Public Comment Summary Report 090911 GC4010

User Manual: GC4010

Open the PDF directly: View PDF PDF.
Page Count: 548 [warning: Documents this large are best viewed by clicking the View PDF Link!]

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/
E
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
September 2011
i
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
1
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/dog-
management.htm for updates on the project’s progress and additional information about this project.
2
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,
3
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.
4
CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT
Comment Distribution by Code
Code Description
# of
Comments
AD1100 Alternative Development: Comments to Process 15
AL1000 Suggest New Alternative Elements 1681
AL1010 Suggest an Alternative that has Been Dismissed 786
AL5000 Comments on Dog walking Permit System 437
AN1000 Comments on ANPR 8
AT1100 Alta Trail: Support Preferred Alternative 6
AT1200 Alta Trail: Oppose Preferred Alternative 9
AT1300 Alta Trail: Desire Other Alternative 16
AT1400 Alta Trail: Suggest Change in Alternative 13
AW1000 Animal Welfare: Impact on/to dogs 153
BB1100 Baker Beach: Support Preferred Alternative 11
BB1200 Baker Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative 28
BB1300 Baker Beach: Desire Other Alternative 31
BB1400 Baker Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative 26
CB1000 Comments Regarding the Compliance Based Management Strategy 802
CC2000 Consultation and Coordination: Reg-Neg process 10
CF1100 Crissy Field: Support Preferred Alternative 57
CF1200 Crissy Field: Oppose Preferred Alternative 125
CF1300 Crissy Field: Desire Other Alternative 106
CF1400 Crissy Field: Suggest Change in Alternative 158
CO1000 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination 0
CO1100 Comments Considered an Individual Concern Statement 20
CR2010 Cultural Resources: Affected Environment 9
CR4000 Cultural Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 5
CR5000 Cultural Resources: Cumulative Impacts 0
CR6000 Cultural Resources: Impairment Analyses 0
CS1100 Cattle/Sweeney: Support Preferred Alternative 6
CS1200 Cattle/Sweeney: Oppose Preferred Alternative 29
CS1300 Cattle/Sweeney: Desire Other Alternative 22
CS1400 Cattle/Sweeney: Suggest Change in Alternative 20
DC1000 Duplicate comment 43
ED1000 Editorial 66
EJ2010 Environmental Justice: Affected Environment 16
EJ4000 Environmental Justice: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives 25
EJ5000 Environmental Justice: Cumulative Impacts 0
FB1100 Fort Baker: Support Preferred Alternative 5
FB1200 Fort Baker: Oppose Preferred Alternative 4
5
Code Description
# of
Comments
FB1300 Fort Baker: Desire Other Alternative 6
FB1400 Fort Baker: Suggest Change in Alternative 5
FF1100 Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative 34
FF1200 Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative 287
FF1300 Fort Funston: Desire Other Alternative 153
FF1400 Fort Funston: Suggest Change in Alternative 159
FM1100 Fort Mason: Support Preferred Alternative 6
FM1200 Fort Mason: Oppose Preferred Alternative 8
FM1300 Fort Mason: Desire Other Alternative 6
FM1400 Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative 19
FP1100 Fort Point: Support Preferred Alternative 4
FP1200 Fort Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative 1
FP1300 Fort Point: Desire Other Alternative 1
FP1400 Fort Point: Suggest Change in Alternative 10
FT1100 Fort Miley: Support Preferred Alternative 1
FT1200 Fort Miley: Oppose Preferred Alternative 2
FT1300 Fort Miley: Desire Other Alternative 2
FT1400 Fort Miley: Suggest Change in Alternative 3
GA1000 Impact Analysis: General Comment 342
GA2000 Impact Analysis: Use Trends And Assumptions 77
GA3000 Impact Analysis: General Methodology For Establishing Impacts/Effects 469
GA4000 Impact Analysis: Impairment Analysis-General Methodology 1
GC1000 Off-leash dogs: Support 608
GC2000 Off-leash dogs: Oppose 204
GC3000 General Comment: Support current management 712
GC4000 General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA 178
GC4010 General Comment: Ban all dogs from GGNRA 113
GC5000 On-leash dogs: Support 251
GC6000 On-leash Dogs: Oppose 43
GC7000 General Comment: Support New Dog Management Plan 348
GC8000 General Comment: Oppose New Dog Management Plan 1381
GC9000 General Comment: Support Alternative A for All Sites 47
GC9010 General Comment: Support Alternative B for All Sites 51
GC9020 General Comment: Support Alternative C for All Sites 20
GC9030 General Comment: Support Alternative D for All Sites 151
GC9040 General Comment: Support Alternative E for All Sites 8
GC9050 General Comment: Oppose Alternative A for All Sites 5
GC9060 General Comment: Oppose Alternative B for All Sites 6
GC9070 General Comment: Oppose Alternative C for All Sites 3
GC9080 General Comment: Oppose Alternative D for All Sites 6
GC9090 General Comment: Oppose Alternative E for All Sites 6
6
Code Description
