are being made. In other places, the draft EIS assumes
species are present in areas where there is no record of their presence. In other
places, there is inconsistent information about the presence of species.
30654
The proposed plan would place dog walkers and those groups that may not want to
interact with dogs into the same areas, which would increase conflicts between user
groups. Restricting off-leash dogs in the park would likely increase off-leash dog
walking on city streets and in city parks, negatively impacting visitors who do not
like dogs in these areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1016
Comment ID: 191779
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am vehemently against the proposed restrictions
proposed in the draft dog management plan.
Ft Funston used to be occupied mainly by drug dealers and derelicts and today it is
a vibrant are that many dogs and dog owners enjoy. The trails in the Presidio and
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

248

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Lands end are also safer because of the increased visitation due to dog owners that
want their dogs to get exercise. If the leash laws are implemented, most of these
dog owners will just go to their neighborhood parks which will increase traffic in
those small parks that are not equipped to handle more people and dogs, Currently,
small neighborhood parks are generally used by families with small children and
the larger parks are used by pet owners. That balance will be greatly disrupted if the
leash laws are imposed.
Corr. ID: 1747
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191214
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: OPPOSE proposed plan
KEEP existing (1979) plan.
New plan is too restrictive - preventing use by the PEOPLE who use the parks the
most.
It also forces more dogs into the area most accessible to the kind of people who
want to avoid dogs (elderly, slow walkers, families with small children)
30655
Commenters were against the proposed plan, because they did not think that dogs
should be leashed at all times. Additionally, having dogs on-leash in these areas
will create more safety problems.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1507
Comment ID: 191407
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Alternative severely restricts recreational
access for people with dogs, a fundamental violation of the reason the GGNRA was
created. In the legislation that created it, the reason for the creation of the GGNRA
(NOT a national park!!) is listed as "the maintenance of needed recreational open
space." Off-leash dog walking is among the recreational activities listed as
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

traditionally occurring in the land was to become the GGNRA.
In addition, the Preferred Alternative discourages cooperation between different
park users and will increase conflict between park users, as more and more people
are crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. Park user groups can work together
to resolve problems when they come up.
30656
The proposed plan will negatively impact the economy including those small
businesses that rely on the parks, mainly dog walkers. Having off-leash areas
condensed will increase the possibility of conflicts, and will mean dog walkers
must not walk as many dogs, hurting income.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 971
Comment ID: 191652
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My issue with the plan is that I feel it doesn't include a
balance between recreation, the environment and the small business in san
francisco. I have 2 dogs and they have a dog walker 2x per week that takes them to
the off leash area in fort funston. If the off leash area is restricted there will be more
dogs in a smaller space and this will affect the dogs and the dog walkers business.
More dogs in a smaller space could mean a greater chance or communicable
diseases amongst the dogs, and possibly more dog injuries to dogs and the dog
walkers alike. The existing off-leash dog areas may become too crowded which
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

249

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

could mean the dog walkers have to cut back on the dogs they accept resulting in a
decreased income. Currently the justification for the plan is for environmental
reasons, and while the environment is key, it's only part of the equation. I believe
all parts of the equation must be better balanced so I opposed the off leash
restrictions in the plan.
Corr. ID: 1102
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192283
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please don't let the ability for my dog to run free in these
park areas be taken away. There is so little available space in SF for him to run
free, I feel his life will be much less happy and healthy if this freedom is removed
from his and our lives.
I would imagin this would also have an impact on the many dog walking businesses
around the city, as we would probably not pay for the service if it did not include
the 'running free' activity during the daily walk.
Corr. ID: 1840
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192113
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have recently become aware of the proposed legislation
banning dogs from trails in the GGNRA. I cannot stress how ill advised this
decision is. Dogs are an integral part of Marin County. From the Tennessee ValleyMuir Beach trail to Crissy field, dogs are a common sight. Quite frankly, if you ban
them from the GGNRA, you will have a loss in profits. What dog owner wants to
go for a walk to the Crissy Field warming hut or to any number of GGNRA
sponsored vendors without their dog? And as to the fact that horses are still going
to be allowed, I can't begin to explain why this is hypocritical. Horses tear up trails,
eat vegitation and leave large piles of feces. If horses are allowed, dogs must also
be allowed.
Corr. ID: 2153
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193453
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Conversely, visitors to Marin County enjoy our beautiful
trails with their dogs. Marin County is known for its dog-friendly trails. Far fewer
visitors will help our community thrive, if they can not bring their dogs when they
vacation
Corr. ID: 2982
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203676
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I oppose the GGNRA dog management plan. I think it will
result in an increase # of dogs in shelters and euthanized (a good dog is a tired dog),
will increase unemployment (dog walkers are a new cottage industry) and will
reduce the number of people of enjoy Fort Funston and Crissy Fields (I lived in the
Bay Area for 15 years before enjoying GGNRA parks and it is my dog and
favoriate hiking companion who brought me to them).
Corr. ID: 3030
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201029
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think this is completely out of the rights of GGNRA to
enforce this law. They will not only force people to move out of the city (in which I
gaurantee there are more people living in the city with dogs than with children)and
will also put small business owners at risk in an already deteriorating economical
state in CA.
Corr. ID: 3107
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201509
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is my fervent and sincere hope that the GGNRA will see
fit to MAXIMIZE opportunities for dog walking on property under its aegis.
250

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

We travel with our dog - everywhere. If San Francisco and the GGNRA become
unfriendlier than they already are to dogs, we will just have to cut those visits
down.
This sounds like a small-impact action, but if enough dog owners follow this path,
it will make a difference. There are hundreds of thousands of family dogs in this
country. By taking a stand against them, you take a stand against a huge segment of
the economy that comprises veterinarians, manufacturers of dog medicines and
related products, dog food companies, makers of doggy accessories (beds, crates,
leashes, etc.), makers of doggy poop bags and dispersers, hotels that accommodate
dogs (many of them 4-stars and better), dog walkers, dog sitters, doggy day-care
camps, dog portraitists, makers of clothing for people who love dogs, and on and
on.
Corr. ID: 3561
Organization: Save Off Leash Dog Walking
Comment ID: 203495
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We, the undersigned, represent businesses that provide
services to dog owners and dogs. We train dogs, sell pet food and pet supplies,
walk dogs and provide a variety of other services.
We oppose the Golden Gate National Recreation Area's proposed "dog
management plan," which will severely limit off-leash dog walking and dogs in
areas like Ft. Funston, Crissy Field, Ocean Beach and others, and we ask you to
oppose it too. We disagree with this proposal for a variety of reasons, but we will
focus here on the economic impacts for small businesses like ours:
*The GGNRA's preferred alternative will negatively impact many of our
businesses, and will hit dog walking businesses especially hard.
*The proposal is harmful to our clients and customers.
*The proposal will hurt San Francisco's reputation as a dog friendly city, which
currently attracts tourists interested in dog-friendly destinations.
In these economic times, we simply cannot afford to put small business owners in
jeopardy. Please stand up for the dog-loving community in San Francisco and the
businesses that support it. We urge you to oppose the GGNRA's proposed dog
management plan.
30657
Implementing the proposed plan will not have any real benefits to natural
resources, including wildlife and endangered species. The provided evidence of
impacts to wildlife from dogs is not adequate to restrict their use of the parks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1804
Comment ID: 191669
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a life-time naturalist, animal and bird lover, I suggest
that it would be irresponsible of the department, to choose any Alternative but A or
instead to do nothing yet. This would provide additional time to create a more
realistic and effective alternative than is proposed in DEIS Alternatives B-E.
GGNRA needs to rethink it's victimization of off-leash dogs and any proposal that
severely restricts the few off-leash dog areas left in the metropolitan areas. These
areas are essential to the well being of thousands of citizens. Reduction of this
space for off-leash dog enjoyment will not necessarily protect endangered species
nor preserve areas for future generations. Constricting the space as much as most of
these Alternatives propose is unacceptable.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

251

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Corr. ID: 2810
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201107
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have read the Executive Summary of the proposed new
plan and am sorry to say that I feel the. purpose of the study has been totally'
missed. Instead of looking for ways to include dog people in the safe and
sustainable use of GGNRA, you have chosen, through this draft report, to do
nothing substantive to protect our natural and cultural resources but instead,
recommend a decreased opportunity for visitor experiences for a major portion of
the population that currently utilizes the GGNRA; and it most certainly WILL NOT
reduce user conflicts, in fact, I am sure it will increase them. Finally, I see nothing
in the new plan that insures park resources and values for future generations that
has anything much to do with dogs and the urban, multi use park and recreation
activity that have been going on in most of the referenced dog sites for the past 40
years (I moved here from LA in 1966 for school so I have been around).
Corr. ID: 4595
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209957
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan as proposed fails the fundamental goal of
presenting a balanced evaluation of the criteria. In its evaluation of information and
analyses the proposal and proposed options all assume that the goal is to reduce the
existing off leash and on leash dog access to the recreation area.
There are numerous examples of this one sided approach to the analysis. First, not
one preferred option increases the allowed off leash land whereas there are many
instances of the preferred option reducing both the off leash and on-leash access.
Second, should the preferred option be put forth and fail (e.g. result in greater
damage to the natural environment), there is not one proposed remedy that reverses
the change to return to the current off-leash area. Instead, the proposed remedies all
call for further restrictions.
Furthermore, this one sided approach is applied regardless of the actual status of the
environment or area. The preferred option is either a further restriction to existing
access, a reduction of access, or the complete elimination of access. This approach
is applied regardless of the type of land in question., For instance, there are
numerous developed areas with mowed lawns, picnic tables, and with no wildlife
present. These areas include Ft Miley which has reduced access but is a manicured
lawn, Ft. Baker which has a large lawn within a circular road surrounded by a
luxury hotel, and Ft. Mason's great lawn which is a mowed and manicured lawn.
30658
The proposed restrictions will increase the distance that many dog owners will have
to drive in order to exercise their dogs. This is not good for the park, and increases
dependence on oil for energy, as well as traffic and parking problems.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1226
Comment ID: 194875
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed changes to the current situation appears to be
draconian at many sites. This is the wrong direction for change in energy issues and
makes us even more dependent on oil.
Corr. ID: 1793
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200266
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very upset to hear that dogs may be outlawed at yet
another great beach and hiking area. It just means that instead of using the trails in
Marin County, I will be driving great distances each Sat. and Sun. to find hiking
trails and beaches to enjoy with my dog.As it is, the only places for dog-lovers to
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

252

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

go are in MMWD, Muir Beach, Rodeo Beach, and the northern part of Stinson
Beach.
Corr. ID: 2880
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202908
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my concern over the portions of the
GGNRA Dog Management Plan which impact dog areas and leash requirements in
San Francisco.
I am concerned for many reasons, some of which include:
- Off leash dog areas are already highly utilized and will likely exceed capacity if
the management plan is implemented.
- Many dog owners will be required to drive great distances to properly exercise
pets, which is not a positive thing all around or for NPS land.
- Given our urban setting, the advantages in the Management Plan simply do not
outweigh the constraints; it is not an appropriate plan to apply in an urban setting.
While I agree with the basis of preservation outlined in the EIS, I feel that the plan
is not balanced in a practical way with our urban environment.
- As a dog owner I understand that there are very legitimate issues to integrate
owner's needs with the needs of other uses, and feel that there are more effective
ways to achieve this balance than through the plan.
I hope that all alternatives can be abandoned and current use continues.
On a personal note, I had never been to most of the NPS land in the Bay Area after
8 years of residence until I became a dog owner. Now we frequently use the space
in a healthful way for all. It has inspired me to volunteer on occasion and have a
good impact.
In many ways which can not be quantified in the EIS, good things happen as a
result of all users enjoying and respecting NPS land. I appreciate your
consideration and welcome any questions. I hope we can all work together to keep
the plan appropriate for an urban environment and allow everyone to use these
public spaces in a positive way.
Corr. ID: 3818
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204880
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston is the *only* place in San Francisco that I
can let my dogs run off leash. One of my dogs doesn't do well in enclosed dog
parks, and the other has problems with recall. (The cliffs on the beach keep her
from getting off of the beach.) There is no other place that I can take both of themnot even an open space like the dog park at Stern Grove. I would need to drive
much further to find a place to let them run free (negative environmental impact
from extra mileage by car). If there haven't been major problems with dogs, dog
walkers, and dog owners in Fort Funston, I don't understand why you are
considering this draconian policy.
Corr. ID: 3821
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204935
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My fear is that further restrictions to off leash dog hiking
in GGNRA will have a negative impact on those few areas that remain available.
And, in my case will necessitate a long drive to some area where I can hike
comfortably with my dog - not a good choice economically nor for the
environment.
My plea is for people not dogs. My hope is to continue to enjoy my choice of
253

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

recreation, hiking with an off leash dog, - recreation that contributes to my health
and well-being and that of the many others I meet on the trail.
30660
The proposed plan does not provide enough areas for on-leash and off-leash dog
walking; particularly off-leash dog walking trails. Not all dogs enjoy exercising in a
confined space, and some do better on longer trail walks. The areas provided under
the preferred alternative are not sufficient for dog walkers who use the GGNRA, as
walking areas are greatly limited.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1329
Comment ID: 195083
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are not enough trails available for off-leash
recreation in the Preferred Alternative. We need more. There are not enough trails
with off-leash access in the Preferred Alternative.
Corr. ID: 1884
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200368
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Compliance-Based Management Strategy must go.
This poison pill that will allow the
GGNRA to change the status of off-leash areas to on-leash or no dogs without
additional
public comment if there is not 100% compliance with the new restrictions will not
work.
There are not enough trails available for off-leash recreation in the Preferred
Alternative.
Corr. ID: 2911
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202480
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are not enough trails available for off-leash
recreation in the Preferred Alternative. We need more. Not everyone who goes to
the GGNRA plays fetch with his or her dog. Many people enjoy hiking on trails
with their dogs as their companions. There are not enough trails with off-leash
access in the Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative severely restricts recreational access for people with
dogs, a fundamental violation of the reason the GGNRA was created. In the
legislation that created it, the reason for the creation of the GGNRA is listed as "the
maintenance of needed recreational open space." Off-leash dog walking is among
the recreational activities listed as traditionally occurring in the land that was to
become the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4134
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208571
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not go to the parks to play fetch with my dog; I enjoy
hiking on trails with my dog and I am far from the only one. There are too few
trails with off-leash access in the Preferred Alternative.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I disagree with the GGNRA's current preferred alternative since it greatly restricts
and eliminates off leash dog walking in many areas within the GGNRA. The
proposed changes to the existing conditions (1979 Pet Policy) and to the new lands
in San Mateo County aren't based on sound science or long-term monitoring of site
specific conditions.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

30662
Dogs should be banned from all areas of park property. The proposed plan does not
provide enough restrictions on dogs. The proposed plan puts the recreation of dogs
254

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

as more important than the safety and recreation of some users, including children,
and those who are frail or elderly.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2166
Comment ID: 200554
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I don't like your plan at all. Dogs, and similar animals
should be banned in total from the Park property. Will the National Park accept
responsibility when a person is bitten?
Corr. ID: 3852
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209309
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I wish to express my support for the National Park
Service's goal of finally creating a Dog Management Plan (DMP) for Golden Gate
National Recreation Area (GGNRA), but I am extremely disappointed by how
much of the park would remain open to pets, and I am very opposed to the
proposals to allow off-leash pets in any area of the park. National Park Service
(NPS) areas are not the appropriate location for dogs, let alone for dogs to be
allowed off-leash.
30663
Implementing these restrictions will result in more dogs being left at shelters, as
their owners will not want to put up with the more difficult situations to provide
exercise, resulting in more aggressive and destructive dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3005
Comment ID: 200827
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These dog facilities are critical to the Canine loving
population and keep dogs out of our shelters. Taking these areas away from dogs
will cause dogs to have unspent energy, develop aggression, and separation anxiety
issues causing their owners to decide they are more work than they bargain for and
shelter dumping will skyrocket. Please leave these parks alone.
Corr. ID: 3805
Organization: San Francisco SPCA
Comment ID: 205187
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to plead that the proposed plans to cut offleash dog walking not be approved. The dogs of San Francisco will suffer greatly
without the opportunity to enjoy off-leash time within their city. I understand the
need to protect endangered wildlife and plant species but I do not believe this is the
way to do it. As someone who has studied the needs of dogs and worked directly
with them for several years now I am intimately familiar with the exercise
requirements of these pets. If people are not able to provide their dogs with offleash exercise many dogs will not be exercised at all. As a result, they will become
restless and bored and take out their frustrations on their homes and their guardians
with unruly and destructive behavior. If this becomes enough of a problem,
guardians may choose to relinquish their dogs to ACC, and the shelter system does
not need to be any more strained than it already is.
Corr. ID: 4642
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208823
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Behavior issues are one of the common reasons dogs are
surrendered to animal shelters. Lack of adequate exercise and socialization can
result in destructive behaviors at home. Inadequate access to opportunities for
outdoor exercise could well result in an increase in numbers of dogs being
surrendered to shelters. Are we then trading one human and animal welfare
problem for another?
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:

30664
255

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

CONCERN
STATEMENT:

The proposed plan does not take into account impacts on guide and service dogs.
Studies indicate that these dogs and their guardians are often negatively impacted
by off-leash dogs, and such conflicts can be costly, as new guide dogs are very
expensive. By allowing off-leash dogs in the GGNRA, the NPS is liable for
problems that guide dogs encounter.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 30156 (MT1000), Comment 202303.