# of
Comments
GR2010 Geologic/Soil Resources: Affected Environment 28
GR4000 Geologic Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 8
GR5000 Geologic Resources: Cumulative Impacts 2
GR6000 Geologic Resources: Impairment Analyses 1
HS2010 Health and Safety: Affected Environment 157
HS4000 Health and Safety: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives 106
HS4010 Health and Safety: Impacts of Dogs vs. Humans 87
HS4015 Health and Safety: Impacts of Dog Related Incidents 55
HS5000 Health and Safety: Cumulative Impacts 1
HV1100 Homestead Valley: Support Preferred Alternative 2
HV1200 Homestead Valley: Oppose Preferred Alternative 4
HV1300 Homestead Valley: Desire Other Alternative 14
HV1400 Homestead Valley: Suggest Change in Alternative 2
LE1100 Lands End: Support Preferred Alternative 2
LE1200 Lands End: Oppose Preferred Alternative 8
LE1300 Lands End: Desire Other Alternative 6
LE1400 Lands End: Suggest Change in Alternative 13
LP1000 Laws and Policies: Impact of GGNRA actions on other NPS units'
enforcement of servicewide policies and regulations
22
LU1000 Land Use: Policies and Historical Use 119
LU2000 Other Agencies Policies and mandates Regarding Dog Management 5
LU3000 Land Use: Dog Parks Provided by San Francisco and Other Municipalities 96
LU3010 Adjacent Lands: Impacts to other State or County Parks 150
LU3020 Adjacent Lands: Impacts to other Dog Parks 191
MB1100 Muir Beach: Support Preferred Alternative 22
MB1200 Muir Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative 95
MB1300 Muir Beach: Desire Other Alternative 56
MB1400 Muir Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative 43
MH1100 Marin Headlands: Support Preferred Alternative 11
MH1200 Marin Headlands: Oppose Preferred Alternative 23
MH1300 Marin Headlands: Desire Other Alternative 26
MH1400 Marin Headlands: Suggest Change in Alternative 16
MP1100 Mori Point: Support Preferred Alternative 7
MP1200 Mori Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative 22
MP1300 Mori Point: Desire Other Alternative 31
MP1400 Mori Point: Suggest Change in Alternative 31
MR1100 Milagra Ridge: Support Preferred Alternative 8
MR1200 Milagra Ridge: Oppose Preferred Alternative 6
MR1300 Milagra Ridge: Desire Other Alternative 16
MR1400 Milagra Ridge: Suggest Change in Alternative 12
MT1000 Miscellaneous Topics: General Comments 212
7
Code Description
# of
Comments
NL1100 New Lands: Support Preferred Alternative 8
NL1200 New Lands: Oppose Preferred Alternative 58
NL1300 New Lands: Desire Other Alternative 67
NL1400 New Lands: Suggest Change in Alternative 71
NL1500 New Lands: Question Definition of New Lands 5
OB1100 Ocean Beach: Support Preferred Alternative 26
OB1200 Ocean Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative 59
OB1300 Ocean Beach: Desire Other Alternative 60
OB1400 Ocean Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative 72
OV1100 Oakwood Valley: Support Preferred Alternative 8
OV1200 Oakwood Valley: Oppose Preferred Alternative 32
OV1300 Oakwood Valley: Desire Other Alternative 25
OV1400 Oakwood Valley: Suggest Change in Alternative 12
PN4000 Purpose And Need: Park Legislation/Authority 89
PN7000 Purpose and Need: Adequacy of EIS Purpose and Need 18
PN8000 Purpose And Need: Objectives In Taking Action 20
PO2010 Park Operations: Affected Environment 98
PO4000 Park Operations: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 114
PO5000 Park Operations: Impacts 2
PP1100 Pedro Point: Support Preferred Alternative 2
PP1200 Pedro Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative 5
PP1300 Pedro Point: Desire Other Alternative 6
PP1400 Pedro Point: Suggest Change in Alternative 9
PS1000 Comment Regarding Public Scoping Process 87
RB1100 Rodeo Beach: Support Preferred Alternative 18
RB1200 Rodeo Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative 20
RB1300 Rodeo Beach: Desire Other Alternative 24
RB1400 Rodeo Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative 12
RF1000 References: General Comments 2
SA1100 Site Accessibility 131
SB1100 Stinson Beach: Support Preferred Alternative 6
SB1200 Stinson Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative 9
SB1300 Stinson Beach: Desire Other Alternative 9
SB1400 Stinson Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative 11
SH1100 Sutro Heights: Support Preferred Alternative 3
SH1200 Sutro Heights: Oppose Preferred Alternative 5
SH1300 Sutro Heights: Desire Other Alternative 3
SH1400 Sutro Heights: Suggest Change in Alternative 8
TE2010 Threatened and Endangered Species: Affected Environment 264
TE4000 Threatened And Endangered Species: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 476
TE5000 Threatened And Endangered Species: Cumulative Impacts 0
8
Code Description
# of
Comments
TE6000 Threatened And Endangered Species: Impairment Analyses 0
VR2010 Vegetation and Riparian Areas: Affected Environment 73
VR4000 Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 20
VR5000 Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Cumulative Impacts 0
VR6000 Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Impairment Analyses 0