30665
Commenters said the compliance-based management is unfair and overly
restrictive, and opposed the plan overall because it included this element.
Compliance-based management harshly targets dog walkers and is unnecessary.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3347
Comment ID: 203034
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan over restricts pet access to the GGNRA. Off leash
access in areas currently designated off leash should only be restricted if there is
evidence to support the restriction. Dog visitors should not be treated as park
hazards except where there is evidence that they are. I object most strenuously to
the proposed rule that would ban dogs in on-leash only areas based on 25% or more
non-compliance with leash rules. This is an enforcement problem, not a negative
impact issue that would warrant banning dogs, and should be addressed as an
enforcement problem. This proposed rule is bad legislation
Corr. ID: 3599
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203726
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In general, I find that the Preferred Plan to be overly
restrictive, non-inclusive, and borderline belligerent towards responsible dog
owners who use GGNRA land. I am most concerned about the "Compliant-Based
Management Strategy." I see no reason why this was included in the Plan other
than the GGNRA positioning itself towards an outright ban on off leash areas. The
inclusion of the "Compliant-Based Management Strategy" is a combative and
unfair gesture against the majority of dog owners who use GGNRA land
responsibly. The GGNRA is not a national park, nor should it strive to become one,
and the "Compliant-Based Management Strategy" should be absent from any final
plan that is adopted.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I understand that some people do not care for dogs as much as I love spending time
with my dog off leash, and the problem for the GGNRA is where these two groups
meet on GGNRA land. A prime example of this is Crissy Field. Crissy Field is
enjoyed by locals, tourists, runners, bikers, families, children, sunbathers, kitefliers; the list goes on and on. Because it is a popular multi-use recreation area with
people who do and don't like dogs, I can understand a need for designated off leash
and on leash areas at Crissy Field.
However, Fort Funston is completely different. In general, it is nowhere as popular
as Crissy Field. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of people who do visit
Fort Funston are there to take their dog off leash. The park is also big enough that
those who do not care for dogs can easily enjoy one of the great areas away from
the majority them, like the bluffs or on top of the battery. Because Fort Funston not
a popular, multi-use recreation area, I see no reason to designate an on-leash area. I
lived 6 years as a dog owner in the dog-friendly Pacific Northwest, and in my
opinion Fort Funston is the best place for off leash dog walking that I've been to. It
should stay that way.

256

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

I sincerely hope my comments and the constructive comments of other responsible
dog owners show the GGNRA that although action is needed, compromises should
also be made. One of the best compromises I can think of adoption of the Preferred
Alternative at Crissy Field in return for the adoption of Option-A at Fort Funston,
keeping it the best off leash area on the West Coast.
Corr. ID: 4363
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209107
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Finally, the Compliance-based Management Strategy
should not even be considered in any plan. It goes against the fundamental
principles we live by. It would punish the vast majority of responsible dog owners
because of the actions of a handful of a few 'renegades'. It is comparable to saying
that if the police catch enough people speeding on Highway 101, (what is enough?)
then they will close Highway 101 to all traffic.
For these reasons I oppose the Preferred Alternative and the Compliance-Based
Management Strategy and urge you to obey the recreation mandate of the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4418
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207221
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I 1) oppose the Preferred Alternative as it now stands or
any of the plans contained in "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Dog
Management at GGNRA" and 2) strongly oppose including a Compliance-based
management strategy (the "poison pill").
I advocate, instead, a continuing dialogue between the GGNRA and SF dog
owners.
Corr. ID: 4537
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203403
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With regard to safety of other citizens who share GGNRA
with other dog owners/walkers like myself, I would just like to highlight a
misleading and flawed statement in the DEIS which erroneously suggests that
eliminating off-leash areas within the GGNRA/San Mateo County would increase
public safety. In fact, the data provided by GGNRA states that dogs account for
only 2% of serious safety incidents involved dogs. Of note, the vast majority of
serious incidents involved people only, no dogs. If non-serious safety incidents are
included, dogs accounted for only 7% of the incidents in the GGNRA.
Finally, I would like to say that a compliance-based Management Strategy cannot
be part of any plan for the GGNRA.. Doing so would punish responsible dog
owners like me and other voting dog owners for the bad actions of a few
irresponsible owners. Further, I am also strongly opposed to Preferred Alternative
because of its restrictive nature. There is no justification offered in the DEIS for
major changes. I fully support the formalization of the 1979 Pet Policy AND offlease access in San Mateo County AND on new lands acquired by the GGNRA.
We vote, own homes/businesses, pay taxes, and take responsible care of our dogs.
30666
Having areas where people are not allowed for the protection of wilderness is
ineffective, and creates divisions of users that can result in discrimination.
Implementing the proposed plan would divide the community, and create poor
relations between dog walkers and the NPS. Wilderness is important, but human
recreation areas are also needed.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3571
Comment ID: 203568
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

257

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan. As an urban ecologist, I find it problematic to create exclusive
wilderness areas in urban environments that are inaccessible to many of their
human residents. These types of divisions often lead to class discrimination,
reserving and restricting these areas to those who meet their criteria for entry.
The GGNRA can accommodate both recreation and conservation. It was designed
as an*urban recreation area*, not a pristine wilderness areas like Yosemite. In fact,
the courts have repeatedly upheld the existing 1979 pet policy. They have said that
it was consistent in both fact and intent with the original mandate for recreation
upon which the GGNRA was founded.
This plan disregards the health and well-being of people, dogs, and the community.
It arbitrarily excludes the tens of thousands of Bay Area residents who exercise
regularly with their canine companions. This plan discriminates against all people
with dogs, including tourists, seniors, families, the disabled, minorities, and others.
I believe that creative solutions can be found to allow dogs' presence in the
GGNRA while still protecting the wild beings that live in these areas
Corr. ID: 4235
Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club,
Native Plant Society
Comment ID: 208622
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Urban parks should be parks and not terrariums! I love
nature and want to to enjoy it up close and personally. Dogs get us outside; it would
be nice if all rare and endangered species had all the land they need, but I think that
all-too-common humans and dogs need space to thrive as well. This is one the most
populous areas in one of the most populous states. Perfectly pristine nature
preserves, although important, are not practical in urban areas.
31555
The proposed plan is unfair given that no lesser measures were taken by NPS to
attempt to address the proposed issues at hand. Such measures could have included
education, better fencing, and enforcement of local laws.
Organization: Animal Care and Control Department,
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4713
City and County of San Francisco
Comment ID: 227457
Organization Type: County Government
Representative Quote: The NPS preferred alternative with restrictions and a
compliance based enforcement that could ultimately lead to an outright ban
prohibiting dogs from being allowed on GGNRA property altogether does not
contemplate the urban environment in which those lands sit or the interests of the
people of San Francisco and the Bay Area. Moreover, this position is overly
restrictive given that the NPS has not taken any intermediate steps to educate the
public and users about what is required for coexistence and collaboration. In fact,
the limited education that has taken place has been initiated by local dog
organizations interested in preserving their access to the off- leash areas. It seems
that the NPS has not attempted to implement other, less restrictive options at their
disposal prior to proposing significant limitations. For example, the NPS could
implement an adaptive management plan that might include signs, timed use,
fencing, and/or' enforcement of local or state laws similar to our local pooper
scooper law, licensing laws or permitting options. Taking such steps would indicate
openness to our community's concerns and to our unique Bay Area environment.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:

31837

258

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

The proposed plan does not provide enough access to the proposed trails, as many
of the trails for visitors with dogs can only be accessed by connections to trails that
do not allow dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1407
Comment ID: 195337
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: First, the proposed alternative is unnecessarily restrictive
in several ways. The contraction of off-leash lands will cause overcrowding in city
dog parks and will deny a significant portion of the Bay Area residents access to
the recreational open space that was defined in the legislation that created the
GGNRA. As the area grows more populated and the GGNRA expands, we need
more access to off-leash lands, not less. The proposed alternative also lacks any
off-leash access in San Mateo County, where there was considerable access prior to
the land's annexation to the GGNRA. Across the GGNRA, the proposed alternative
does not provide sufficient access to hiking trails and the trails that are included in
the proposal are functionally limiting due to the fact that they are not very long and
many are not accessible due to connecting to trails where trails are not canine
friendly.
Corr. ID: 1465
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199806
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In any event the preferred plan is utterly disrespectful of
the access rights of a large proportion of the park-using public. The preferred plans
take away huge amounts of access rights. This is totally against the mandate of the
Park Service. Leave things they way they are please and stop eroding our access
rights!
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

31862
Commenters have suggested that there are other methods to protect snowy plovers,
like temporary seasonal fencing when the plovers are present, which would be a
successful alternative to such stringent dog walking restrictions.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2940
Comment ID: 202405
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is shocking to us that in some National Parks and other
public lands, firearms and "sport" hunting are allowed, yet the GGNRA is
considering the exclusion of pet dogs due to a perceived danger to wildlife. We
support seasonal restrictions on dog and human use in areas of the park for
breeding of sensitive species, but do find it ludicrous that the proposed
"management" plan excludes dogs but continues to allow equestrian use and other
hoofstock, with the damage that they cause to trails and other natural areas. We also
support restrictions on the number of dogs controlled by any one person on the
public lands. However, a complete restriction on dog use is completely
unacceptable.
Corr. ID: 2943
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202413
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a 14-year resident of San Francisco, and having spent 5
years living at Ocean Beach with my two dogs, I would like to voice my opposition
to the preferred alternative, and my support for a no-change policy or a new
alternative, which would allow dogs everywhere that is currently off-leash, plus
create sufficient off-leash opportunities in San Mateo County. Additionally, a new
alternative should remove the compliance-based management strategy.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I believe the preferred alternative would substantially change my quality of life, as
well as that of my dogs, by removing social and exercise outlets.

259

GC8000 – General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan

I believe that the preferred alternative violates the mandate for the" maintenance of
needed recreational open space" contained in the legislation that created the
GGNRA. Not everyone who goes to the GGNRA plays fetch with his or her dog.
Many people enjoy hiking on trails with their dogs as their companions. There are
not enough trails with off-leash access in the Preferred Alternative.The contraction
of areas available for off-leash recreation will significantly compromise the park
experience for people with dogs, and contribute to crowding and traffic problems,
especially in San Francisco's parks, as more and more people are forced into
smaller and smaller areas.
There are much less restrictive measures the GGNRA could take to protect snowy
plovers, including the use of temporary "exclosure" fencing when the plovers are
present. This would keep everyone, people as well as dogs, out of the area.
Enforcement that targets people who intentionally disturb plovers would also help.

GC9000 - General Comment: Support Alternative A for All Sites
See comments under GC3000: Support Current Management

GC9010 - General Comment: Support Alternative B for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29643
The GGNRA should follow the standards of other national parks, which allow onleash dogs only in on restricted trails and areas.
Corr. ID: 667
Organization: CNPS/GGAS
Comment ID: 182594
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My only comment is that the GGNRA dog policy should
conform to the dog policy in the other national parks(dogs restricted to a small area
and on a leash).
Corr. ID: 3700
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202221
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Understanding the goals of the National Park Service, it
would be simplest to institute the same regulations in GGNRA as are mandated
throughout the NPS (i.e. "Alternative B") but, owing to the extreme politicization
of this policy over the past decade, this seems to be fruitless. While I therefore
understand the need for exceptions, some policies cannot be condoned in NPS
areas. In particular, permitting commercial dog-walking is inappropriate. A firm
limit of 3 dogs per visitor is prudent, as it is unlikely that more than this number of
dogs could be reasonably controlled at any time by most people. Furthermore, if
any sites are to be designated as "off-leash", they must be clearly marked and
bordered, preferably fenced for the protection of other park visitors (and the dogs
themselves), and to prevent damage to surrounding resources.
Corr. ID: 4683
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210174
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative B: NPS Leash Regulation.
This alternative is generally acceptable. It embodies protections for the resources
which are enforced in other National Parks. It does appear to allow leashed dogs on
some trails and beaches where they might be expected to be restricted in other
parks.

260

GC9010 – General Comment: Support Alternative B for All Sites

29644
Dogs should be on-leash in GGNRA for the safety and enjoyment of all visitors,
including families with young children, the elderly, and those who do not enjoy
having off-leash dogs in the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1818
Comment ID: 191809
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please accept this plea for more restrictive dog-leashing
regulations and for their strict enforcement.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

My wife and I are elderly with physician-prescribed walking to treat heart disease,
arthritis, knee-replacement, and other deficiencies.
For 40 years, we have made North Waterfront our home city the key to our required
walking program. We use Municipal Pier and The Fort Mason Meadow three or
more times per week for periods of 1.5 hours each.
Each passing year brings a rising number of law-breaking owners who use their
dogs as tools of the owners' aggression and hostility. Thesedog-owners go far past
"civil disobedience" to show satisfaction when sending their loose dogs to charge at
us while barking, growling, and snapping.
Thesedog-owners will violate any limit on their own hostility but we hope
regulations which require universal leashing will be enhanced and funded to
support strict enforcement.
Corr. ID: 2092
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200527
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am in full agreement with the policies outlined in the
draft environmental statement. Dogs need to be on-leash everywhere in National
Park areas, if allowed at all. I have seen over the years substantial degradation by
dogs running off-leash and out of sight of owners on many trails in the GGNRA,
not to mention the nuisance to other users of these trails who are being molested or
threatened by dogs running out of control. Fort Funston is a depressing sight since
dogs were allowed to free there. I hardly go there any more because the land has
been so devastated. The same goes for Ocean Beach.
The preservation of natural features and wild life in the GGNRA should be the
overrriding principle by which any other uses are being considered. Dogs do have a
largely negative impact on these, and therefore their access needs to be strictly
regulated.
Considering the fact that most dog owners I have met on trails are rudely
disregarding the need to keep their dogs under control, and the park does not seem
to have the resources to enforce adherence to their regulations on the trails, it is
absolutely necessary to keep dogs out of all sensitive areas, and where they are
allowed, they need to be kept on a leash at all times. This is the only sensible
solution.
Corr. ID: 2312
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195290
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My wife and I are dog lovers. We have a dog. We keep our
dog on a leash. We wish other dog owners ("guardians") would do so as well. We
are tired of continually having to protect our dog from off leash dogs that are
allegedly under voice control but are completely out of control. We are in favor of
strong leash laws in local, state and Federal parklands.
Corr. ID: 3148
Organization: Habitat Restoration Team
Comment ID: 202741
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
261

GC9010 – General Comment: Support Alternative B for All Sites

Representative Quote: I prefer to follow the national guidelines for pets in
national public lands (Alternative B). It sets a dangerous precedent to enact a
variance from federal regulations. The only variance I would consider is off-leash
dogs on the beaches, with the exception of Muir Beach due to the possibility of full
restoration there.
I am a long-time volunteer in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I have
surveyed rare plants as a consultant throughout the GGNRA, including Fort
Funston, and volunteered in habitat restoration for more than 25 years.
I had several encounters with dogs and none of them were pleasant. I was sitting in
a fenced-off area just above a small parking lot south of the main entrance to the
Fort when a large chow, off-leach, rushed at me barking and growling. His owner
did not restrain the animal at all. Later I was bit by a dog as its owner watched,
explaining that the dog did not like clip boards. At no time when I was censusing
plants did I see any Park police. I also observed an Asian couple with a small child
walking along the paths attempting to enjoy the Park. The child was no more than
three feet tall and large dogs, easily her height and up to 50 pounds, were barking at
her and jumping towards her. The family gathered themselves bravely and left. This
is not the sort of experience visitors should encounter when they visit the park.
Corr. ID: 4330
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209464
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I BELIEVE GGNRA SHOULD RESTRICT OFF LEASH
DOGS OR REQUIRE ALL DOGS ON LEASH. I HAVE BEEN WALKING AT
FORT FUNSTON FOR 30 YEARS. DUE TO THE NUMBER OF DOGS OFF
LEASH OR THE LACK OF RESPONSIBLE OWNERS, I AM NO LONGER
COMFORTABLE WALKING THERE, ESPECIALLY ON A SATURDAY OR
SUNDAY. THE DOGS HAVE TAKEN OVER.
29645
Dogs should be on-leash in the GGNRA for the protection of wildlife, particularly
threatened and endangered species. Natural resources are negatively impacted by
dogs off-leash.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2737
Comment ID: 195591
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please help protect the wildlife in Golden Gate Park by
requiring dog owners to keep their dog(s) on a leash when in the park. Such a
requirement would not only protect the park's wildlife but would make visiting the
park more enjoyable to other patrons as well, because encountering a dog off-leash
is not only disturbing to wildlife but can also be frightening to humans.
Corr. ID: 2912
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202787
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am an "amateur" bird lover and I also like dogs. The Bay
Area is undergoing an explosion in the dog population, as pet owners decide to
house more and more dogs-often 2 or more in a dwelling. The impact of this
explosion is manifesting itself in park redesigns (often leaving for children and
adults less room in which to play), lots of feces in park areas that are not cleaned
up, lots of unruly dogs not responsive to owners' voice commands, and an impact
on wildlife.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I favor strict leash laws at all times on GGNRA lands to protect species that might
be harassed by unleashed dogs, most of whom I see do not respond to immediate
voice control when meandering in beach and trail areas. Many dogs run so far
ahead of their owners that commands cannot be heard (especially with winds
muting the sound), so it is unrealistic that most owners can control their dogs
262

GC9010 – General Comment: Support Alternative B for All Sites

unleashed to adequately prevent harassment to the bird populations--or even
humans. We have all witnessed owners who think their dogs will respond instantly
to voice commands, only to see them have to run over to the dog to pull him off
another dog or person (whether it's a menacing situation or not).
Unleashed dogs on beaches or large park areas are typically less inclined to respond
immediately, as they revel in the wide open freedom and react to tantalizing animal
life that coastal areas offer.
Most dogs cannot be expected to refrain from their instinctual behavior to explore
or chase/attack wildlife. I am also concerned about joggers on beaches and small
children who may find unleashed dogs somewhat intimidating
But I feel this dog population explosion trend is steadily getting out of hand when
there was, for example, opposition to protection of "naturally-occurring" wildlife,
such as the snowy plover--so that dogs could have more recreation areas. Wildlife,
such as the snowy plover cannot make other arrangements for its breeding locations
and feeding.
In general, I urge you restrict dogs to on-leash at all times, at the very least, to
maintain a sense of safety for all (including wildlife) those who wish to enjoy the
GGNRA. I am also supportive of barring dogs from those areas that NPS has
recommended.
Corr. ID: 3391
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203135
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: my main concern is for the endangered snowy plover's
habitat on the GGNRA's beaches as it winters in the same areas that many dog
walkers allow their dogs to run off leash and damage the plover's nests....last i
checked, the american canine is nowhere near being endangered. i encourage the
NPS to reign in the owners of all dogs on the GGNRA beaches - and make a plan
that mandates dogs be on leashes at all times - not only for the safety of the birds,
but for the rest of us who don't care to be approached by a strange, unleashed dog
when we are enjoying our peace and quiet in the GGNRA. thank you for your
consideration, and, by the way, i am a dog owner who is aware of the responsibility
i have to keep my dog from disturbing any wildlife habitat.
Corr. ID: 3930
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205790
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On-leash dog policy - I strongly recommend an on-leash
dog policy. I do not believe that the majority of dog owners, who say they have
"voice control", really have voice control. I also think it is not a good idea to have
dogs off leash anywhere in the park, particularly after this last encounter with the
coyote. I know if my dog was off leash, it would have been a disaster for all beings
involved.