VU2010 Visitor Use and Experience: Affected Environment 354
VU4000 Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors
who Enjoy Dogs
322
VU4005 Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors
who Do Not Enjoy Dogs
156
VU4010 Visitor Use and Experience: Actions of Dog Owners 0
VU4015 Visitor Use and Experience: Concern Statement of a Dog Owner 0
VU4020 Visitor Use and Experience: Concern Statement of Non Dog Owners 0
VU4025 Visitor Use and Experience: Professional Dog Walkers 340
VU5000 Visitor Use and Experience: Cumulative Impacts 1
WH2010 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Affected Environment 302
WH4000 Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 206
WH5000 Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Cumulative Impacts 0
WH6000 Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Impairment Analyses 0
WQ4000 Water Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 11
WQ5000 Water Resources: Cumulative Impacts 0
WQ6000 Water Resources: Impairment Analyses 0
WR2010 Water Resources: Affected Environment 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 # of Correspondences
County Government 2
Business 2
Federal Government 6
Conservation/Preservation 5
Non-Governmental 36
State Government 4
Unaffiliated Individual 4789
Civic Groups 9
Total 4853
9
Correspondence Signature Count by Correspondence Type
Type # of Correspondences
Web Form 3772
Other 174
Park Form 221
Letter 656
E-mail 30
Total 4853
Correspondence Distribution by State
State Percentage # of Correspondences
AK 0% 1
AR 0% 1
AZ 0% 1
CA 92% 4463
CO 0% 4
CT 0% 2
DC 0% 3
DE 0% 1
FL 0% 4
IL 0% 3
IN 0% 1
KY 0% 3
MA 0% 4
MD 0% 1
MI 0% 1
NC 0% 2
ND 0% 1
NJ 0% 1
NM 0% 1
NV 0% 3
NY 0% 4
OH 0% 1
OK 0% 4
OR 0% 9
PA 0% 4
RI 0% 1
TN 0% 1
UN 6% 312
VA 0% 3
WA 0% 6
10
State Percentage # of Correspondences
WI 0% 2
Total 4853
11
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
Concern ID: 29823
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
PS 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s):
Corr. ID: 1168 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29825
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s):
Corr. ID: 3786 Organization: Cayuga Improvement Association
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
AD1100‐AlternativeDevelopment:CommentstoProcess
12
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
b
elow 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.
AD1100‐AlternativeDevelopment:CommentstoProcess
13
- 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.
Concern ID: 29827
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4070 Organization: Mar Vista Stables
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: 29833
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
PS should have involved local citizens and citizen groups more in the
development of the plan.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
AD1100‐AlternativeDevelopment:CommentstoProcess
14
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: 31917
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters questioned what was used to develop the alternatives, and felt that the
methods and justifications should be provided in more detail.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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 site-
specific 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
TATEMENT:
N
umber of Dogs per Walker - The park should limit the number of dogs per walker to three with
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.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
79 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
15
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:
285 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181009
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1026 Organization: GGNP Conservancy & Golden Gate Audubon Society
Comment
ID:
191801
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1714 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191154
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2353 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195377
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
p
erson 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
TATEMENT:Fees - Commenters suggest requiring a daily. monthly, or annual dog walking fee at the park. Fee
costs could cover maintenance or restoration of the area.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
279 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
16
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:
339 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181110
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
378 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181166
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1483 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223789
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4. Add a fee onto dog licensure to pay for these services.