GC9020 - General Comment: Support Alternative C for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29646
Alternative C is favorable because it provides the best compromise between user
groups and resources, and allows areas for both on and off-leash dog walking.
Corr. ID: 382
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181170
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a dog owner and a park user I am in favor overall of
alternative "C" is most cases. I feel that dogs should not be able to free run of park
lands due to the possible destruction of natural nesting areas, harming of wildlife
and unwanted attention to the public.
Corr. ID: 2176
Organization: Not Specified
263

GC9020 – General Comment: Support Alternative C for All Sites

Comment ID: 200630
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred Alternative C balances the greater interests
and ought to be adopted. No one can reasonably claim to be harmed by its
provisions if they value the health of the parklands.
Corr. ID: 3180
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203755
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support Alternative C - Multiple Use. I have owned a dog
in the Bay Area for 10 years, and I have been a GGNPA volunteer (Golden Gate
Raptor Observatory) for 2 years. I am also a conservation biologist and an advocate
for wildlife and wild places. I believe in the GGNRA first and foremost as a place
for native species to thrive. Migrating birds in particular face many challenges to
survival. It is critical that they have places to rest, feed, and breed as they make
long migrations. However, I also know that dogs make good citizens when they are
well-excercised and socialized, and that generally means time off leashing playing
with other dogs and people. For these reasons, I support Alternative C - Multiple
Use. I am also fully supportive of the park utilizing a Compliance-based
Management Strategy in which non-compliance by dog owners results in a
forteiture of rights. I love dogs, but native wildlife and the health of the ecosystems
in our last wild places must come first. There are no alternatives for native species
and ecosystems and cultural resources are not easily returned once lost. Dogs can
be walked in neighborhoods, dog parks, regional parks and city parks.

GC9030 - General Comment: Support Alternative D for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29647
Alternative D affords the best protection of natural resources, as it is the most
restrictive of dog walking. It should be chosen as the preferred alternative.
Corr. ID: 1471
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199822
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In order to protect the natural resources and make for a
safe and enjoyable visitor experience I strongly support Alternative D. Dog threaten
the fragile eco-system by digging up fragile plants and chasing native wildlife, as
well as impacting the experience of the majority of users, which do not have dogs.
Corr. ID: 1538
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190717
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support increased restrictions on dogs in the NPS lands.
Alternative D appears most promising to me. I hike a great deal and walk on the
beach. Many dogs are not voice controllable, despite what their owners think. I
have seen, for example, a dog running up and down the length of Stinson and
disrupting all the birds that were feeding, with no owner in sight.
Corr. ID: 3244
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202708
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To help protect these species and other protected wildlife,
inappropriate activities such as motor vehicle use on beaches were banned.
However, the park continues to permit unregulated activities that disturb wildlife
like western snowy plovers and marine mammals. Wildlife take refuge on Golden
Gate's beaches to rest, breed, and rebuild energy for survival, yet unregulated offleash dog recreation in these areas has resulted in habitat encroachment and wildlife
harassment by dogs. The park has reported that unleashed dogs represent the most
significant recreational threat to wintering western snowy plovers.
I am very much a dog person, however I don't feel that unleashed dogs should be
264

GC9030 – General Comment: Support Alternative D for All Sites

threatening wildlife. In my opinion, Alternative D best reflects the national park
values.
Corr. ID: 3250
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202735
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative D best reflects the national park values.
While I endorse multi-use park use whenever possible, those issues must be held to
a higher standard and scrutiny when endangered species and wildlife habitat are at
risk. When you consider that Golden Gate Golden Gate National Recreation Area is
perhaps one of our country's boldest park experiments: setting aside highly-prized
land to provide a national park experience near a heavily urbanized area. Indeed,
the park is home to more endangered and threatened species than any other park in
the continental U.S.--more than Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Sequoia & Kings
Canyon combined!
I am a lifelong National Park visitor and have been to dozens of parks across
America. While Yellowstone will forever be at the top of my list, Golden Gate
offers such a unique opportunity for visitors near a major metropolitan city.
However, the proximity of people to this park threaten to "love it to death."
Corr. ID: 3307
Organization: National Parks Conservation
Association
Comment ID: 202878
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I agree that we need "off leash" areas for pets and
their owners,
there are just some places on our coast that are too fragile for that use.
As a pet owner I don't think its a burden to seek those parks where my dogs
can have fun and not disurb the local wildlife.
Just as I wouldn't want a party of teenagers right outside my house, we
need to protect the ecosystem that supports the coastal wildlife, especially
endangered species. I believe you should consider the below alternatives.

--The park's mission is to protect the natural and cultural resources, not allow
recreation to undermine it. Alternative D best reflects the national park values.
Corr. ID: 3464
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203288
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative D best reflects the national park values. ?
I have dogs myself who are well trained and still they might do erratic things that
would be a negative in this environment. Also, I find that many dog owners either
do not really care, or think they have a trained dog when they do not, and
essentially are unable or unwilling to make sure their dogs have no effect on this
fragile environment or the wildlife living there.
Although good intentions abound there is a large "OOPS!!" factor when it comes to
people or dogs and their respect for a sensitive area. I am glad that you (I hope) will
strengthen the impact on this area.
Thank you for helping to create a better park experience at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, and for giving imperiled species a chance to survive.?
Concern ID:
CONCERN

29648
Dog walking restrictions under alternative D limit off-leash dog walking in many
265

GC9030 – General Comment: Support Alternative D for All Sites

areas of Golden Gate and would benefit visitor safety and experience.
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 722
Comment ID: 182734
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support Alternative D because it offers the most
protection to natural and cultural resources and visitors wanting a safe and most
dog-free experience.
Being able to have a dog-free or dog-limited (on leash only) experience would be
wonderful.
Corr. ID: 2076
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200547
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I endorse Alternative D, the most protective option
identified in the process.
As a parent of a young child I am frequently upset that the freedom of myself and
my child to enjoy the recreation areas is marred by my child's natural fear of
unknown dogs that are often larger than he is. Dogs on leash are intimidating
enough when their human companions may not be fully attentive to the dogs' reach
at all times, and can not stop the growling and barking which is inevitably a part of
the nature of many dogs, but dogs off leash are a great concern to me in terms of
worrying about my child's safety, and force me to have to regularly actively and
defensively manage the distance between us, be on constant watch for approaching
dogs, and to insert myself physically between dogs and my child.
Corr. ID: 3946
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205983
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support Alternative D. I live near Ocean Beach and have
seen too many incidents of dog fights, uncollected dog excrement, children being
knocked over, and dogs running through people's picnics. Although I know that
there are many responsible dog owners, they are not willing or able to police the
irresponsible dog owners. I also think that many dog owners overestimate their
ability to control their dogs with vocal commands. I routinely see owners with offleash dogs that do not appear to be under voice control, even when it is clear that
their dogs are bothering others. Letting dogs run off-leash is a privilege not a right
and this privilege has been abused.
Corr. ID: 4081
Organization: resident
Comment ID: 207803
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing because I have been in (and witnessed)
numerous dangerous situations with dogs and their owners while walking the
Coastal trail and I fear it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously
injured. This trail is heavily used by joggers, tourists and hikers of all ages. In
several parts, the trail is narrow, uneven, steep and bordered by cliffs. There are
blind corners, tight turns and several stair cases. When dogs both leashed and
unleashed are being led through these sections, it creates serious congestion and
apprehension for the parties involved, as well as the potential for serious injury.
Alternative D is the best proposal, because it does not allow dogs in the abovementioned areas.

GC9040 - General Comment: Support Alternative E for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29649
Commenters support alternative E because there is a compromise between off-leash
dog walking areas and areas for a no dog experience.
Corr. ID: 1117
Organization: Montara Dog Group
Comment ID: 192362
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We drive twenty miles each way to get access to safe,
266

GC9050 – General Comment: Oppose Alternative A for All Sites

legal, dog friendly land. Please do not take it away.
We request "Alternative E".
Corr. ID: 1119
Organization: GGNRA Association (?) / Donor
Comment ID: 192373
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Overall Options C & E seem like a good compromise and
will protect the GGNRA for future generations.
Corr. ID: 3988
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207346
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I understand the need to protect wildlife and natural
resources, and I accept that those efforts may require additional limitations on offleash use of Ft. Funston. Regarding the needs of "people who don't prefer dogs," I
am perplexed by the singling out of this group. In the plans for Fort Funston, the
impact on "people who don't prefer dogs" seems to be the primary advantage
claimed for the "Preferred Alternative (C)" over the existing system or the less-dogrestrictive Alternative E.
If I do not prefer children, or joggers with huge strollers, or the smell of meat
cooking, or frisbee playing, I do not look to rules, regulations or park management
to restrict access or activities in a particular park. Rather, I go to a park where I am
less likely to encounter these things, or I go at a different time than those people.
"People who do not prefer dogs" have many, many options for outdoor recreation
in beautiful places. On the other hand, my options are limited when it comes to
outdoor, off-leash exercise for my dog - state parks do not allow dogs at all, and
many city parks require that dogs be leashed at all times.

GC9050 - General Comment: Oppose Alternative A for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29527
Dog walkers are not following the current rules therefore these rules should not
continue.
Corr. ID: 2025
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193246
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Current rules are not working. I routinely see them
ignored, either thru inattention or disregard.

29528
It is unfair to allow dogs everywhere as things currently are; let dogs have areas
where they have already taken over, but provide areas where wildlife and the
landscape have not been destroyed as a place where others can enjoy the parks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2133
Comment ID: 193424
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think it is unfair to everyone (except the dog people) to
allow dogs everywhere. Since the dogs have taken over Ft. Funston, why not give it
to them and not let dogs at Chrissy Field, Ocean Beach, and other places so that
people can enjoy the experience and birds and landscape are not destroyed.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29529
Alternative A is unacceptable because it violates the NPS mandate to protect the
resources of GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4683
Organization: Not Specified
267

GC9050 – General Comment: Oppose Alternative A for All Sites

Comment ID: 210173
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative A: No Action (Continuation of Existing
Management).
This alternative is completely unacceptable. It simply violates the National Park
Service (NPS) mandate to protect the resource that comprises the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. That resource is being consumed by dogs and the people
who allow them to run free in virtually every area of the park.

GC9060 - General Comment: Oppose Alternative B for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29530
Alternative B is unacceptable because it is not a balanced approach to dog
management.
Corr. ID: 213
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180660
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the balanced approach to dog management, and
am completely opposed to Alternative B, which would require that all dogs remain
on leash at all times.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29531
Alternative B is unacceptable because it restricts dogs to being on a leash and does
not allow for off-lease dog walking which is a vital part of San Francisco life.
Corr. ID: 1677
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191078
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As I long-time city resident and dog-owner, I ask that the
Committee please rule out options B and D. Dog-run areas are a vital part of what
makes San Francisco the fantastic, livable, vibrant city that it is.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29532
The restriction of dogs is not a solution to preserving endangered areas, providing a
variety of visitor experiences, improving visitor and employee safety, reducing user
conflicts, nor maintaining park resources. In addition, the level of enforcement
required by alternatives B-E would be too excessive and it would create a resentful
and antagonist atmosphere.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29495 (PO4000), Comment 191670

GC9070 - General Comment: Oppose Alternative C for All Sites
29533
Concern ID:
Commenter disagrees with alternatives B-E.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1376
Comment ID: 195248
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly disagree with the EIS's call for leash-only dog
walking areas and alternatives B through E.

268

GC9080 – General Comment: Oppose Alternative D for All Sites

GC9080 - General Comment: Oppose Alternative D for All Sites
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29535
Commenters are against closing areas of GGNRA to on-leash or off-leash dog
walking. Off-leash dog walking is a vital part of San Francisco life.

For representative quotes, please see Concern 29531 (GC9060), Comment 191078
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 310
Comment ID: 181055
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very much against closing parts of Crissy Field and
Oakwood Valley Trail all of Muir Beach,and any of the other leashed or voicecontrol dog areas open in the GGNRA.
29536
Concern ID:
Alternative D is an outright ban of one segment of the population
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3953
Comment ID: 206030
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Unlike an outright ban of one segment of the population,
as is proposed in the NPS Preferred Alternative D, these efforts serve to educate
and inform all visitors to the area, representing a true spirit of stewardship for the
land. Additionally, these efforts will negate the need for costly reinforcement of
new regulations.

GC9090 - General Comment: Oppose Alternative E for All Sites
29537
Concern ID:
Commenter does not agree with the common to all elements of alternative E.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2047
Comment ID: 193296
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Elements common to all action alternatives is a trap door
in alternative E
29538
Alternative E "Most Dog-Walking Access" is misleading because the areas open to
dog walking under alternative E are less than those under alternative A. This needs
to be clarified in the plan.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4577
Comment ID: 209672
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been walking my dog at Fort Funston for the last 15
years and am very familiar both with the terrain and with Fort Funston's history
with regard to off-leash dog-walking over that period of time. Although I regret
GGNRA's proposed dog-walking restrictions in many of the areas covered by the
Management Plan, I am limiting my comments to the restrictions proposed for Fort
Funston because I believe that they cannot be justified by GGNRA's own research
or objectives and will result in significant hardship for San Francisco's dog-owners.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Of the available alternatives, I believe that the NPS should adopt Alternative A (no
action) with regard to Fort Funston because it does the most to preserve off-leash
areas for dogs. In my opinion, Alternative E is misleadingly titled as providing
"Most Dog-Walking Access" because in fact the areas open to dog-walking would
269

GC9090 – General Comment: Oppose Alternative E for All Sites
be less than those under Alternative A. I urge the NPS to clarify this point to the
public and to take the possibility of confusion into consideration when reviewing
public support for Alternative E.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29539
Alternative E is unsustainable, due to diminishing resources it cannot be funded or
implemented.
Corr. ID: 4683
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210177
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative E: Most Dog Walking Access/Most
Management Intensive.
The underlying concept is unsustainable. In a time of diminishing resources, there
is no way this alternative can be funded or implemented. There is no funding
source outside the general funds available to GGNRA. This alternative is not
acceptable.

GR2010 - Geologic/Soil Resources: Affected Environment
29504
Dogs are hazardous to soil resources. Off-leash and on-leash dog walking results in
soil compaction, erosion, and the creation of social trails, while dog waste alters
soil chemistry. Off-leash dogs also dig, resulting in damage to dunes and other soil
resources.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 660
Comment ID: 181523
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These animals are hazardous to humans and deleterious to
the environment, which is very fragile at best. Consider, for example, the recent
erosion of Ocean Beach over the past few years, destroying portions of The Great
Highway. Also, there are rare species of birds in the area, like the snowy plover and
others.
Corr. ID: 1160
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193467
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: last week I watched in horror as a dog owner allowed his
large on-leash dog dig a 2 foot deep by 1 foot wide hole in one of the man-made
grass-covered fenced-off dunes at Crissy Field. The dog must've been searching for
a ground squirrel or something like that. But the dog was so big and strong, that the
owner couldn't control him. The biggest problem is that owerns can't control dogs
that are off-leash, but some can't even control them when they are on-leash.
Corr. ID: 3701
Organization: Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Comment ID: 202227
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We believe the scientific literature is clear in concluding
that both off-leash and leashed dogs significantly impact our natural environment.
This conclusion was recently reinforced in a study reported in the journal
BioScience 61(2):125-132. 2011 doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.7, "Is Wildlife Going
to the Dogs? Impacts of Feral and Free-Roaming Dogs on Wildlife Populations",
by Julie K. Young, Kirk A. Olson, Richard P. Reading, Sukh Amgalanbaatar and
Joel Berger. This study concludes that, "?dogs can significantly disrupt or modify
intact ecosystems well beyond the areas occupied by people [abstract]".
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Impacts to Migrating Waterbirds
Shorebird studies (e.g., Guts Don't Fly: Small Digestive Organs in Obese BarTailed Godwits, Theunis Piersma and Robert E. Gill, Jr., The Auk, Vol. 115, No. 1
(Jan., 1998), pp. 196-203) have shown that migrating shorebirds can alter their
270

GR2010 – Geologic/Soil Resources: Affected Environment
morphology and convert their internal organs including their digestive tracts into
energy (fatty tissue) for long migratory flights. Upon their arrival at migratory
feeding grounds these shorebirds need to feed continuously and studies have
documented feeding up to 18 hours a day. If disturbed from such feeding they may
not survive further stages in their migratory journey.
Unleashed dogs on beaches are well known to disturb feeding waterbirds thus
potentially causing this delayed mortality. This is a significant impact and greatly
diminishes the functional value of Ocean Beach and Crissy Field as well as Rodeo
Beach and Muir Beach and other GGNRA beaches for migrating waterbirds.

Studies have also shown that leashed dogs may also disturb wildlife, Wildlife
Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs, Scott G. Miller, Richard L. Knight and Clinton
K. Miller
Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 124-132. Impacts take
place both on beaches and trails and leashed and off-leash dogs cause disturbances
that affects both plants (digging up vegetation and causing erosion, as adequately
explained in the DEIS) and animals. Thus all of the above arguments for choosing
Alternative D as the best alternative for GGNRA apply to both leashed and offleash dogs.
Corr. ID: 4282
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209049
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Current dog use of the GGNRA is unsupportable. At Fort
Funston the spider web of dog trails has caused significant erosion. We have
watched dogs chase shorebirds at Ocean Beach. Some people have a fear of dogs. I
know those who avoid Fort Funston and Crissy Field Beach because of the large
number of unrestrained dogs running around. Most importantly, unrestrained dogs
are a threat to wildlife, including endangered species like the Snowy Plover.
Corr. ID: 4683
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210169
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog litter: Besides their presence, dog related litter is a
significant problem. Though many owners pick up their dog's waste, there are those
who do not. In fact nobody cleans up urine.
I he amount of dog urine, combined with feces that is not picked-up or remains
after most of it is removed causes heavily used areas like Fort Funston to smell,
thus making it unpleasant for visitors who are not dog owners. It also impacts soil
chemistry in ways never explained. investigated to our knowledge. or mitigated.
We have no idea w hat the impact on soil chemistry might be, but it would seem
that wherever dogs are permitted, an environmental impact report should be
developed to deal with that. "Tat study should identify impacts on microorganisms,
invertebrates, vertebrates and plants. Since our National Parks are supposed to
protect the resource of each park, it seems incumbent on the National Park Service
(NPS) to undertake that analysis if dogs are permitted in any part of GGNRA..
29505
Other factors contribute significantly to soil erosion, particularly human
recreational activities like hiking, biking, and children playing, horseback riding,
and Park Service activities. Many natural factors, including wind and rain, also
contribute to soil erosion and compaction, not dogs. The DEIS does not report these
soil impacts from other user groups.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1134
Comment ID: 192461
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

271

GR2010 – Geologic/Soil Resources: Affected Environment
Representative Quote: The DEIS report accuses dogs of degrading the land and
compacting the soil. (DEIS, p. xxi, p. 225) On our walks at Fort Funston, I have
observed many other forms of recreation that "degrades" the soil: hikers, bikers,
joggers, kite flyers, hang gliders, surfers, children rolling down dunes, horse back
riders, and remote control car hobbiests. The DEIS report fails to show what soil
degradation can be attributed to these activities as well as the effects of nature:
wind, rain, ravens, raccoons, seismic activity, and burrowing animals. The
restrictions which would confine off-leash dogs to a few acres is overly severe
unless restricitions were placed on everything that affects the environment, and
then only in proportion to the extent of the effect.The document should be revised
to provide scientific evidence that shows the impact of all the contributors of soil
degradation and the percentage of impact each contributor is responsible for. Until
that time, I strongly oppose any change in the leash laws at Fort Funston.
Corr. ID: 2899
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203047
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are not responsible for the degradation of the park,
nor its trails. The vast majority of damage is from humans. Soil compaction, waste,
wildlife disturbances and resources are affected by people way more than by dogs.
In reality, dogs are less of a problem that the horses that are allowed on trails, the
bicycles, and even by the Park Service vehicles on the fire roads!
Corr. ID: 4089
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208368
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At about 200 pounds per adult, the force that a human
exerts on the soil one foot at a time would have a significantly greater impact on
soil compaction in a picnic area than the force exerted by even a large 70-pound
dog distributing its weight on four paws. The failure to acknowledge that human
use has more impact on soils and geology in this regard, compared to dog use,
uncritically loads the analysis in favor of restrictions on dogs. While there may be
areas in which impacts from dogs are unacceptable, the same criterion holds for
impacts from humans, and in most of these areas, dogs and humans are already
excluded.
Corr. ID: 4091
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208397
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The draft Plan/DEIS states that dogs contribute to soil
erosion on the east portion side of the Grassy Airfield (Pages 364 and 365) but
there is no specific documentation and a recent inspection (May 2011) by this
author found no visible signs of erosion as described in this document and it is
unclear how any dog would be able to create such a disturbance as, most, if not all
dogs, run and play on top of the Grassy Airfield.
Corr. ID: 4311
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209353
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS does not adequately address recreational
components other than dogs and so one cannot logically conclude that it is the
dogs/dog walkers that are causing the problems. Chapter 3, p.225, states that at Fort
Funston "soil compaction is common along social trails that have been created by-and e heavily used by--bikers, hikers, runners, and dog walkers " As a long-time
Fort Funston user, I know this is true. I know also that horses are probably the
biggest cause of soil compaction and feces. However, horses are not mentioned. At
Ocean Beach, large foot races such as the "Turkey Trot" have taken place during
the time the beach is closed to off-leash dogs because of the Snowy Plover's
presence. The DEIS needs to do a more thorough job of identifying a full set of
recreational components at each location where changes are proposed
Corr. ID: 4312
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209373
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
272

GR2010 – Geologic/Soil Resources: Affected Environment
Representative Quote: This human activities impact is a case of "we have met the
enemy and they is us." Or, to be more exact, they is GGNRA personnel and
GGNRA contractors. The truth is that an impact on the Oakwood Valley Fire
Road/Alta Avenue routes that dog walking may have is trivial compared to that
perpetuated by GGNRA personnel and GGNRA contractors. Winter after winter I
have seen park and contractor vehicle using Alta Avenue (and the adjacent roads)
while those roads were still wet and muddy. These vehicles' wheels make ruts in
the rain softened roads. The runoff from the subsequent rains run down these ruts
and end up causing severe erosion of the roads. To mitigate the damage to the roads
caused by your own vehicles using them in winter when the roads are wet, huge
Caterpillar earth movers are brought in during the dry season, at significant expense
I am sure, to scrape another 6-inches off the surface of the roads to attempt to
correct the erosion. There is no need to allow park service or contractor vehicles to
use these roads to perform surveillance or other maintenance activities in winter.
Their use as fire roads is not required in the middle of winter. The GGNRA should
create administrative rules that prohibit the use of these dirt roads by park and
contractor vehicles when they are wet and muddy until they dry out, except in cases
of emergency.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29506
The DEIS fails to address toxic substances and unexploded ordinances remaining at
Fort Funston that could contribute to soil contamination.
Corr. ID: 4622
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207082
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Water Discharge/Erosion of Cliffs/Toxic Substances The DEIS fails to address the pre-existing sewer lines of San Francisco and Daly
City which go under Fort Funston and discharge into the ocean. The DEIS does not
address the effect on the environment of the sewer lines and the huge excavation
which was performed in the last year to update these sewer lines and attempt to
stabilize the cliffs which had receded 75 feet in the last 30 years due to the effects
of nature (not dogs).
The DEIS fails to address the toxic substances which remain at Fort Funston due to
the occupation of the site by Coast Artillery in World War II and the subsequent
use as an. Army Nike missile site. There is no reference to the leaching of these
toxic substances and their effect on the environment. While it is true that a certain
amount of mitigation of hydraulic fluid from Nike missile handling
equipment still remaining on the site and still underground has been done, the very
personnel performing the mitigation for the Federal government indicated they
don't really know what else is underground, where all the equipment is actually
located, what the current condition of that equipment is, and, last but not least,
where it will leak next. The DEIS also fails to address unexploded ordinance which
continues to still be discovered at Fort Funston. The DEIS also fails to address the
exploded ordinance (lead) mixed into the soil throughout the site and still being
discovered by even the most casual observer.

GR4000 - Geologic Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
29507
Minimizing the space available for off-leash dog recreation will cause greater
impacts to areas where dogs are allowed under the new plan, as dogs will be
concentrated, and their impacts will be greater.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1833
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

273

GR4000 – Geologic/Soil Resources: Impact Of Proposals And Alternatives
Comment ID: 191971
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) The results of restricting the same number of dogs on a
much smaller area of land are simply not addressed. What exactly is going to
happen when the same number of dogs continue to be walked on half the land (on
leash) and one-third of the land (off leash)? Where is the discussion of what will
certainly be exacerbated aggression, social, environmental and erosion issues that
are inevitable when the same number of dogs are restricted to a much smaller area
of land? Where is the discussion of the responsible dog owners and dog walkers
who frankly comprise the majority of dog walkers in San Francisco? How is
restricting the amount of available land going to make the minority of dog owners
and walkers who are not responsible (e.g., those who don't pick up dog waste and
don't monitor their dogs) magically start behaving in a responsible manner?
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192048
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The forced concentration of dogs with individual and
commercial dog walkers in a severely limited space is likely to result in significant
increase in conflicts between dogs/dog walkers, conflicts with other activities in the
designated space, degradation of soil/vegetation in restricted space, and pressure to
find other areas for off leash dog walking that are not permitted under Plan,
Corr. ID: 4302
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208955
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If GGNRA is able to provide new recreational areas for
dog off-leash recreation, it would be a great compromise to the proposed
restriction. The present proposed small areas will cause conflicts for both people
and dogs if they restricted to a small area. Though causing severe erosion/damage
to the small limited areas from over use.

GR5000 - Geologic Resources: Cumulative Impacts
29508
The impacts of humans need to be added in consideration of impacts, which
currently assume there are no impacts unless dogs are present, when there will be
impacts from human walking even if dogs are not present.
Organization: Montara Dog Walking Group
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4405
Comment ID: 204930
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The baseline for comparison throughout the Draft
Plan/DEIS should not be an environment in which it is assumed that there is no
impact unless dogs are present, but one in which the impact of dogs is added to the
impact of humans. At about 200 pounds per adult, the force that a human exerts on
the soil one foot at a time would have a significantly greater impact on compacting
the soil in a picnic area than the force exerted by even a large 70-pound dog
distributing its weight on four paws. The failure to acknowledge that human use has
more impact on soils and geology in this regard (and acceptable in many areas of a
National Park), compared to dog use, unfairly and uncritically biases the analysis in
favor of restrictions on dogs. While there may be areas in which impacts from dogs
are unacceptable, the same criterion holds for impacts from humans, and in most of
these areas, dogs and humans are already excluded.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29509
There is no evidence to back the assertion that dogs have had a long-term,
cumulative moderate impact on the soil for Muir Beach. No data supporting the
impacts of nutrient addition is presented.

274

GR5000 – Geologic/Soil Resources: Cumulative Impacts

For representative quote, please see Concern 29248 (MB1200), Comment 203793

GR6000 - Geologic Resources: Impairment Analyses
29510
The impact analyses on geologic resources do not provide enough data to justify
the negligible to adverse impacts presented at Rodeo Beach and other sites. The
effects of erosion are not visible, and are not attributable to dogs alone if present.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4404
Comment ID: 209333
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposal claims that impacts to physical resources
would be from negligible to ADVERSE because of dogs. That is a very open
statement; to determine how to proceed, it would have to be more specific to be of
any value. Rodeo Beach hasn't changed in all the years we have walked there, and I
don't see how dogs have had any adverse effect on it, or how any "severe" effects
could be envisioned. This needs more clarification as to exactly WHAT is meant by
"adverse" impacts. Otherwise it sounds like someone who hasn't even been to these
sites is merely imagining something. The same is true for Ocean Beach, Crissy
Field and Fort Funston. PEOPLE walking somewhere erode the soil; dogs actually
cause less erosion. Enforcement of dog-waste regulations would avoid any other
form of degradation that I can imagine.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

HS2010 - Health and Safety: Affected Environment
29730
Visitors noted that they felt their safety was compromised by having off-leash dogs
in the GGNRA. More specifically, many visitors cited concerns about safety of
small children when they visited the GGNRA, and noted that the current
atmosphere made them avoid the parks with their children or grandchildren.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 319
Comment ID: 181075
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This is a liability issue as well as a health & safety issue. If
the GGNRA does not get increasing complaints about injuries from dogs, it is
because persons (esp., seniors such as ourselves) have avoided areas where we
would otherwise have wished to walk, but can no longer do so because of threats
against our health & safety. Some may say that it is only a few humans who do not
walk/exercise their dogs safely & responsibly, but one dog running & jumping
upon us viciously (nearly biting us on the neck) is enough to require us to return
home and avoid that area in the future
Corr. ID: 727
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182737
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: So, contrary to dog owners phrase "don't worry he's
friendly," I worry a lot! The stress of being around dogs raises people's blood
pressure and adversely affects their health. It raises mine. It also affects my mental
health. I want to go to the park to relax but instead it worsen my mental health.
Corr. ID: 2278
Organization: Neighbor
Comment ID: 201072
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I live in Cow Hollow and I walk on Crissy Field at least 5
times a week. I am 69 years old. The dog problem there is not going to be solved by
the recommended Alternative. Dogs and their owners will still make it unpleasant,
unsafe, and unhealthy for adults and especially for children.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

275

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
The beaches where dogs are allowed are awful. They are basically dog bathrooms. I
am sure they are a public health hazard. Innocent children wander into these areas
to play. They dig in the sand and put the sand in their mouths. I am horrified. I will
not take my grand children anywhere near these places.
The leases people use for their dogs are often 20 feet long. Virtually every time I
walk there I have a dog run into me, wrap a lease around me, or accost me. I have
grandchildren and I fear for their safety
Corr. ID: 3909
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205568
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a resident of the San Francisco's outer Sunset District.
Every time I try to enjoy Crissy Field or Ocean Beach, I leave the area because
there are numerous off-leash dogs running mad under no control by their owners. I
would like to go to the beach one day and actually enjoy it without fearing being
attacked by off-leash dogs. I do not even attempt to go to Fort Funston as it is
impossible to go there and not have a usually frightening interaction with not one,
but many off-leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 3927
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205766
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Both Milagra Ridge and Mori Point allow dog access if on
leashes. I have never seen the leash law enforced at these parks although I have
always encountered dogs off leash in both these parks whenever I go.
I have experienced the following stressful situations at both parks:
-physical and emotional distress caused by uncontrolled dogs aggressively running
towards my husband and/or I, and jumping on one or both of us;
-dog attacks by unleashed dogs on leashed dogs;
-several heated conflicts between myself/husband and non-compliant dog owners;
-damage and destruction to fragile native plant restoration projects by unleashed
dogs running off trails;
-injury and death to indigenous animals caused by uncontrolled dogs running after
and attacking them;
Corr. ID: 4278
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209073
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is too dangerous to allow any dog to roam without a
leash. One never knows when a dog may bite, especially a child whose face is close
to the level of the dog's mouth. Even adults may feel uncomfortable when
approached by an unfamiliar dog.
It is not fair to those who use the parks to have to deal with the issue of unruly dogs
off a leash, who may be running hard and inadvertently knock a child or an elderly
person to the ground. Also who wants listen to barking dogs or step in dog
excrement and drag that around on a shoe to one's car? Nor is it fair to place a
burden on the staff to ride herd on people who do not obey the laws.
Corr. ID: 4469
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208697
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been knocked down twice by off-leash dogs. They
meant no harm; they were just out of control. Once dogs are in an area, it becomes
276

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
a dog area and no other use is safe or enjoyable. How many areas like Fort Funston
are you going to turn over for dog use, which essentially excludes all other uses?
29731
Visitors did not feel that the presence of dogs was detrimental to their safety. Many
visitors, particularly single women or women with children, said that they felt much
safer walking in the GGNRA with their dog, and would be less likely to visit the
park if they could not walk with their dog. Dogs and dog walkers have improved
the safety of the parks by providing a constant presence.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 253
Comment ID: 180835
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have NEVER once felt unsafe around off-leash dogs.
They are too excited exploring and romping to pay attention to me.
Corr. ID: 649
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181452
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition, I have always felt much better, when my wife
and children are out enjoying the beach and trails, that they have our dog with them
for safety. Our dog would only lick the would-be bad guy to death, but he wouldn't
know that in advance.
Corr. ID: 2899
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203050
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs CREATE safety! It is much safer for me to walk the
trails with my dog than alone! And it enhances the experience I have in the Park!
Corr. ID: 3217
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202580
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have read part of the DEIS for Dog Management in
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, focusing on the sections pertaining to Fort
Funston, where I like to walk my dog off-leash. It seems to me that with 20 other
sections in the GGNRA the NPS could leave Fort Funston as is, i.e. with minimal
leash restrictions. Urban dogs are typically cooped up indoors (or, if they're lucky
like my dog, also have access to small back yards) for long periods of time. An
inability to run free and burn off energy can have health and behavior impacts on
these dogs. They need places like Fort Funston.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I understand concerns regarding dog fights, bites and unpicked-up waste, but these
really are in the minority. A percentage of humans also commit violence against
each other and other species, and trash the environment, but nobody's talking about
putting them on leashes. Please don't fall into the typical trap in public policy where
the actions and exceptions of the minority result in inconveniences and restrictions
for the well-behaved, law-abiding majority. LEAVE FORT FUNSTON ALONE!
Corr. ID: 4026
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207081
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a woman who walks all times of day (and sometime
evenings) without another person with me and I feel I need my dog with me. If
dogs were banned, it would make it more challenging and would take away my
access to the parks. This past week my partner was stalked and chased by a coyote
in the Rancho. It was snarling, yapping and came within five feet of her. Her dog
stood between her and the coyote.
Corr. ID: 4033
Organization: GGNRA
Comment ID: 207153
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am mother and love having the dogs at Crissy Field. My
children enjoy playing and interacting with them. It is the reason that we go to
Crissy Field rather than other parks. Seeing the dogs swimming, running and
277

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
playing is a joy and only enhances our experience. Having dogs on leash only
would greatly restrict this and would be a big disappointment. The dog owners we
have met are very responsible and I never fear for the safety of my children. As a
mother, I have a choice of going to a place where dogs are off-leash or on-leash.
Parents who are uncomfortable with off-leash dogs have many options.
Corr. ID: 4092
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208420
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA trails are part of an urban environment, and I
know and have heard of many stories where single women have been assaulted. It
is an unfortunate aspect urban life, but needs to be addressed. I do not use trails that
do not allow dogs when I am hiking or running alone. I feel that the DEIS has
failed to analyze the impact of restricting the off-leash area and its impact on single
women users which comprise a large number of the overall users of the area.
Corr. ID: 4224
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208957
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In all my years walking in Fort Funston and Crissy Field I
have seen ZERO incidents of dogs fighting or attacking people. I have, however,
run into many very frightening human characters - for example, some drunk and
belligerent people camping in the bushes at Fort Funston. And I was at Fort
Funston the day someone was shot and killed.
Without dogs and dog walkers, I frankly think that these areas will be much more
frightening to visit and I certainly would not feel so comfortable with fewer "dog
people' there. Since 99% of dog walkers are responsible, I believe it is not right or
fair to punish the majority for the actions of the very few irresponsible dog owners.
29732
Dog waste is a major issue for health and safety in the GGNRA. The amount of
feces and urine is concerning, and having children playing in the same areas as this
dog waste is unhealthy and unsanitary. Dog feces carry many parasites and
diseases.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 311
Comment ID: 181060
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the summer we do not get rain for 5 or 6 months and it
is unhealthy and unsanitary to have kids playing in a dog toilet. We desperately
need a section reserved for people who want to use a clean beach without dealing
with dried dog urine.
Corr. ID: 930
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191398
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The feces left by dogs present an infectious disease hazard.
They carry a number of intestinall parasites or worms such as roundworms,
hookworms, and coccidia, some of which can infect humans. They also carry
Brucella, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Lyme Disease, Coxiella,
Rabies, Salmonella, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, many of which can be
transmitted by exposure to their feces or by dog bite. At San Francisco General
Hospital, we have seen over the years innumerable dog bites and many of these
parasitic and bacterial infections transmitted by dogs.
Corr. ID: 2802
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201099
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs at Crissy Field are a health and safety hazard as well
as a threat to wildlife. They foul the sand and grass where children play, and runoff goes into the bay. Joggers get tripped as I once was, injuring my shoulder. I've
stopped jogging there and long ago stopped bringing my grandaughter.
Corr. ID: 3174
Organization: Not Specified
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