Corr. ID:
1726 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191180
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Muzzles - Commenters suggest requiring muzzles on dogs, specifically those being walked off-
leash. This would protect visitor safety.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
79 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223769
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. All dogs should be muzzled everywhere. In particular if they are off
leash.
Corr. ID:
631 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
182496
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
17
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:
727 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
182735
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Aggressive Dogs - Aggressive dogs including those breeds such as pit bulls that are considered
aggressive should not be allowed at the park. If these dogs are not banned, they should be
required to always be on-leash.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
79 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223771
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4. Pit bulls and other breeds that are bred to be aggressive should not be
allowed in the park.
Corr. ID:
288 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181015
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Fencing - Commenters suggest using fences/barriers/vegetation and possibly entrance gates to
keep off-leash dogs in certain areas and away from sensitive resources.
For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29444 (CF1100), Comment 210027.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
441 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181693
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
18
Corr. ID:
472 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181761
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
928 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191385
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2439 Organization: Davis Dog Owners Group
Comment
ID:
200770
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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,
p
ossibly where human recreational activity has already displaced the wildlife, I would be grateful.
Corr. ID:
2663 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195436
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2739 Organization: Sierra Club et al
Comment
ID:
195595
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
3077 Organization: ASPCA
Comment
ID:
201290
Organization Type: Non-Governmental
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 Im
p
act Statement, and in particular the preferred alternative that is set forth in this
plan.
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
19
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 off-
leash 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:
3759 Organization: Wild Equity Institute
Comment
ID:
228505
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
3759 Corr. ID: 3759
Comment
ID:
204627
Comment 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.
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
20
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:
3759 Organization: Wild Equity Institute
Comment
ID:
204635
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
4592 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223782
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Loop Trails - Commenters suggest adding more loop trails both on-leash and off-leash.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
183 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
182295
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1632 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223784
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1709 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID: Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
21
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:
1930 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
192269
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
3934 Organization: 3rd Supervisorial District of the County of Marin
Comment
ID:
205847
Organization Type: County Government
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
TATEMENT:Enforcement - Instead of reducing areas for dog walking, monitoring or enforcement of the
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.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
63 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181807
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
79 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181843
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1. The existing laws should be enforced and dog walkers with dogs off
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
22
leash should be ticketed.
Corr. ID:
97 Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Comment
ID:
181927
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
307 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181051
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
631 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223781
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
694 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
182680
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
753 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
185431
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
969 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191648
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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.
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
23
Then the park police would give the tickets.
Corr. ID:
1026 Organization: GGNP Conservancy & Golden Gate Audubon Society
Comment
ID:
223786
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1058 Organization: Pacifica Beach Coalition
Comment
ID:
192159
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1335 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195108
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1483 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223790
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 5. Use ticketing fees to deter irresponsible behavior. Put fees towards
management.
6. Establish a complaint line.
Corr. ID:
1850 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223797
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1854 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200599
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The solution here is not limiting places people can walk their dogs off-
leash, 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:
1987 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
193166
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
24
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:
3733 Organization: SF DOG, Save McLaren Park
Comment
ID:
204580
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
3815 Organization: Wild Equity Institute
Comment
ID:
226965
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
3906 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
205562
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
4043 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
207320
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
4372 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209538
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
4584 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
210021
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
25
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:
4592 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
210005
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Dog Size - Commenters suggest having on-leash and off-leash areas for small dogs separate from
those areas containing large dogs. In addition, intact dogs should be required to be on-leash at all
times.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
202 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
180621
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
236 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
180767
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
421 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181604
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Service Dogs -The park should require service dogs to be registered with the park and to wear a
j
acket or leash that identified the service dog.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1493 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191301
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Over the last few months I have had several encounters with able-bodied
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
26
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:
3815 Organization: Wild Equity Institute
Comment
ID:
226963
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are a surprising number of fraudulent representations of dogs as
"Service Dogs"
Concern ID: 29692
CONCERN
TATEMENT:Dog Waste - Commenters suggest that the park provide dog waste bags, compost areas, and a
means to convert dog waste to methane energy.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1324 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195071
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1483 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223787
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. Require and enforce people to clean up after their dogs.
Corr. ID:
1696 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191111
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2096 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
27
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:
2101 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
193348
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Provide public compostable poop bags in Park Areas.
Concern ID: 29693
CONCERN
TATEMENT:Leash Type - Commenters stated that the park should require dog walkers to carry a leash with
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.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
458 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181732
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1483 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191258
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1935 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
192604
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: - Consider electronic leash for on-leash areas.