278

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
Comment ID: 203741
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is inadequate enforcement in Marin to manage bad
dog owners/walkers. Observe the environmental damage and lack of leash
enforcement near Mill Valley Bayfront Park and Dog Area. Observe dog feces in
the sand in children's play areas. A birthday party or social gathering for kids in
many city parks results in dog feces on shoes and play balls.There is even less
enforcement in the GGNRA.
Where ever dogs are allowed there will be environmental impacts and health risks
to kids. The less access for dogs the better
Corr. ID: 4267
Organization: Law Office of David Elliott Wise
Comment ID: 209103
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I regularly see people playing fetch with their dogs in the
closed Snowy Plover area, sometimes while the owner remains aloofly on the
concrete prominade, while the, dog runs around in the sand. Also, I have had
countless experiences at the beach where dogs run up to me and my kids, off leash,
and oblivious to the repeated calls of the ineffectual owner. Clearly most dogs are
walking the owners, and not vice-versa. And then there is the dog poop in the sand,
which, aside from being a hazard to barefoot walker, raises dangerous bacterial
levels in the sea water, which is a danger to surfers, and kids playing in the surf-line
alike.
Corr. ID: 4318
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209419
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have a six year old son and I frequently take him to the
Crissy Field Beach, and we are constantly over-run by off-leash dogs who have
taken over the beach. The dogs urinate and defecate all over the beach, and while
many owners do clean up their dog's poop, some do not and no one can do anything
about all the dog urine all over the beach. Kids who play in the sand are constantly
exposed to this dog urine and excrement, which is both unpleasant and unhealthy.
On many occasions my son has been approached by a fast running dog, which has
often frightened him. I have refrained from taking my son to Fort Funston at all,
despite the beautiful vistas and the interesting hang gliders, due to that park being
completely overrun by off-leash dogs that spoil the park experience for anyone who
is not a dog owner.
Corr. ID: 4610
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209818
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I heard that some kids got e.coli (or something) from
playing in the sand
I have seen a dog maul my neighbors cat to death. I have seen kids get bit by dogs.
I see dog fights all the time. I pick up dog poop EVERYDAY.
A little girl got her face severly biten by a dog while she was playing on the beach.
29733
Being able to walk a dog in the GGNRA helps maintain a healthy lifestyle. Dogs
require walks, which helps owners get outside, increasing their fitness. Dog
walking also provides mental health benefits by providing a social community for
many people. Lastly, dog walking allows for less aggressive and safer dogs.
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1181
Comment ID: 193558
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As time has passed GGNRA has become more and more
restrictive to off-leash dog access...
We have an obesity crisis in this country, and our health clinics are overflowing
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

279

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
with people suffering from chronic diseases, many of which are caused by
excessive weight. We should be doing whatever we can to make exercise an easy
part of every day life. People often care more about their pets than they do their
own health, and they will get up and walk for the sake of their pet. We should have
places where people can walk or run for miles with their pets to improve their
health, rather than forcing pet owners into neighborhood parks with no room to run
for any distance. While the plight of the snowy plover may be dire- so is the plight
of the health of San Franciscans. An investment of political will now could
potentially save our city millions in future healthcare costs.
Corr. ID: 2201
Organization: Little Fluffy Clouds
Comment ID: 200706
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 3. A well-exercised dog is a well-behaved dog. Dog
owners carry the responsibility for the actions of their dog. There is no evidence
that allowing dogs to go off-leash, for play opportunities and socialization
experiences, increases the incidence of aggression toward a person. Every reputable
expert working in the field of dog behavior in the United States is of the opinion
that it is likely that off-leash access decreases the likelihood of aggression. Again I
have been on these very trails for the past 11 years, twice a day, and have never
been attacked by a dog. Portraying dogs as aggressive and something to fear is just
a tool to push the agenda of this extreme plan. Specific studies disproving that offleash dogs are dangerous to visitors are attached at the end of this letter.
Corr. ID: 3821
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204925
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a 74-year-old woman with moderate hearing loss.
These facts are pertinent because age and disability are frequently cited as reasons
for not allowing dogs off leash on GGNRA lands. I hike several times a week with
my dog off leash on the Rancho Corral de Tierra land between Montara and the
McNee Ranch State Park.
While this is a pleasure for both of us, the more important facts relate to health and
safety for me. The pleasure motivates me to get the vigorous exercise that benefits
an older person. The varied terrain at Rancho Corral de Tierra makes for a good
hike in conditions that are not readily available elsewhere on the coast when
walking with a dog. With my dog off leash we can precede a pace best for both of
us - me slowing some on the hills and my dog chasing her ball.
Corr. ID: 3836
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203760
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Recreation with dogs is not just recreation for dogs - it is
for the people with the dogs (dare I day dog owners) also.
Walking (with or without a dog) lowers blood pressure, lowers rates of chronic and
costly diseases, and has many other positive effects. We should be encouraging
people to recreate with their dogs - not constantly attacking it.
Particularly in the case of Fort Funston and many other areas, these are former
military bases. The are not undisturbed wilderness areas. To pretend otherwise is
somehow to ignore the facts.
Please preserve the current system that allows people to recreate with their dogs at
Fort Funston and in all other areas currently allowed.
Corr. ID: 3914
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205600
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: More and more studies are demonstrating the benefits of
walking dogs for health - both physical and psychological. Off-leash areas allow
280

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
people to come together and form friendships. They are places where people can
socialize and exercise, while their dogs obtain the same benefits and become better
behaved in the process.
Corr. ID: 4026
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207079
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At a time when obesity is at epidemic level and free or low
cost recreational opportunities for children and families are going away, the parks
serve as one of the best venues for life-long health and fitness. Dogs help us to get
outside and move. Therefore, if the parks allow dogs, people will get outside and
walk with them and get the exercise they need. Families with dogs will have a
much better level of health and fitness.
Corr. ID: 4311
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209355
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS does not address any of the beneficial effects of
recreation, with or without dogs. For example, the Healthy People, Healthy Parks
initiative encourages people to walk and exercise more. Statistics show, and I know
personally, that having a dog encourages us to get out and to do just that.
Recreational uses including dog walking have other benefits -- reduced stress,
increased appreciation of the environment, better health, and increased longevity.
The GGNRA must balance these benefits against the benefits of reducing the
amount of land available for recreation.
Corr. ID: 4529
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209664
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Research has shown that walking with a dog is likely to
result in lengthier and more frequent walks than walking with another person or
with a group (See, e.g., Marcus, 2008; and Brown and Rhodes, 2006.)' The health
benefits of walking with one's dog in the GGNRA, widely noted by those who visit
with their dogs, and those who come to see and walk with the dogs, are ignored by
the Dog Management Plan.
29734
The statistics provided on dog incidents do not indicate there are significant health
and safety concerns related to dogs. Many of the claims made about health and
safety are not shown by the numbers, particularly given the high use and visitation
of sites in the GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1803
Comment ID: 191653
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Severe restrictions are not needed to protect other park
visitors from dogs. Problems with dogs represent a tiny fraction of the total
incidents and citations issued by the GGNRA over the past decade. Of those
incidents and citations issued to people with dogs, the majority were leash law
violations, or being in a closed area, and did not reflect any safety issues between
dogs and other park visitors. Target enforcement on the small number of people
whose dogs misbehave, not on excluding the entire class of people with dogs from
most of the GGNRA.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

For example, the DEIS mentions that disease "could" be transmitted to people from
unpicked-up dog feces. However there has not been a single case of dog-fecescaused human illness reported by the San Francisco Department of Health for over
50 years. A management policy should not be based on hypothetical impacts. It
should be based on actual, observed impacts. Hypotheticals that are not actually
seen in the GGNRA cannot be used to justify restrictions on off-leash recreation in
the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3777
Organization: Not Specified
281

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
Comment ID: 205142
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Problem interactions between park visitors and off-leash
dogs represent a tiny fraction of the total incidents and citations issued by the
GGNRA. Visitor fears of being attacked by an off-leash dog are fears based on
emotion, not empirical evidence. The vast majority of citations in the GGNRA are
leash law violations or being in closed or restricted areas and did not reflect any
safety issues between dogs and park visitors.
Corr. ID: 4091
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208393
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For example, Page 71 of the DEIS asserts: "Particularly on
nice days, the high level and variety of visitor uses have resulted in conflicts,
including intimidation, dogs knocking people over, dog-on dog fights and dogs
biting people'". We have looked through this 2,400-page document, and have found
nothing to substantiate this anecdotal assertion. Examination of the enforcement
data summary table in Appendix G of the DEIS (Page G-1 to G-2) frequently cited
in the DEIS, indicates does not support this assertion and indicated limited
problems (see Appendix C of CFDG comments).
Corr. ID: 4224
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208965
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: DEIS claims a major safety problem with dogs in the
GGNRA. But their own data indicates dogs accounted for only 2% of serious safety
incidents involved dogs. The vast majority of serious incidents involved people
only. Even if you include non-serious incidents, dogs accounted for a mere 7% of
incidents in the GGNRA. Dogs are not a major safety problem. As mentioned
above, in all my years dog walking in the GGNRA I have never seen one serious
incident involving dogs attacking people or birds but on the contrary I have heard
about many serious cases, including murder, involving people-on-people incidents.
I would like GGNRA to take into account the possible negative safety impacts of
shrinking use by dog walkers if it was to be restricted further; including increased
drug activity, prostitution, homeless encampments, assaults and robberies etc.
Corr. ID: 4363
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209106
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The study itself shows that only 2% of serious safety
incidents involve dogs. Yet it claims that dogs present a serious risk. And it never
even considers comparing this 2% with the numbers of women who would be
accosted if they did not have dogs at their sides.
Similarly, the study claims to be interested in protecting wildlife, but the data just
don't add up. First, there must be data collection at the different GGNRA sites, and
then, if there is a proven harm caused by dogs (as opposed to natural predators),
you must enlist professional help in finding simpler ways to solve the problem
rather than going first to banning dogs. The same is true of concerns about the
cliffs; instead of banning dogs you could simply install low fences.
Corr. ID: 4396
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209572
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: You worry about safety in the GGRNA. I first wondered if
you were concerned about our pets falling over the cliffs at Fort Funston. That
couldn't be the case because it could be so easily solved by planting native bushes
and creating hedging that could erode without much loss to the Parks. If you mean
dog bites and aggressive attacks on visitors, there is vague evidence for 2% of the
safety problems involving our canines. 98% of the danger comes from human
crime and tourists being washed off the rocks in their naivete about the ocean
waves. In fact I would worry if you eliminate dogs from Ocean Beach or Fort
Funston or Baker Beach or Chrissy Fields where car break-ins do occur now.
282

HS2010 – Health and Safety: Affected Environment
Corr. ID: 4614
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210128
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS does not contain any user site survey of Fort
Funston. Per statements of NPS public spokesman Howard Levitt, no user site
survey of Fort Funston has been conducted by, or on behalf of the NPS.
Throughout the DEIS reference is made to safety issues related to dog bites. The
only actual data in the DEIS pertaining to dog bites is the Law Enforcement Data
(Appendix G) which reflects for Fort Funston "4 bite/attack" which is useless
information without a site survey of users to determine if the reported incidents are
statistically relevant. Nor does the data include a description of the severity of any
incident (i.e., skin broken, medical attention required, etc.) I also note the category
" 10 haz cond/pet rescue" is noted to include "cases of simple assault, case of
injured person, case threats" which appear to include actions of persons, not dogs.
Again, without a site survey of use, these numbers are meaningless. In short, there
is no statistical data as to the daily number of visitors, the daily number of dogs,
and what the Fort Funston visitors are or are not doing (i.e., walking dogs, walking,
hang gliding, flying radio controlled airplanes, practicing cliff rescue, watching the
ocean, etc.)
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

31538
The impact of dog-related pathogens is not proven in the DEIS, and it is unlikely
that dog waste is introducing dangerous pathogens to park visitors.
Corr. ID: 4660
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227445
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Safety in the Park In particular, there is no public health
and safety epidemic related to dog feces or dog pathogens. Even in the unlikely
event that people contract these diseases the odds of serious medical issues is
negligible and certainly not any more severe than pathogens from other sources,
such as wildlife droppings and city street run-offs, in the GGNRA. Per the Park
Service response to my FOIA request, the Park Service has no evidence of
pathogen transmission in the GGNRA and is purely relying on listing of possible
dog related diseases. Certainly, the 1 in 3 families in America with dogs, do not
deem these to be significant risks that would cause them to not associate with dogs.

HS4000 - Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
29735
Closing sections of the GGNRA to off-leash dog walking will force dog owners to
walk on residential streets, increasing the safety risks to these dog walkers. These
restrictions may also force dog walkers to areas that are more treacherous or
dangerous, and visitors would be impacted by more safety risks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 543
Comment ID: 181969
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Closing this space to dog walking eliminates any safe
opportunity for dog walking in the community. Closing this space to dog walking
will force me and many neighbors to walk their pets up and down residential streets
(no sidewalks), many times in the dark (few streetlights). This would create unsafe
conditions for the dog walkers, the dogs, and the car drivers (as most of us are).
Corr. ID: 730
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182725
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a San Francisco resident and dog owner, I am
ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to your new regulations, that will force most of us, law
abiding dog owners to walk and run in other places, on the streets, creating a hazard
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

283

HS4000 – Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
for ourselves, our beloved dogs and to the traffic in general.
Corr. ID: 1835
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191986
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A final issue is that the GGNRA proposal did not consider
the impact of depriving dog owners of these parks and forcing us to try finding
alternative areas that may be less safe or even dangerous such as the deceptive and
treacherous rip tides present along the coast of many beaches in the bay area. In the
last two years two women have lost their lives trying to save their dogs caught in
rip tides along Northern California beaches (see references 5 and 6).
29736
Having more restrictions on dog walkers will be beneficial, as it will reduce the
number of dog bites that put children at risk if enforced. This would also allow
those who are allergic to dogs or afraid for their safety to enjoy more areas of the
park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2304
Comment ID: 200610
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This last weekend, we were walking with our
granddaughters, ages 7 and 9, where there were several dogs off leash. Although I
have no doubt that the dogs were friendly enough, their enthusiasm scared both our
girls, to the point of their wanting us to pick them up. also have significant
allergies, that I can manage with daily medication. One close encounter with fur
can set me back the rest of the day. I would like to have enjoyed our day without all
the drama.
Corr. ID: 2569
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195641
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not permit dogs throughout the park, or restrict
them to very small areas where one does not have to encounter them. In addition to
their negative impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats, they have extreme
negative impacts on me. I am severely allergic to dogs AND their flees. There are
very few areas I can go in the Bay Area for a wilderness walk (or any walk)
without encountering not just dogs and their flees, but off leash dogs that bound
straight for me. If I get within 6 feet of a dog, I end up with huge, painful welts
from these dog-flee encounters that take over six months to heal.??? I have been
disabled for 20 years with allergies. This proposal would accommodate my
disability.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

When I saw your proposal to limit dogs I felt like a miracle had happened. I could
really, maybe, be able to take wilderness type walks again.
Corr. ID: 2885
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202923
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the requirement that dogs be on-leash!
As an asthmatic with severe allergies to dogs, I have been hospitalized in the past
by "friendly" licks on the face by golden retrievers. In avoidance of dogs, I have
had to abstain from many parks in San Francisco that allow dogs off-leash. I do
support fenced areas for off-leash dogs to romp and play where they will not harm
people like myself or small children or sensitive wildlife.
Corr. ID: 4296
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209016
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are plenty of people like me who are older, small
children, frail or at least not very strong. We deserve to have a place we can get to
and feel safe. Why are you choosing dogs over the safety and well-being of people?
I hope that you will reconsider the recommendations in the proposed plan.
284

HS4000 – Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives

29737
The proposed plan will restrict seniors and others who use the park for exercising
with their dogs, resulting in negative impacts to health and safety of the visitors.
Some of the on-leash restrictions proposed will present dangerous situations for
those walking dogs
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1696
Comment ID: 191110
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort FunstonConcern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

I manage my dogs by voice control - I do not believe I can safetly manage 6 of
them on leash going down hill on rocks & sand toward the beach they covet to be
at. I am afraid I would be hurt regularly even attempting this - knee? Shoulder?
Head? - who know?! So would other people. Many would not even consider
attempting it, thus making this area less accessable! Less accessable = very bad!
Corr. ID: 3129
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202010
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have walked my dog alone in the area north of Montara,
east of Highway 1, and south of McNee Ranch State Park for 32 years, off-leash
and on-leash. During this time there has never been an attempted, or a successful,
molestation of a woman walking in this area. It is hilly with lots of trees and dense
brush. Women often walk alone here because having a dog with you makes it safe.
At a time when obesity is a national concern, GGNRA is forgetting that the main
reason people walk who have a dog, is for the dog's well being. You are
encouraging people to stay at home with their dogs, and not walk.
Corr. ID: 3862
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205574
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned that the regulations being proposed
are too restrictive and are motivated by a desire to turn GGNRA into a wildlife
preservation area, without consideration for the impact on human health and
recreation. People living in the Bay Area tend to have a higher quality of life
because of the access to the outdoor park system (of which the GGNRA is a key
element) and their ability to stay fit.
I am very concerned that restricting GGNRA access to such a large number of Bay
Area residents will cause a similar decline in their health. The GGNRA belongs to
the Bay Area and access should not be limited so drastically in this way.
Corr. ID: 4621
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207033
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: HUMAN HEALTH and SAFETY
The impact on the health of dog walking park visitors who lose this recreational
activity is not even acknowledged in the numerous discussions of "human health
and safety." Walking with off leash dogs is the only regular, active, outdoor
recreation many of us seniors get. Only adverse impacts on visitors and staff from
the presence of dogs are considered (and exaggerated) in the DEIS. The benefits to
health and safety that visitors (especially seniors) get from exercise and community
are not discussed, quantified, or included in DEIS analysis.
The evidence for the health benefits to seniors from walking with a dog is too overwhelming for GGNRA/DEIS to ignore if alternatives are to be genuinely evaluated.
From The Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol 8, Issue 3, March 2010:
Researchers Reeves, Rafferty, et al. studied 5902 adults in Michigan and found the
odds of doing long term physical activity were 69% higher for dog walkers than
285

HS4000 – Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
non dog walkers. They found that among dog owners who took their pets for
regular walks, 60 percent met federal criteria for regular moderate or vigorous
exercise. About a third of those without dogs got that much exercise. From the
American Journal of Public Health, Jan 2008: Researchers Cutt, Giles-Corti, et al.
found "the adjusted odds of achieving sufficient physical activity and walking were
57% and 77% higher among dog owners compared with those not owning dogs."
The New York Times of March 14, 2011 reported several other studies that reached
the same conclusion. A study of 41,500 Californians found that people who owned
dogs were 60% more likely to walk for leisure than those with a cat or no pet at all.
This meant an extra 19 minutes a week, on average, of walking for the dog owners.
In another study, seniors in an assisted-living facility improved walking speed by
28% if they walked with a dog but only 4% if they walked with a human
companion.
Corr. ID: 4661
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209109
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a responsible pet owner and advocate for animals, I
know it is crucial that our dogs are well behaved and trained in order to peacefully
co-exist in an urban environment and adequate exercise and socialization is
essential for a well-behaved dog. Having places where I can take long walks with
Bianca allows me to get the exercise I need while also meeting my dog's needs.
Without access to the small amount of land in the GGNRA we currently have, I am
very concerned that many dog and dog guardians will not have sufficient
opportunity to exercise and recreate.
29738
Crowding dogs into a smaller area or at local dog parks will result in more dog
aggression, which would increase the risks to the safety of dog owners and other
visitors to the GGNRA. The safety of the park will be compromised for many
visitors, particularly women, in areas closed off to dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1351
Comment ID: 195202
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that banning or further limiting off leash dogs
will have a negative impact on park safety. A well- used park is a safe park. Seniors
and women, in particular, are often reluctant to walk alone in parks because of fears
of muggings or rapes. The presence of people with well-behaved dogs off leash
discourages rapists, muggers, homeless people and drug dealers from hanging out
in parks. Many people, especially women like myself and elder folks, walk in the
GGNRA precisely because there are so many people with off leash dogs there. The
dogs provide a valuable sense of safety and security.
Corr. ID: 1955
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192706
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These legislations will increase the chances of dogs getting
into dangerous situations. They will also create overcrowding in the ROLA areas
increasing the chances of problems in those areas.
Corr. ID: 3903
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205556
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Restricting access to dogs and dog owners would
significantly have a negative impact on my lifestyle and I would no longer be able
to enjoy the outdoors with my best friends. My dog allows me to visit these urban
parks and feel safe to exercise and enjoy the outdoors alone without fearing for my
personal safety. Please don't restrict access to the GGNRA for me and my friends.
Corr. ID: 3930
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205789
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

286

HS4000 – Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
Representative Quote: I have met more then enough crazies and creepy folks on
the trails, in a variety of remote areas, to believe that I would not feel be safe to
appreciate our parks without him. If dogs were banned, it would take away my
access to the parks. This past week I was stalked and chased by a coyote in the
Rancho. It was snarling, yapping and came within five feet of my dog and me. This
went on for 30 minutes before I made it back to a clear open space. My dog stood
between the coyote and me and I believe without him there could have been a
distinct possibility of getting bit by this animal. In all my years of hiking and
walking in this area, I have never before had such an encounter, however, I was
relieved that I had my dog with me
Corr. ID: 4209
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208854
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been taking my dogs to Fort Funston for several
years, at least four (usually five) mornings a week. We typically stay for about an
hour and a half, hiking the trails and socializing. These morning treks are a very
important part of the day for both me and my dogs, and I strongly oppose
significant restriction or elimination of off-leash dog walking within the GGNRA.
My opposition derives not only from my enjoyment of off-leash dog walking, but
also safety concerns of having a lot of dogs who behave differently on leash in a
confined area
Corr. ID: 4236
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209244
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never forgotten the testimony given by the
policeman in charge of dog bites at the last attempt to restrict dogs at Ft. Funston.
He stated emphatically that he expected there would be more incidences of dog
bites if the measure passed for the dogs would have less outlet for their natural need
to run and socialize freely.
Corr. ID: 4479
Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 209663
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In closing, I would like to add that the proposal for
restricting the area dogs are allowed to run off leash to certain small areas, such as
a portion of Crissy Field, is going to create aggressive dog problems. Does the
GGNRA not realize that forces too many dogs into one area creates problems? This
is a prescription for dog fights and worse.
Corr. ID: 4598
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210068
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lastly, there is an issue of crime. Fort Funston is adjacent
to the city of San Francisco, which, lamentably, has a big crime problem.
Excluding dog-walking from a large area will put users of Fort Funston at increased
risk of falling victim to violent crime, such as assaults of various kinds and robbery.
It has been my experience that the presence of dogs is a deterrent to many forms of
crime.
Corr. ID: 4614
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210131
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston is contiguous to the urban area of San
Francisco/Daly City and within walking distance to Lake Merced which contains
numerous homeless encampments. Based on the lack of any significant NPS patrol
presence in Fort Funston, coupled with its natural terrain and proximity to San
Francisco and. Daly City, if I am denied the deterrent effect/protection afforded by
the company of my dog, I fear for my personal safety which would preclude my
ability to use Fort Funston.
Concern ID:

29740

287

HS4000 – Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
Allowing unleashed dogs on narrow trails is dangerous, as this could allow people
CONCERN
to fall off of trails.
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4459
Comment ID: 208580
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If the GGNRA allows unleashed animals onto these trails,
some of which are so narrow at points that only single file walking is possible
above 400 ft cliffs, there will eventually be an unfortunate accident and potential
loss of life. The GGNRA and NPS would do well to protect themselves from
potential wrongful death lawsuits by nixing this idea altogether.
31783
The locations presented in the DEIS for off-leash dog walking in San Mateo are not
safe; a dangerous riptide and the possibility of large waves make these areas
dangerous or unsuitable.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4035
Comment ID: 207493
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS presents two off-leash areas in San Mateo
County. Pulgas Ridge area is about a third of a mile long play area and in the
middle of a longer on-leash hike. Esplanade Beach in Pacifica is a dangerous beach
to reach and a dangerous beach for people and dogs. The beach has significant
riptides that could catch a dog and result in owner death while trying to save the
dog. In addition, rogue waves could pound a person against the cliffs.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

HS4010 - Health and Safety: Impacts of Dogs vs. Humans
29742
Visitors have been growled at or approached by a dog in an aggressive stance. This
was cited to be a point of concern among many commenters while walking along
trails and other areas. Visitors felt that their safety was compromised by these dogs.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2051
Comment ID: 200496
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a parent of a young child in San Francisco I'm tired of
not having anywhere to go and enjoy parks and beaches without a dog terrifying
my child, stepping in feces, or having dogs pee all over our sand castles (happened
5 times in 15 minutes last week on east beach in crissy field). I support a
compromise that allows people and families (and poeple with allergies) to have
certain areas off-limits to dogs and many more off-limits to off-leash dogs. My
daughter just turned four and has been knocked down or chased in scary ways by
untrained off-leash dogs a half dozen times.
Corr. ID: 2308
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200625
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I frequently go to Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. Many
times I have been harassed by unleashed large dogs that run up to me ferociously
barking as if they are going to attack me, while the dog owner is unable to get the
dog to back off. I have been scared so many times that my boyfriend thinks I
should carry a weapon to the beach with me.
Corr. ID: 3706
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204311
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a frequent user of the parks, I have been concerned for
some time about the increasing number of dogs allowed in the parks, particularly
off-leash, and especially in beach and riparian areas. Although my primary concern
is the disruption of wildlife habitat, I also feel that there are virtually no park areas
left where a person can take a walk, observe nature, meditate, etc., without the
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

288

HS4010 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs vs. Humans
presence of dogs.
Far too often I encounter ill-trained dogs off-leash, chasing shore birds, etc., and
sometimes being actively encouraged by their owners to do so. I generally find that
if I attempt to approach these people to voice my concerns, I am met with hostility.
On occasion dogs have jumped up on me, sometimes quite forcefully, and I have
been left with muddied clothing and in one instance a knee injury.I could go on at
length about other encounters with dog owners that left me feeling discouraged and
disturbed, but the gist of my point is that I do not believe that rules for either onleash or voice-control areas are enforceable, simply because most people do not
obey the rules and there is no one to see that they do. I don't think that either dogs
or dog owners are inherently bad. But I do think that we have become a "dog
society" in which, no matter what the rules, dog owners do not really believe that
they apply to them. Alternatively, I sometimes speak to people who had no idea
that dogs were not allowed in a particular section, or only allowed on-leash. If we
need stringent laws, with real enforcement and penalties for breaking them to bring
this about, then those laws should be implemented.
29743
Some visitors have been bitten by off-leash and on-leash dogs in the park. One
common way visitors were bit was during attempts to break up a dogfight. Other
visitors were nipped while running, walking, or biking.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1291
Comment ID: 195023
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Last year my husband was attacked by 2 unleashed
Huskies while we were hiking on Bolinas Ridge. Of course, the owner grabbed his
dogs and ran away when he saw my husband's arm bleeding.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

We then saw another dog walker with 6 dogs. Both within a few minutes of each
other. We saw one of the 6 dogs poop and the dog walker just kept going. It was
also disgusting to see dogs poop, creating a health hazard, and the owners just walk
away creating.
Corr. ID: 1295
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 188948
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One person gets bitten by a dog everyday in San Francisco,
so dogs aren't exactly safe. The dog that bit me in the Presidio was barking at me
and not bearing its teeth or behaving in any of the ways you described. And on a bit
of a separate point, the facts are that even other dog owners have problems with the
professional dog walkers. Again, I find it difficult to understand the difference
between me bringing well-trained de-fanged rattlesnakes to the park and dog
walkers bringing their dogs to the park
Corr. ID: 3079
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201296
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My experience with off-leash dogs has occured mostly in
San Francisco and in the Tennessee Valley area. I have never been bitten, but one
of my children has. In the neck. The dog was just playing, but it was very big and
the child was very small. The owner was not in control. I have no serious safety
concerns now that the children are grown, but when they were small, it was a
constant concern, whenever they were in a park, to protect them from dogs.
Carrying them in backpacks was not always helpful, as some dogs took exception
to what they seemed to view as a threatening two-headed monster. Owners would
calmly explain that their huge, barking dog was "friendly." There were also
numerous encounters between unsuspecting children and dog poop. All these
289

HS4010 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs vs. Humans
incidents occurred in areas where dogs were required to be leashed at all times
Corr. ID: 3221
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202603
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I like well-behaved dogs, preferably those with trained
owners. I don't own a dog presently but, with hand or voice signals, can usually
handle any dog that was been trained. I believe that open space is best served as
available to those with and without dogs. Separating the two spaces is often best:
dogs and owners can frolic and exercise in an area devoted to off-leash dogs while
those desiring not to be where the dogs are can contentedly do the same elsewhere.
No worries about troublesome or accidental interactions.
I come to this from experience. Here's a sample:
An off-leash boxer ran up a multi-use path toward me, jumped onto my chest, and
damaged a newly healed incision. Its owner never stopped her conversation to
notice, let alone control, her pet.
Riding my bike on a broad boulevard with light traffic, a Doberman ran out from a
backyard obviously with a purpose, crossed the large yard, and clamped onto my
ankle. He pushed me and my bike across the boulevard without letting up on his
clenched jaw. No owner seen.
Walking on a sidewalk, after making eye contact with the dog walker and giving
wide berth, I tried to pass a Chihuahua on-leash. The dog lunged onto my calf and
dug in nails as it slid down my leg. The person reprimanded me for not wearing
long pants. Nothing was said to the dog nor was the leash shortened to put distance
between us.
Corr. ID: 3345
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203027
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is really important to keep dogs away from humans and
wild animals. It is especially Important that they not be near children, especially if
they are loose
on a beach. I know of 3 cases where dogs who normally, according to their owners,
were perfectly well behaved. However, 3 small children were bitten, one with a
torn
face requiring painful surgery and scarred for life.
Please protect humans and wild animals for uncontrolled dogs.
Corr. ID: 3735
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204232
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I can not encourage the National Park Service more
strongly to follow through with this plan. The needs of wildlife far exceed the
needs of people to be able to walk their dogs off leash as they would like. The
whole reason of the National Park Service is to preserve nature and wildlife for all
Americans, now and in the future. As an avid hiker (I hike 20+ miles with 4-5K
altitude gain once a week), I have found people with their dogs off leash in areas
closed off to dogs far too many times. Just hiking I have been cornered more times
than I care to remember by snarling, dangerous curs. rarely do the dog owners, or is
the supposed appropriate term "guardians", apologize as they struggle to get their
dogs under control. I know there are many mature, sensible and polite pet owners in
the world, but having been bitten once and kept off the trails for weeks after while I
healed, the inconsiderate ones are my biggest fear, as I have a right to be on the
trails unmolested by supposedly domesticated animals.
Corr. ID: 4111
Organization: Not Specified

290

HS4010 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs vs. Humans
Comment ID: 208488
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I was recently bitten on the thigh while jogging near the
entrance to Alta Trail by an off-leash dog, and to this day, I am nervous around any
dog-large or small.
It has gotten to the point where my wife will not walk on the trail by herself, even
armed with pepper spray. And our 9-year-old boy, who actually likes dogs, will not
leave my side while walking the trails.
One of our concerns is that from the end of Donahue to the trailhead, there seems to
be no rules at all about off-leash dogs, even though it is "private" land. We would
like to encourage more enforcement of the leash laws on the trail from the parking
area to the trailhead.
Corr. ID: 4339
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208917
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On this same day, after I had just deposited the first letter
to you about dog encounters, I was nipped on the arm by a black laborador as I was
walking on Pacifica's ocean front promenade. The dog was on leash and the owner
who was holding the leash looked surprised that her dog had done that. She asked if
the dog had bit me, as I was holding my arm and looking at the slobber on my
jacket sieve. I said yes , and I told her she should short leash her dog. When I walk
I swing my arms normally and not excessively.
I know how quickly these things happen because it happened with me and my dog
on leash. It is a matter of police report that my dog bit a young person on the hand
while he was passing on a skate board. We were on a four foot wide concrete side
walk and my dog reacted to a hand swinging by and caught it. What I learned from
that is that is from then on I had to anticipate and move my dog to the outside
position and not have him in between moving people. So when you develop the
rules about dogs being on leash ,you should also have suggested etiquette like place
yourself between your dog and other people. Also when in tight quarters grab the
leash to shorten it so that your dog is near you.
Yes I want all dogs on leash every where except on private property and dedicated
dog parks.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29744
Dog walkers noted that they had never seen any negative incidents between humans
and dogs, and that dogfights that did occur were often very nominal.
Corr. ID: 2321
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195266
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to see data supporting the claim that there are
increased problems with dogs in these areas.
I have yet to witness a dog bite or attack anyone, or any serious misbehavior. I'm
sure that problems occasionally happen, but is there real evidence of a major
increase in the number of problems?
Corr. ID: 3555
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203449
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am firmly against the new proposal for off leash dogs at
the GGNRA. I have been walking my dog on several parcels of land managed by
the GGNRA over the past ten years including Crissy Field, Baker Beach, Fort
Funston, and the Presidio trails. During this time I have witnessed very few
incidents of the dogs creating problems. Most dog owners have their dogs under
291

HS4010 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs vs. Humans
voice control and scoop the poop.
Making these areas on leash are going to increase incidents, not prevent them. I
have seen runners and bikers get tangled up in leashes.
I would think the park police would have better things to do then chase after off
leash dogs. Currently, dog owners police each other by chastising those who do not
scoop or who have uncontrolled dogs off leash.
I hope the GGNRA reconsiders this preposterous proposal.
Corr. ID: 3738
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204582
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan states that there were 43 dog bites in the year
2007-8 in the whole area covered by the plan. Considering the huge usage by dogs
and people this is a miniscule! There is no mention of human on human injury or
damage during that time. In the grand scope of the GGNRA and in the city this is
not a problem.
While the plan spends a lot of time trying to calculate the impact of dogs on the
landscape and wildlife (a huge 45 incidents of dogs chasing wildlife), there is no
consideration given to the positive effect that off leash use has on the dogs and
people who use it, or the loss that would be experienced if off leash access were
curtailed.
Corr. ID: 3758
Organization: SFDOG
Comment ID: 204620
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In all the years I have been going there I have rarely seen
any run ins between dogs or people.If dogs get lost, someone will help you look for
them.
Corr. ID: 3888
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206024
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Arriving in San Francisco, I was astonished to see everywhere! - well-behaved, easygoing dogs trotting obediently and happily behind
their owners, off leash, on the sidewalks of the city! None were snapping at
children or other dogs, none were barrelling ahead of their helplessly shouting
owners, none were running into traffic.
As I began to spend a lot of time in the city's parks with my own dog (also a east
coast transplant), it blew my mind to see the friendly, polite interactions between
all the dogs playing off-leash there.
I implore you, as an animal behavior specialist and as the lucky guardian of a lifechangingly wonderful dog, don't eliminate off-leash areas in San Francisco. In
doing so, you would eliminate a large source of this city's canine and human
happiness quotient, and would create new dog problems you couldn't even imagine.
Corr. ID: 3907
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205566
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have literally never witnessed difficulties between dogs
and others, and have always found dog owners quite respectful of others and in
terms of keeping the grounds clean. In fact, it has been my experience that dogs
bring so much enjoyment to everyone, that it enhances the visits for
everyone...whether they are there with their dogs or alone.
Please do NOT restrict the off leash areas. I am surprised this is even on the table as
a current topic. There seems to be little to no impact in the areas currently enjoyed
292

HS4010 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs vs. Humans
by dogs and their people, and that there is plenty of other open space in the same
parks for folks who prefer to avoid dogs to enjoy.
Corr. ID: 4175
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208750
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Even in the evenings, and on weekends, I cannot recall
ever witnessing an 'incident' of a dog biting a human, or disrupting a person's
enjoyment of the recreation area. This is the pattern of usage at Crissy which is real
and evident to me.
Corr. ID: 4523
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209600
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In all my time at Crissy Field, I have seen very few
incidents of dogs going beyond the fences that enclose the dunes or the marsh, and
even fewer incidents of dog aggression. I have never seen a dog be aggressive to an
adult or a child. With the many dogs that are there on weekdays, and the hundreds
that are there are weekends, I think that is quite remarkable, and certainly does not
justify the restrictions being put forth in the GGNRA's preferred alternative.
29745
Many visitors related stories of having dogs urinate or defecate on them or their
belongings, or stories of having problems with dog waste during their experience.
This poses a health risk to visitors.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1169
Comment ID: 193541
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Thank for this work. It is long overdue. Just yesterday
while coming out of the water from surfing I witnessed a woman watch her dog
defecate in the shallow water and then just walk away. It happens all the time,
virtually everyday. I personally have seen dogs run up and pee on innocent
bystanders - children even - who just happen to be sitting on the beach.
We look forward to reasonable limits being placed upon dog owners so that the
public and wildlife may once again enjoy the beach and public property.
Corr. ID: 1681
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200230
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These are the reasons I believe dog owners need to be
accountable for their dogs, and why dogs need to be leashed at Rodeo Beach:
- I regularly find poop bags right on the beach or right off the trails. Many times
these poop bags are just across the bridge from the "pet waste" container.
- Some owners don't even bother to pick up after their dogs. I can't walk barefoot at
the beach without watching my every step to make sure I don't walk on pet waste.
- Dogs have eaten food right out of my hands when I'm picnicking on the beach.
How can I have a picnic with my friends and family when dogs are always running
up to us and taking food away from us? I don't feel safe with the children around
unattended dogs. What if one of them gets bitten? This can be how children
become fearful of dogs in the first place.
- Just a few days ago I left my shoes and rain jacket on a piece of driftwood so I
could walk in the waves. Then a schnauzer named Rocky peed on my belongings as
Rocky's 5 adult companions looked on, assuring me that everything was all right.
Rocky was not on a leash, nor were his owners even trying to use voice-command
to control his behavior.
Corr. ID: 2307
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200623
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've seen dogs urinate in public playgrounds intended for
children, while their owners looked on with amusement. Evidently, they thought it
was funny. I think this is quite symptomatic of these people's mindset and attitude
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

293

HS4010 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs vs. Humans
to others.