-The same number of dogs in less space is a public danger
Corr. ID:
4318 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209423
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
28
j
urisdictions, 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:
4380 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209544
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Certification/Tag System - Commenters suggested establishing a certification that would allow
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.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
113 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181982
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
377 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181163
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
N
PS 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:
407 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
181573
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
658 Organization: Not Specified
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
29
Comment
ID:
181513
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
753 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223798
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
913 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191323
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
N
ational 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:
1445 Organization: Self
Comment
ID:
199685
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1632 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200215
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
30
1850
Comment
ID:
192067
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1879 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200475
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2229 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200841
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
4651 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209010
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Additional Alternatives - Commenters have suggested a new alternative which balances the
recreational needs of the Bay Area with the protection of natural resources, and/or adds more on-
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
31
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.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1002 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191731
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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 off-
leash throughout the GGNRA. In addition, new land added to the GGNRA would include off-
leash 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 co-
existence, 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:
1267 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
194978
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
1391 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195297
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2213 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200741
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
32
GGNRA should be expanding not reducing off-leash locations.
Corr. ID:
3885 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
206015
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Time Restrictions - Commenters suggest requiring time restrictions throughout the park for when
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.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1227 Organization: California Parks Association
Comment
ID:
194877
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2.Dogs allowed only before 10 A.M. and after 5 P.M.
Corr. ID:
1277 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195001
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Signs - Commenters suggest posting signs/guidelines to educate visitors when and where off-
leash dogs are allowed at the park.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
2654 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
195448
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
2888 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
202936
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
33
4223
Comment
ID:
208947
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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:
4592 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
223783
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Split the beaches- Commenters suggested that half of the beaches in the plan be set up for those
who enjoy dogs, and half be set up for those who do not like dogs
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
2056 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
193310
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Commenters suggested that if dog walkers would like to have 1% of the GGNRA open to dogs,
conservationists would be allowed to pick what 1% of the lands would be open to dogs.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
3606 Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment
ID:
203954
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:The GGNRA should release the General Management Plan and GGNRA foundation statement to
allow for the public to understand the intent of the project by NPS.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
3945 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
227091
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Before publishing the revised Dog Management Plan, complete and
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
34
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
TATEMENT:Commenters suggested that NPS provide an exception that would allow those with disabilities to
have their dogs off-leash in areas where dogs are allowed on leash, assuming they were under
voice control.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
4660 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
227441
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:Areas formerly opened to off-leash dog recreation in the GGNRA should be reopened for user
access. These areas need to be reexamined, and only remain closed if an adverse impact is shown.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
4697 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
227449
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:The alternatives that have been dismissed should be reconsidered.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
4035 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
227704
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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.
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
35
Concern ID: 31855
CONCERN
TATEMENT:It has been suggested that [regardless of the alternative selected] clear signage, better fencing,
and/or more enforcement will still be required to protect listed species at GGNRA.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
4584 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
210026
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 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
TATEMENT:Dogs should be leashed year-round in snowy plover protection areas to avoid confusion that leads
to non-compliance. These leash requirements will require good enforcement, as no laws are
currently enforced.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1902 Organization: San Francisco State University
Comment
ID:
200433
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
TATEMENT:It was suggested that a volunteer rescue crew could be assembled as part of the mitigation at Fort
Funston to relieve park staff of commitments to rescues in the area.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
4666 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
227791
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
AL1000SuggestNewAlternativeElements
36
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
Concern ID: 31367
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2941 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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: 29674
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o 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.
AL1010SuggestanAlternativethathasBeenDismissed
37
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1210 Organization: Not Specified
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 -
p
eople. I am a dogwalker + I am for requiring permits, requiring picking up poop &
dog behavior management.
Concern ID: 29675
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 631 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182497 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
38
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
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
39
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 an
d
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.
Concern ID: 29676
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4642 Organization: Not Specified
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.
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
40
Concern ID: 29678
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 58 Organization: Tailblazers Dog Walking & Pet
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.
Also, please allow us to walk from the parking lot to the beach with the dogs off-
leash. 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
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
41
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?
Concern ID: 29679
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 928 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
42
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 off-
leash dog at a time.
Concern ID: 29680
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
43
require unnecessary management and it would be difficult to ensure compliance.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 843 Organization: Not Specified
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
p
ark 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
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
44
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.
Concern ID: 29681
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 288 Organization: Not Specified
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
N
orthern 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]
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
AL5000CommentsonDogwalkingPermitSystem
45
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
j
urisdictions. 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
Concern ID: 29722
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the preferred alternative for Alta Trail. While visitors felt off-
leash 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1260 Organization: Golden Gate National Parks
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.
AT1200 - Alta Trail: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29723
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.
Concern ID: 29724
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: 29725
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters supported alternative A at Alta Trail so as to maintain current access
and opportunities. They prefer alternative A because the primary recreation activity
AT1300AltaTrail:DesireOtherAlternative
46
at Alta is off-leash dog walking.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29237 (OV1300), Comment 190785.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2126 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29726
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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: 29727
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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: 29728
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Have commercial dog walkers limited to 6 dogs off-leash on Alta. Otherwise other
areas of the county will be affected.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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).
Concern ID: 29729
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3215 Organization: Not Specified
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
AT1400AltaTrail:SuggestChangeinAlternative
47
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
Concern ID: 29709
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1155 Organization: Not Specified
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 well-
being.
Concern ID: 29710
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters suggest that requiring leashes as suggested in the DEIS, creates more
aggressive behavior in dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
AW1000AnimalWelfare:Impactson/todogs
48
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
b
e 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.
Concern ID: 29711
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 931 Organization: Not Specified
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 well-
socialized. 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 off-
leash 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
AW1000AnimalWelfare:Impactson/todogs
49
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.
Concern ID: 29712
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 549 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29713
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 578 Organization: San Francisco Professional Dog
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
AW1000AnimalWelfare:Impactson/todogs
50
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
AW1000AnimalWelfare:Impactson/todogs
51
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
p
roperly 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.
N
ot 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: 29714
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Requiring leashes is not an adequate form of exercise for dogs and that lack of off-
leash space is cruel or inhumane to animals.
AW1000AnimalWelfare:Impactson/todogs
52
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1259 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29715
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some dogs do better socially on-leash and these on-leash areas are better for their
(small, older, disabled) dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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 leash-
reactive 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: 29260
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
BB1200BakerBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
53
over the land.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 361 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29262
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The environmental benefit of the preferred alternative for Baker Beach is not
explained or justified in the DEIS.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
BB1200BakerBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
54
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
Concern ID: 29263
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 796 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29265
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1554 Organization: Not Specified
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.
BB1400 - Baker Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29267
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
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.
BB1400BakerBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
55
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 off-
leash. 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: 29268
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time of Day Restrictions - Allow ROLAs during "quiet periods" during the day at
Baker Beach, specifically in the early morning and evenings on weeknights.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29651
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 606 Organization: Not Specified
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 -
- 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
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
56
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.
N
o 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
p
ark personnel. If I walk my dog daily
for an hour along the prominade and some out-of-town visitor has their dog off-
leash 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 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. 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
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
57
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 non-
compliance 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 compliance-
based 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
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
58
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.
Concern ID: 29652
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 585 Organization: Not Specified
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.).
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
59
Concern ID: 29653
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Compliance-Based Management is opposed because there would be no public
process, including no public comment period and/or no public hearing.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 740 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182693 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This is particularly concerning since the Compliance-
b
ased
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 un-
American.
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: 29654
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The Compliance-Based Management Strategy should be higher than 75 %
compliance since this would still allow disturbance within the park sites.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 944 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191499 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
60
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.
Concern ID: 29655
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1210 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194853 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
61
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.
CB1000‐CommentsRegardingtheComplianceBasedManagementStrategy
62
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: 29834
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
Concern ID: 29840
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4005 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29841
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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: 29845
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters were disappointed that in almost two years of negotiating very little
was accomplished by the Reg Neg committee. Other commenters commended the
N
PS for the Reg Neg process given the controversial nature of this project.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29706 (LU2000), Comment 208875.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4639 Organization: Not Specified
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
CC2000‐ConsultationandCoordination:RegNegprocess
63
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.
Concern ID: 31540
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4697 Organization: Not Specified
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.
(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
CC2000‐ConsultationandCoordination:RegNegprocess
64
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
Concern ID: 29441
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2Organization: Not Specified
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.
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: 29442
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it requires on-leash dog
walking on the promenade at Crissy Field.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CF1100‐CrissyField:SupportPreferredAlternative
65
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: 29443
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the beach ROLA or Airfield ROLA proposed at Crissy Field
because it is proposed in a preferred location.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CF1100‐CrissyField:SupportPreferredAlternative
66
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: 29444
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it does not allow dogs in the
Crissy Wildlife Protection Area or the Tidal Marsh (wetland area).
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
j
ump 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.