HS4015 - Health and Safety: Impacts of Dog Related Incidents
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29746
Dogfights have resulted in injuries and even death to dogs at the park, as well as
injuries to the owners.
Corr. ID: 3695
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204233
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've seen numerous dog attacks, (dog vs. dog) and also
many frightened people, including myself, when dogs have charged, barked, and
basically threatened people for whatever reason dogs do that. I hate going
anywhere that there are no leash laws, especially in a public area. Fort Funston is
also a tourist area, and it's just bad news when you have 100+ dogs running openly
in a parking lot/visitor area. I would suggest a leash law in the parking lot and
visitor area, and off leash for the beach and surrounding open space areas.
Corr. ID: 4277
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209082
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This is the second time in two years that I have been
subjected to violence from off-leash dogs in the Presidio. Two years ago, I was
walking our family dog ON A LEASH in the Presidio. Our dog was a 17 pound
mutt which looked like a miniature golden retriever. She was smelling some
flowers when she was attacked, out of the blue. by an off-leash Akita. I watched my
animal get torn to bits by this vicious Akita. The Akita's owner happened onto the
scene some moments into the attack and it took her a great deal of time, beating and
screaming at her own dog before the Akita could be pulled off. We both sustained
bite wounds trying to save my dog. The owner mentioned that she was surprised
that the Akita attacked because the Akita hadn't attacked anyone for at least a year.
(!!) "We have tried to train her to use her `soft mouth' "she told me. I rushed our
dog to the veterinarian where emergency surgery was performed. Although the
Akita's owner paid the vet bills, our pet never recovered and died a few months
later.
When I tried to report this incident to the Presidio Police, they referred me to San
Francisco Animal Control. San Francisco Animal Control insisted it was not their
jurisdiction. Both agencies pointed the finger at each other and ultimately, nothing
happened! The only thing that happened is that a dangerous, vicious Akita
undoubtedly still runs off-leash in the Presidio.

29747
Condensing the spaces for off-leash dog walking will result in an increase in dog
aggression, with more dogfights and altercations. On-leash dogs are also more
aggressive and the increase in on-leash areas may increase conflicts between dogs.
Dog incidents will increase if dogs are crowded in small areas.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 843
Comment ID: 186217
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Representative Quote: GGNRA's preferred alternative for Funston would limit
off-leash use to the area just north of the lot, and the beach. That area would be
home to a huge number of dogs, and groups would be unable to avoid other groups
(and therefore, conflict, because there would be nowhere to go. Aggression is
heightened for many dogs when the leash goes on, and getting your group off the
trail, so another group can pass is going to be much more difficult with everyone
294

HS4015 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs Related Incidents
leashed.
Corr. ID: 1580
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190803
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) Crowding everyone into a small off-leash area will
make it dangerous for people and dogs, i.e. increase aggression + conflicts with
people-people and dog-dog.
Corr. ID: 4340
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209475
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: When we first got Ozzie, we took him to enclosed dog
parks. He was a year old and we weren't sure how strong his recall was. We soon
stopped taking him to these parks when we realized how aggressive dogs became
when they were enclosed. I actually wound up with a herniated disc after I had to
pull Ozzie away from a dog who was attacking him, which prevented me from
working, and walking him, for months. If you are to impose leash laws, these parks
will become even more crowded than they already are
29748
Concern ID:
Incidents between dogs are extremely rare, and are not serious when they occur.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2923
Comment ID: 203407
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I imagine you have received lot of letters from concerned
dog owners regarding the "preferred option" on the plan. The prospect of no place
to let our dogs off leash, (except for dog parks) feels bleak.
However, I have a perspective to offer rather than a complaint to make a European
perspective. In England, (where I come from), and on the continent, dogs are loved.
In many European cities they are allowed in café's, restaurants and shops, and
across England they are allowed off leash in parks, woods and footpaths. They have
space and freedom to play and it is my impression that the dogs are calmer and
friendlier as a result.
I believe that society benefits from the smooth co-existence of man and dog, a
reminder of our connection to nature. A society that is dog phobic and keeps dogs
tethered at almost all times does not seem to be a happy, harmonious place to be,
and in my opinion will only increase dog aggression and discord.
As it stands our off leash options currently stand at 1% of GGNRA space. Rather
than cut this to nothing./ urge you to amend the plan to provide more off-lead
recreation areas for dogs and open new lands to dog walking,
Corr. ID: 3715
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202266
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The total number of dog bites reported in San Francisco in
2004 was 384, down 20% from the number in 2003 (SFPD testimony before SF
Police Commission, and private communication; this is the last year for which I
have information). But - and this is a big "but" - San Francisco does not separate
incidents where dogs bite other dogs from incidents where dogs bite people when it
reports the total number of dog bites. Since the vast majority of dog bites involve
one dog biting another, the number of people bitten by dogs is actually significantly
lower than the total number suggests.
Considering the number of dogs in San Francisco, the number of bites is extremely
small. Do the math: 120,000 dogs times 365 days a year equals the potential for a
minimum of 44 million bites each year. The actual number is 384 (a significant
number of which are dog-dog, not dog-people bites).
295

HS4015 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs Related Incidents
Reports of serious dog bites and fatal dog attacks make the news precisely because
they are unusual and rare.
In one of the most comprehensive analyses of injuries due to dog bites, Canadian
researchers searched a national database of all reports of injuries throughout
Canada in 1996 (Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program, or
CHIRPP; the study can be found at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injurybles/chirpp/injrep-rapbles/dogbit_e.html).
Dog bites represented 1% of all injuries in the CHIRPP database.
The CHIRPP analysis found that children between 2 and 14 years of age sustained
over 70% of all bites. Most of the dogs involved in bite incidents (65.2%) were
either part of the family, part of the extended family, or part of a friend or
neighbor's family. Only 12.2% were stray or unfamiliar dogs. The majority of the
dog bites (64.5%) happened in someone's home (either the victim's or another
person's home).
Only 3.1% of dog bites (38 total) occurred in a public park. In other words, bites
occurring in locations similar to the GGNRA accounted for a miniscule 0.02%
(2/100th of one percent) of the total number of 188,717 injuries in the database that
year.
A majority (50.3%) of victims had been interacting with the dog before the bite:
19.3% were petting, handling, feeding, or walking with the dog; 17.5% were
playing with the dog; 7.8% had hurt or provoked the dog; and 5.7% were
disciplining the dog.
Corr. ID: 3715
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202267
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Interestingly, it could very well be that the safest dogs are
those that attend off-leash dog parks. Shyan and cohorts published a research paper
in 2003 in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, which looked at the
prevalence of inter-dog aggression in dog parks. Dog to dog problems turned out to
be minimal and of a non-serious nature. While the paper did not consider the
question of dog-to-human aggression, the obvious interpretation of this low
incidence of aggression was interesting and I think very relevant. They suggested
that self-selection operates strongly, i.e., people who take their time to get into their
car or walk to a designated off-leash area to exercise their dog tend to not to be the
type who are derelict in other areas of dog guardianship, such as training,
socialization or appropriate containment.
As is clear from all of this, the chance of being bitten in a park by a strange dog that
you have not interacted with is pretty slim.
Corr. ID: 4321
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209439
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And with all the thousands of how's we have spent there
over last 5 years, we have seen exactly two serious dog vs. dog altercations, and
zero involving, a dog and a person.
29749
Off-leash dogs pose a threat to horses utilizing the trails. They are often aggressive
towards the horses, which can spook the horses, and result in injuries to riders,
horses, and dogs. Dogs also present a substantial risk to bikers, hang-gliders, and
other recreational user groups.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 243
Comment ID: 180810
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: When riding the trails especially at a trot or canter it is
totally unnerving to confront a dog off leach. There is no way to anticipate what the
horse or dog will do....most dog owners feel their pet will not be aggresive toward
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

296

HS4015 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs Related Incidents
the large horse...they have no idea how my horse will react or what will happen to
me being in the saddle 5 feet off the ground!
I realize the trails must be shared however it should be mandotary to have all dogs
on leach on ALL Trails
Corr. ID: 431
Organization: GG Parks Conservancy
Comment ID: 181621
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Unleashed dogs present a substantial danger to bikers - I
hardly know anyone who rides a bike who doesn't have a negative dog story to tell.
Corr. ID: 959
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191591
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've been attacked by a dog while riding a bike, and
another dog charged 2 of us while on horseback-causing the person I was with to
fall and be injured.
Corr. ID: 1429
Organization: Fellow Feathers of Fort Funston
Comment ID: 195371
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a five year member and prior club officer of FF of
Fort Funston. Over those five years I have witnessed numerous negative encounters
between park patrons due to dogs being off leash. I have witnessed pilots being
bitten by such dogs while attempting to land. I have personally been chased
numerous times by dogs trying to catch my glider, putting my landings at risk. I
have contacted park police because one patron became outwardly violent towards a
dog owner he thought was not properly controlling her animal.
Corr. ID: 2179
Organization: Equestrian
Comment ID: 200636
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My horse and I have been attacked by off leash dogs
numerous times down on the beach below Fort Funston, once the police were
involved as well as Chris Powell/GGNRA. One of the incidents, left my horse with
numerous bites from an unleashed pit-bull, and a dog with a broken jaw - not the
ending any animal owner wants. There have been other incidents such as these
involving other equestrians, too many to count anymore.
Corr. ID: 2317
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195275
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I used to love to hike all over the GGNRA but have
stopped because of the irresponsibility of too many dog owners. I've had huge,
unleashed dogs run up to me and the owners threaten me when I yell, "Control your
dog!". A friend was bitten while riding her bike.(The owner put the dog on leash
briefly and then released it again) Another friend was bitten while hiking. Three
people I know have had their small dogs bitten by other dogs (one of the dogs died
and another almost did). Once, when visiting the Pacifica Pier, I had to cross the
street to avoid a man who was allowing his dog to lunge and bark at people.
Corr. ID: 2572
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195638
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The needs of dog users' should not overshadow the needs
of other types of park users, including runners, bicyclists, walkers, etc.
Unfortunately, members of my own family have been attacked by dogs off of leash
while they (the family members) were running and biking. This is an unacceptable
situation and speaks to limiting the amount of parkland where dogs can be allowed
to be "off leash." Safety of park users must be a primary concern of park officials
when establishing new user policies. This is especially important knowing that
small children will be frequenting the park and dogs may be in close proximity to
them. Having dogs on leash on trails and roads is important but it is still not
without danger. It will not stop the diggers from halting their digging. It will not
ensure that the owners clean up after them, etc. There must be very clear policies
297

HS4015 – Health and Safety: Impact of Dogs Related Incidents
and rules given to those who bring dogs into the parks

HS5000 - Health and Safety: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments on HS5000

HV1100 - Homestead Valley: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29290
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative at Homestead Valley because of the
on-leash restrictions to protect wildlife.
Corr. ID: 4215
Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208892
Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: We find the proposed Preferred Alternative either desirable
or acceptable in the following sites, assuming the incorporation of our general
comments above: Stinson Beach, Homestead Valley, Muir Beach, and Marin
Headlands trails. In particular, we commend the protection of resources at Muir
Beach, and the no dogs policy on the South Lagoon trail, Smith-Guthrie Loop,
South Rodeo Beach and the Coastal Trail in the Marin Headlands.
Corr. ID: 4265
Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209121
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: HOMESTEAD VALLEY FIRE ROAD AND FUTURE
CONNECTOR TRAILS. The Homestead Valley Fire Road and future connector
trails should be restricted to dogs on leash, if dogs are to be allowed at all on this
trail to protect wildlife habiat.

HV1200 - Homestead Valley: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29294
Commenters support Alternative A for Homestead Valley because it allows offleash access in this area.
Corr. ID: 1269
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194980
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Proposals for Map 3, Homestead Valley:
Strongly advocate for Proposal Map 3-A, designating this area as a voice control
zone.
Please continue to permit liberal access by those who use it wisely and most often.
Corr. ID: 4414
Organization: Paws in Motion/Marin Pet Care
Association
Comment ID: 207131
Organization Type: Business
Representative Quote: I recommend keeping the rules for Homestead Valley as
they currently are and changing the GGNRA preferred choice for Homestead
Valley to Alternative A, No Action

HV1300 - Homestead Valley: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN

29296
Commenters support Alternative A for Homestead Valley because it allows off298

HV1300 ‐ Homestead Valley: Desire Other Alternative
STATEMENT:

leash access in this area.
For other representative quotes, please see Concern 207131 (HV1200), Comment
207131 and Concern 29237 (OV1300), Comment 181777.

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29298
Commenters support Alternative D for Homestead Valley because it is most
protective of natural resources and visitor safety.

For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29230 (MH1300),
Comment 205586.
Organization: Marin Audubon
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1473
Comment ID: 200259
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative D: Muir Beach, Fort Baker, Homestead Valley,
Alta Trail and Orchard and Pacheco Fire Roads, Oakwood Valley, Marin
Headlands Trail
Corr. ID: 4307
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209347
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding the dog management issue I support Alternative
D for all of the sites in the GGNRA.I frequent all of the sites and live near the
Homestead Valley and Oakwood Valley areas. I feel strongly that on-leash dogs be
allowed only on the fire roads in these areas.
I have witnessed damage to plants and land by dogs. Our natural resources need
protection.

HV1400 - Homestead Valley: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29295
Commenters suggest in addition to Alternative A, limiting the number of dogs
under voice control to 6 per dog walker at Homestead Valley.
Corr. ID: 4414
Organization: Paws in Motion/Marin Pet Care
Association
Comment ID: 207135
Organization Type: Business
Representative Quote: If you feel that more regulation than Alternative A, No
Action, is needed, I would recommend limiting the number of dogs under voice
control to 6 per dog walker throughout the site [Homestead Valley].

31549
An alternative is needed that better separates the site, allowing for off-leash dog
walking, but also not promoting access to Homestead through the adjacent
community.
Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4687
Open Space
Comment ID: 227453
Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: Homestead Valley is a popular dog walking area. The
county has received comments supporting off leash use in the valley. Others who
are residents of the valley fear that they will become a destination for dogs
displaced from other newly restricted areas. The county requests that both entities'
staff examine an additional way to segment the valley to accommodate some off
leash use without inviting new out-of-community access through the community.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

299

LE1100 – Lands End: Support Preferred Alternative

LE1100 - Lands End: Support Preferred Alternative
29312
The preferred alternative should be chosen as it removes off-leash dog walking,
which is better suited to the area. This would also allow those who do not enjoy
dogs more access to the site.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2105
Comment ID: 193360
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am not comfortable with dogs (bitten twice, once in the
GGNRA) and would like to see less off leash areas. In particular, I would like to
enjoy the Fort Point area, lands end, and crissy field. At the moment, I feel like I
can't go to these areas or really the majority of the GGNRA.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

LE1200 - Lands End: Oppose Preferred Alternative
29313
The preferred alternative is too restrictive and would have a negative impact on the
experience of those who enjoy walking their dogs at the site off-leash. Dogs are not
affecting wildlife and/or wildlife habitat, vegetation or other user groups, and such
stringent regulation is not needed.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1446
Comment ID: 199690
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please don't ban well behaved off leash dogs from the
Land's End Coastal Trail. Lands End is a joyous place to walk with our dog. She
gets a chance to smell flowers and walks close to our side. But at the same time she
feels free not being on a 6 ft leash.
Corr. ID: 3101
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201498
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I currently enjoy the areas of Lands End and Sutro Heights
on a daily basis and periodically like to visit most of the other attractions in the
GGNRA.
I feel the preferred alternative of the GGNRA DEIS is overly restrictive. I have
seen dogs off leash in many parts of the GGNRA and like people they are mostly
well behaved. If dogs are flushing birds, chasing animals, digging up plants,
harassing pedestrians or fighting, their owners should be issued a hefty fine. If dog
owners don't have their dogs under voice command or don't pick up the litter, they
should be issued a hefty fine.
Corr. ID: 3969
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207122
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While the Preferred Alternative seems reasonable in the
case of heavily-used Fort Funston and Crissy Field, it struck me as unnecessarily
restrictive in several other cases, specifically:
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

-- Lands End:While we don't see a lot of people at Mile Rock Beach, we do see a
lot of what they have left behind; I always leave the beach with a backpack full of
garbage I picked up while scrambling across the rocks. The Preferred Alternative
would ban dogs from Mile Rock Beach altogether -- and for the life of me, I cannot
conceive of why. It is a solution in search of a problem.
-- Ocean Beach:On these walks, I'm struck by all the refuse left behind by
picnickers and late-night bonfire revelers; by all the deep treads left behind by the
GGNRA 4x4 trucks running back and forth on the beach; and by the fact the
friendliest, most responsible beachgoers, by far, seem to be other dog owners. Like
at Mile Rock Beach, I usually leave Ocean Beach with a backpack full of empty
300

LE1200 – Lands End: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Coke cans and Doritos bags that I've picked up along the way. Under the Preferred
Alternative, the litterers will still be welcome up and down Ocean Beach, but my
dogs and I will not. I can understand keeping dogs on-leash south of Stair 21
(although, I think if plovers are the prime concern, we should start by eliminating
the truck traffic, bonfires, and periodic bulldozing that occur in that area), but I
cannot understand the rationale for banning them entirely from that stretch of
beach. The ban is not supported by the (rather methodologically thin) evidence
o Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
nd it is certainly not supported by my
frequent firsthand experiences.
-- Baker Beach: The restrictions on beach access and elimination of off-leash
recreation seem arbitrary, at best. Again, the Preferred Alternative seems like a
solution in search of a problem.
-- New Lands: it really feels like the fix is in. Regardless of how the land was used
prior to acquisition by GGNRA, the Preferred Alternative deems it off-limit to
dogs. This approach not only disregards the fact that GGNRA is a recreation area,
where the needs of the surrounding urban communities must be considered; it is
self-defeating.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29314
The preferred alternative shown does not provide an adequate way to have a no-dog
experience at the site.
Corr. ID: 4215
Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208899
Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Lands End and Fort Miley- There is some confusion, as the
"Preferred Alternative" map does not match the "Preferred Alternative" description.
In either case, we would note that this is another location where it will be difficult
to avoid uninvited interactions with dogs. We believe that enforcement will be
challenging for any allowed dog use in East Fort Miley.