Concern ID: 29445
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2197 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1100‐CrissyField:SupportPreferredAlternative
67
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
Concern ID: 29448
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 163 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
68
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.
Concern ID: 29454
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 988 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
69
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.
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
70
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.
Concern ID: 29457
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 773 Organization: Not Specified
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:
- 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
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
71
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 anti-
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
72
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.)
Concern ID: 29458
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not support the Preferred Alternative because they support less off-
leash 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1556 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190746 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field:
N
o 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
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
73
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
j
umped 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.
Concern ID: 29459
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with the Preferred Alternative because the changes
p
roposed 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4038 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207209 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
74
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, eye-
witness 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.
N
ot 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
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
75
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: 29460
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
76
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.
Concern ID: 29461
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2061 Organization: Not Specified
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.
-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: 29462
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
Concern ID: 31868
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2926 Organization: Not Specified
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.
There has been for some time an anti dog movement resulting in the situation we
CF1200‐CrissyField:OpposePreferredAlternative
77
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 quiet-
I 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
Concern ID: 29463
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 480 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1300‐CrissyField:DesireOtherAlternative
78
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: 29464
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CF1300‐CrissyField:DesireOtherAlternative
79
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: 29465
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative D because it will provide protection for wildlife
and habitat as well as listed species, including the Western Snowy Plover.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
CF1300‐CrissyField:DesireOtherAlternative
80
Concern ID: 29466
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 30876
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative E should be selected for Crissy Field because it would allow one large
ROLA on the airfield and would be readily enforceable.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29470
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3080 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
81
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.
Concern ID: 29471
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
p
erimeters of the Wildlife Protection Area should
be fenced and a vegetative barrier should surround the tidal marsh.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1850 Organization: Not Specified
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
82
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
N
OAA 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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
83
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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
84
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-
p
roof barrier
on the ocean side.)
Concern ID: 29472
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Compliance - The compliance rate should be increased from 75 percent to 90 or 95
percent and a reporting system should be established.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29473
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
Concern ID: 29474
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time Restrictions - Commenters suggested setting time of use restrictions for off-
leash 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1222 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194871 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have a dog -- she loves the water and Crissy Field.
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
85
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.
Concern ID: 29475
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1067 Organization: GGRO
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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
86
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.
Concern ID: 29476
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 5Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
87
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 of
f
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.
Concern ID: 29477
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 332 Organization: Not Specified
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.
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
88
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
p
lace 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.
Concern ID: 29562
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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 multi-
use trails.
R
epresen
t
ative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
89
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.
Concern ID: 30903
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3195 Organization: Not Specified
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
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
90
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.
Concern ID: 30908
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1222 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
Concern ID: 30934
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 258 Organization: Not Specified
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!
CF1400‐CrissyField:SuggestChangeinAlternative
91
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: 29401
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The plan does not show the importance of the cultural resources, future cultural
resources, or detrimental effects from dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CR2010‐CulturalResources:AffectedEnvironment
92
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.
Concern ID: 29403
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4016 Organization: San Francisco resident
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 far-
fetched 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.
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: 29404
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
CR2010‐CulturalResources:AffectedEnvironment
93
clear. These areas should also be located on a map.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4016 Organization: San Francisco resident
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: 29405
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The reference to "headquarters" at Fort Scott should not be included in the plan
since they are located outside a dog walking area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
Concern ID: 29406
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2873 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
CR2010‐CulturalResources:AffectedEnvironment
94
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: 31778
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Cultural resources in the GGNRA should not just include physical resources, but
also the local culture, which is defined in part by dog walking.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29407
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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: 29408
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CR2010‐CulturalResources:AffectedEnvironment
95
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
Concern ID: 29311
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3655 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
CR4000‐CulturalResources:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
96
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2079 Organization: self - the program will not allow
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 ID: 29363
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1741 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
CS1200‐Cattle/Sweeney:OpposePreferredAlternative
97
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 Miwok-
Wolf 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
CS1200‐Cattle/Sweeney:OpposePreferredAlternative
98
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.
Concern ID: 29364
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 941 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29365
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 745 Organization: Not Specified
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
CS1200‐Cattle/Sweeney:OpposePreferredAlternative
99
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
Concern ID: 29367
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 35 Organization: Not Specified
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 on-
leash 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.