LE1300 - Lands End: Desire Other Alternative
29315
Commenters had witnessed several safety issues relating to dogs and dog walkers
on the Coastal Trail, and felt that the terrain and heavy use of the trail by other
visitors make it better suited for alternative D.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4463
Comment ID: 208631
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: have lived in the Outer Richmond for 4 years now and am
a regular visitor to Lands End. I am writing because I have been in (and witnessed)
numerous dangerous situations with dogs and their owners while walking the
Coastal trail and I fear it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously
injured. This trail is heavily used by joggers, tourists and hikers of all ages. In
several parts, the trail is narrow, uneven, steep and bordered by cliffs. There are
blind corners, tight turns and several stair cases. When dogs both leashed and
unleashed are being led through these sections, it creates serious congestion and
apprehension for the parties involved, as well as the potential for serious injury.
Alternative D is the best proposal, because it does not allow dogs in the abovementioned areas
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29316
Commenters prefer alternative A. The availability of off-leash dog walking should
not be restricted from the current regulations at Lands End. Restricting these areas
would limit the recreational opportunities of those who enjoy having their dogs at
301

LE1300 – Lands End: Desire Other Alternative
the park.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4651
Comment ID: 209008
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Because we have a dog, we have begun to enjoy the
GGNRA (even areas with no off-leash access like Sweeney Ridge). We urge you to
protect the access dogs have in Funston, Ocean Beach, and Lands End. 'There
should be no net reduction in those areas. I don't see how our family's recreation ' or
that of the many other users we meet there ' can be served by further limiting dog
access.
I believe that you serve the city, the peninsula, and much of the greater bay area by
continuing to maintain the current freedom that dogs and owners have in those
parks (and would make things even better for all by enforcing the restrictions at
Ocean Beach). I understand that the challenges at Crissy Field are complicated and
wish you the best in resolving them.

LE1400 - Lands End: Suggest Change in Alternative
29317
Commenters desired the preferred alternative, but with several changes, including
the removal of commercial dog walking, a limit of one dog per visitor, a
compliance-based management rate of 95% or higher, and the implementation of an
easy system to report violations.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4584
Comment ID: 210011
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lands End ' I support the Preferred Alternative with the
following changes: no commercial dog walking, one dog per visitor, compliance
rate of 95% or greater, and establishment of a simple and effective reporting
system.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

29318
Enforcement - The use of strong fines for owners who do not follow rules would be
a better solution to managing dogs at Lands End.
For representative quote please see Concern # 29313 (LE1200), Comment 201498.

29320
ROLAs - There should be more areas for off-leash dog walking; some suggestions
included allowing dogs on portions of the Coastal Trail and other minor trails, as
well as along the Camino del Mar Trail.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417
Comment ID: 181589
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lands End (proposed Alternative B): Proposed on--leash
in all areas. Lands End is a dissapointment... whereas for many parks, the proposal
limits dog access for conservation reason, at Lands End it limits dog access in
interest of developing/destroying what was once wildlife habitat. This is against the
GGNRA's mission for many parks, which seems a conflict. Ideally, development
would cease in favor of maintaining what's left of wildlife area (ie: in favor of
conservation). Where the Coastal Trail becomes a dirt path, dogs should be allowed
off-leash, as well as on all other minor trails (down the cliff, toward the beach).
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:

29321
302

LE1400 – Lands End: Suggest Change in Alternative
No Dog Areas - Dogs should be banned at Lands End to prevent off-leash dogs
from affecting visitors who do not enjoy dogs. Banning dogs would also help to
protect wildlife.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 124
Comment ID: 182009
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have nothing against pets except when they are not
leashed. I feel threatened when the pets are not on leash.I prefer that pets are
prohibited at Lands End.
Corr. ID: 2105
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193361
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lands End should be closed to dogs and restored to its
natural state -as a nesting area for migratory birds.
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

30928
On-Leash Areas - On-leash dog walking should be required within the parking lots
and the paved area of the Coastal Trail.
Corr. ID: 417
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220168
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lands End - However, since development surely won't
cease, I suggest requiring dogs to be on leash in the parking lot and the Coastal
Trail starting at Sutro Baths/Sutro Heights Park through the currently
developed/paved portion of the Coastal Trail.

LP1000 - Laws and Policies: Impact of GGNRA actions on other NPS units' enforcement of
servicewide policies and regulations
29765
There is a concern that if off-leash dog walking is allowed at GGNRA then visitors
may demand it at other National Parks. GGNRA should be managed like the other
National Parks in regard to dog walking. Natural and cultural resources should be
the focus of future policies at GGNRA; the park's mission is to protect these
resources, not allow recreation to undermine them. GGNRA should keep dog
walking rules consistent across all national parks.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 521
Comment ID: 181940
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One other concern: if dog people are allowed free rein in
GGNRA, then they will begin to demand it in all the other national parks. It also
opens the way for other special interests to demand their so called "rights" to these
national treasures, such as off road vehicles, jet skiers, etc.
Corr. ID: 952
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191554
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: How can you possibly justify eliminating dogs because it
is a 'national park' but keep having fun runs, swims, regattas...all of which bring in
people who have no respect for the park or any kind of environmental aspect to
anything. It's incredibly hypocritical, and just shows that you have an agenda
against dogs....not an agenda to save the environment or provide a pleasant national
park experience. If you would ban these events, which I would think are probably
frowned upon in a national park, then maybe I would believe that you care about
the environment. I don't see Yosemite telling thousands of runners to come over for
a 'fun run' up to half dome. Isn't that how you are trying to sell this? That you need
to manage these parks like the rest of the parks?
Corr. ID: 3418
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

303

LP1000 – Laws and Policies: Impact of GGNRA actions on other NPS units’ enforcement of servicewide
policies and regulations
Comment ID: 201409
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Endangered species wildlife habitat deserves the highest
level of protection from human and pet disturbance. Other national parks do not
allow dogs to be off-leash and all beach areas should be free from dog recreation to
protect birds.
GGNRA is on the Pacific flyway and exhausted and hungry birds need this
sanctuary.
The park's mission is to protect the natural and cultural resources, not allow
recreation to undermine it.
29766
Off-leash dog walking should be permitted in other National Parks; GGNRA can be
a model for other parks. If off-leash dog hunting is allowed in other National Parks
then off-leash dog walking should be allowed at GGNRA.
Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 651
Comment ID: 182579
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What is permitted in GGNRA should be permitted in all
National Parks, and so more dogs will be off-leash in Yosemite and other parks and
monuments.
Corr. ID: 1334
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195100
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are allowed off-leash to hunt in national preserves,
and other units administered by the National Park Service. Surely, if it's okay for a
dog to be off-leash while it helps chase, corner and kill a wild animal, it should be
okay for a dog in the GGNRA to be off-leash to play with people and other dogs.
Corr. ID: 1957
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192711
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Instead of further restricting dogs in the GGNRA, why
isn't the Nat'l Park Service looking into what is right with the current GGNRA dog
policy, and expanding these off leash areas throughout the rest of the Nat'l Parks?
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Fort Funston, Chrissy Field, and the other off leash areas throughout the GGNRA
should be reclassified as a new type of Nat'l park in which this pilot is a complete
success!
29767
The restrictions in the plan will affect the regulations in city parks causing more
dog walking restrictions. Overriding the 1979 Pet Policy is a breach of contract and
will result in public distrust of the GGNRA management. Off-leash dog walking
was part of the agreement with the City of San Francisco when park land was
transferred to GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1259
Comment ID: 194959
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With all due respect, I take issue with one of the main
arguments used for reducing off-leash and leashed dog walking, which is: "it is
inconsistent with NPS regulations." In 1978, the GGNRA took the position that
"the ordinary guidelines outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations do not really
apply in an urban area," and that "people and their animals have been visiting the
park for too long to apply an all-inclusive arbitrary policy." Based on that position,
the GGNRA, with a great deal of public input, drafted what is now known as the
1979 Pet Policy, which maintains the right for recreation with off-leash dogs at Fort
Funston, Ocean Beach, Fort Miley, Baker Beach, Lands End, and Crissy Field. It
seems to me that overriding the 1979 Pet Policy is a breach of contract and will
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

304

LP1000 – Laws and Policies: Impact of GGNRA actions on other NPS units’ enforcement of servicewide
policies and regulations
result in public distrust of the GGNRA management and leaders.
Corr. ID: 1435
Organization: Golden Gate Mothers Group
Comment ID: 195625
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Just to make the rules the same as other parks? GGNRA is
NOT other parks. It is my understanding that free dog areas where part of the
agreement that transfered the land to the GGNRA. Why renig on the deal?
Corr. ID: 1831
Organization: W3 Partners
Comment ID: 191965
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I completely oppose the changes that either require dogs to
be leashed or prohibited from being on public lands. With open space, beaches,
parks and trails being overly restrictive already for dog owners/dogs, if this is
allowed to pass it will only get more restrictive and before you know it, we won't
even be able to walk our dogs down public sidewalks!
29768
Commenters have stated that the mandate of GGNRA was for the "maintenance of
needed recreational space." There is no mandate that dogs should not be allowed to
be off-leash.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1334
Comment ID: 195098
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA is a National Recreation Area, not a National
Park. The mandate for the GGNRA's creation was, according to the legislation that
established the GGNRA in 1972, for the "maintenance of needed recreational open
space". Off-leash dog walking was acknowledged at the time as one of the
traditional recreational uses taking place in the GGNRA when it was created. In
1979, the US Congress passed a law that all national park units, including national
recreation areas, national seashores, and national monuments have to be managed
uniformly. "The authorization of activities shall be construed and 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". So there is no mandate to match the GGNRA's policies with National
Park Service requirements that dogs not be allowed off-leash in a national park.
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:
Representative Quote(s):

29769
Commenters feel that the budget for the preferred alternative should be spent on
enforcing existing established rules (i.e., not picking up pet waste, chasing birds).
Corr. ID: 2943
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202414
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Severe restrictions are not needed to protect other park
visitors from dogs. Problems with dogs represent a tiny fraction of the total
incidents and citations issued by the GGNRA over the past decade. Of those
incidents and citations issued to people with dogs, the majority were leash law
violations, or being in a closed area, and did not reflect any safety issues between
dogs and other park visitors. A new alternative should target enforcement on the
small number of people whose dogs misbehave, rather than excluding the entire
class of people with dogs from most of the GGNRA.
Finally, the level of enforcement required by the Preferred Alternative is excessive
and unsustainable. Targeting people walking their dogs irresponsibly and leaving
responsible dog walkers alone would be a much more efficient use of GGNRA
resources.
The DEIS states that it will cost nearly $1million to enforce the Preferred
Alternative, through the hiring of more Park Rangers or Park Police. In an era of
305

LP1000 – Laws and Policies: Impact of GGNRA actions on other NPS units’ enforcement of servicewide
policies and regulations
shrinking federal budgets, this seems a poor use of scarce financial resources.
Existing Park Rangers could more easily enforce already existing rules such as
picking up pet litter or no chasing of birds. These enforcement actions are all that
are needed to ensure responsible dog walking and minimal impact on natural
resources and other park visitors from off-leash dogs.

LU1000 - Land Use: Policies and Historical Use
29847
NPS needs to consider the historical use of the land in reference to dog walking.
Dog walking has been happening on this land for several decades, and there is no
reason to prevent it from continuing in the future.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 88
Comment ID: 181902
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support conservation efforts but I also think it is
necessary to recognize the fact that a large portion of the land in question has been
used for a number of years as dog accessible land. I would like to request that the
competing demands to conserve the land be balanced with the need to maintain the
availability of dog accessible land.
Corr. ID: 1298
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195035
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been in relationship to the GGNRA lands
(particularly Ft. Funston) long before they were GGNRA. The currently proposed
Dog Management Plan threatens to cut off my access to this fabulous urban
recreational resource and one of the most important and beneficial aspects of my
life.
Corr. ID: 1850
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192032
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As the DEIS states on p. ii of the Executive Summary, the
lands of the GGNRA have a long tradition of dog walking, including off leash dog
walking, which predates the formation of the GGNRA by decades. Dog walking is
an historic, scenic and recreational value for many generations of residents who
have walked dogs in these lands; enjoyed seeing their dogs at play in the GGNRA;
and experienced delight in playing with a dog at the beach; having the
companionship of a dog on the trails, and enjoying other forms of recreation at the
GGNRA with dogs. The DEIS fails to consider fully the historic, scenic and
recreational values of dog walking. The DEIS also fails to look at a "national park
experience" as meaning something other than an all dogs on leash all the time in as
few areas as possible. The DEIS should be revised to put appropriate emphasis on
preserving the traditional values of dog walking at GGNRA and to look beyond the
standard NPS dog policy for the meaning of a "national park experience."
Corr. ID: 2355
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202284
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My husband and I walk Chrissy Field at least once every
week and part of our enjoyment is being around and observing the dogs and their
owners. 2nd comment: just because other national parks have a particular set of
rules re dogs is no reason to force the same rules on an area which has a long
history of dog-citizen usage. In fact, many of the people who count on the open
space for themselves and their dogs to run freely, esp.the beaches, have been going
to those places since before many of the staff of the GGNRA were born. There is a
long tradition of this usage. None of the proposed plans is necessary to continue
dog/citizens enjoyment of the national park. Please do not adopt any of the plans.
Corr. ID: 3756
Organization: Can't delete check in "member," an
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

306

LU1000 – Land Use: Policies and Historical Use
error. Sorry
Comment ID: 204612
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think the propesals are stunningly awful. For over 150
years the GGNRA lands and Presidio have accomodated the local public
wonderfully. Even back in the 1950s when places like Fort Cronkite were in full
operation (soldiers shooting on the rifle ranges etc.) hikers and dog walkers were
welcome. As a boy scout we camped there. The proposed 'plan' would ruin that.
Corr. ID: 4312
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209364
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA post-dates the urbanization of the Bay Area,
and is in many cases immediately adjacent to areas that were densely populated
well before the GGNRA was created. For this reason, I feel that the historic usage
of GGNRA land adjacent to these populated areas should be taken into
consideration when formulating the dog management plan. It seems to me that the
goal of the plan should be to protect the GGNRA lands as they now stand, but not
attempt to turn back the clock to when the adjacent lands were rural and the
GGNRA did not exist.
29851
The 1979 legislation deeded the land to NPS from the city with the purpose of
continuing recreational uses, and preventing development. Dog walking, including
off-leash dog walking, was considered one of these recreational uses. To restrict
dog walking goes against the intended purpose of the GGNRA.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 860
Comment ID: 186255
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To decrease the size of the off-leash area is just unfair! The
new plan severely restricts recreational access for people with dogs, a fundamental
violation of the reason the GGNRA was created. In the legislation that created it,
the reason for the creation of the GGNRA is listed as "the maintenance of needed
recreational open space." Off-leash dog walking is among the recreational activities
listed as traditionally occurring in the land that was to become the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 1394
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195341
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please consider the proven history of dogs coexisting with
other activities and wildlife in the GGNRA for the past several decades and
continue to let our parks be used as intended!
Concern ID:
CONCERN
STATEMENT:

Specifically, I understand that Congress could resolve this conflict by codifying the
GGNRA's 1979 Pet Policy as a Section Seven Special Regulation, and mandating
that all properties added to the GGNRA after 1979 maintain historical recreational
access.
Corr. ID: 1624
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190923
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston was given to the GGNRA by the City of San
Francisco on the condition that its traditional uses, including walking dogs without
leashes, playing fetch, etc. would be allowed to continue. Dogs can run off leash in
only 1% of the GGNRA. Please do not take that away. There is still 99% for
wildlife, birds, people who don't like dogs etc.
Corr. ID: 3207
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202510
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that the recommendations in the GGNRA Draft
Dog Management Plan are overly-restrictive and represent a major departure from
the current, balanced use of the park.
307

LU1000 – Land Use: Policies and Historical Use
The GGNRA's goal has always been to bring the park into compliance with a
federal rule (36 CFR 2.15) which bans off-leash dog walking in national parks. But
the San Francisco Bay Area has a unique culture, history and community. Instead
of trying to force the GGNRA to look like every other national park, the GGNRA
board should respect the citizens' commission of 1979 and the unique history of the
land.
I believe we should be seeking ways to make the San Francisco Bay Area friendlier
to dog and cat guardians. The GGNRA's proposal is a step backwards for animal
welfare in the Bay Area.
I hope the GGNRA Board will modify its proposal to be more balanced and
friendlier to dog guardians.
Corr. ID: 3686
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204206
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In 1973, I voted in favor of the ballot amendment that
deeded Fort Funston to the National Park Service with the understanding that the
Park Service would maintain these lands for recreational purposes in perpetuity.The
proposition passed in 1973. In 1979, consensus was reached with steak holders that
a very small percentage of the GGNRA would be maintained for use by off-leash
dogs. This was promulgated as the 1979 Pet Policy.
My wife and I are both senior citizens and have walked our dogs at Fort Funston
for many years. We have seen the Park Service gradually remove portions of the
GGNRA from recreational use and severely impair our recreational opportunities in
our City. You have broken the promises you made to the citizens of San
Francisco.Your current plan unilaterally removes these small pieces of land from
use by off-leash dogs and sets aside an agreement reached through consensus
building.What you are doing here is poor policy which negatively affects your
neighbors greatly, and you refuse to even consider the impact your proposals will
have on our city. You refuse to consider the needs and desires of the majority of
park users of these tiny areas. You are proposing these changes in rules for an
urban recreation area, not Yosemite or Yellowstone. Mr. Dean, I oppose your
alternatives and urge you to revert to the 1979 Pet Policy.
29854
Commenters suggest that the city has the right to revoke the deed to GGNRA if the
terms of the compact are not met, and that any option that did not maintain the
1979 policies should be subject to civil action. Many commenters expressed that
they feel the city should take back the land if the proposed alternatives were put in
place.
Organization: Not Specified
Representative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 95
Comment ID: 181921
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Cramming thousands of dogs into smaller spaces is going
to create more impact on the landscape as well as more dog-related incidents. I
think the land GGNRA now stewards should be given back to San Francisco.
Corr. ID: 1770
Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191529
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston was placed under the purview of the GGNRA
with the condition that it be maintained for the enjoyment of dogs and horses. The
GGNRA has a legal obligation to honor this condition or return the land to t