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: 29368
CONCERN Commenters support either Alternative A or E for Sweeney Ridge because these
CS1300‐Cattle/Sweeney:DesireOtherAlternative
100
S
TATEMENT: alternatives provide the most on-leash dog walking at the site and therefore meet
the need for open recreational space.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1893 Organization: University of San Francisco
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
Concern ID: 29369
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
Concern ID: 29371
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 841 Organization: Not Specified
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
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,
CS1300‐Cattle/Sweeney:DesireOtherAlternative
101
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: 29373
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 31316
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o Dog Areas - The Meadow Loop Trail should be for hikers only due to
proximity to wetland containing red-legged frog and garter snake.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
CS1400‐Cattle/Sweeney:SuggestChangeinAlternative
102
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: 31317
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Signage - Additional signage should be placed at trailheads explaining visitor user
regulations and also any important habitat or wildlife located along the trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
N
otch 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: 31574
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There is support for continuing to allow off-leash dog walking at Sweeney Ridge.
For representative quote, please see Concern 29271 (MP1400), Comment 204113.
Concern ID: 31810
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4640 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227731 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sweeney Ridge
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,
N
otch 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
CS1400‐Cattle/Sweeney:SuggestChangeinAlternative
103
N
ote 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
Concern ID: 29478
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1886 Organization: San Francisco State University
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: 29479
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4533 Organization: Not Specified
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
EJ2010‐EnvironmentalJustice:AffectedEnvironment
104
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
Concern ID: 29480
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3941 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
EJ2010‐EnvironmentalJustice:AffectedEnvironment
105
Concern ID: 29481
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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 dog-
friendly areas which attract tourists.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1547 Organization: Not Specified
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.
EJ5000 - Environmental Justice: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments on EJ5000
FB1100 - Fort Baker: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29549
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10 Organization: Not Specified
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.
EJ4000‐EnvironmentalJustice:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
106
FB1200 - Fort Baker: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29550
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 646 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29551
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative D because it is most protective of natural
resources and visitor safety.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29553
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - In order to provide more balance between user groups, a ROLA should be
added to the mowed lawn on the Parade Ground.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29554
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o Dog Area - Dog walking should be prohibited on Battery Yates Loop or Drown
Fire Road in order to protect Mission blue butterfly habitat.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
FB1200‐FortBaker:OpposePreferredAlternative
107
butterfly habitat and that this area be off limits to recreation with dogs. .
FF1100 - Fort Funston: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29409
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 961 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
Concern ID: 29410
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1445 Organization: Self
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.
FF1100FortFunston:SupportPreferredAlternative
108
Concern ID: 29411
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2305 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29412
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1466 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
FF1100FortFunston:SupportPreferredAlternative
109
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
N
PS needs to put a rule in place that curtails the seemingly ou
t
-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.
Concern ID: 29413
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3136 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
FF1100FortFunston:SupportPreferredAlternative
110
FF1200 - Fort Funston: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29414
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 6Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
111
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.
Concern ID: 29415
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 448 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
112
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
p
urpose 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: 29416
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
113
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 393 Organization: Not Specified
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
114
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
p
lay 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.
Concern ID: 29417
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 330 Organization: Not Specified
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 u
p
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.
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
115
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
116
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 oft-
used 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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
117
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.
Concern ID: 29418
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1447 Organization: Not Specified
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
118
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
j
obs 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.
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
119
We feel the adverse effect of these alternatives, other than no action, simply cannot
be condoned.
Concern ID: 29419
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 107 Organization: Not Specified
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
120
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
121
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
122
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,
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
123
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
b
ecause 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
j
ust 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.
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
124
Corr. ID: 4560 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209899 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For example, the Preferred Alternative would allow off-
leash 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
j
ostled or knocked down.
Corr. ID: 4622 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207078 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Diversity/Discrimination Against Seniors and. Disabled-
The 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.
Concern ID: 29420
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 807 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186049 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I oppose strongly the proposed changes to off leash dog
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
125
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
p
roperty 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 counter-
indicated 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: 29421
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
126
this site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1004 Organization: Not Specified
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 isolated-
making 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
p
lace. Sometimes I go twice a day and I have
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
127
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
j
ust 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.
Concern ID: 29422
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1057 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
128
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, off-
leash, 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: 29423
CONCERN Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative at Fort Funston because the layout of
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
129
S
TATEMENT: 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1548 Organization: Not Specified
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:
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
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
130
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).
Concern ID: 29424
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2882 Organization: Not Specified
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
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
Concern ID: 29425
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1583 Organization: Not Specified
FF1200FortFunston:OpposePreferredAlternative
131
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
Concern ID: 29426
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 328 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
FF1300FortFunston:DesireOtherAlternative
132
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,
j
ust 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 over-
stated.
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: 29427
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
FF1300FortFunston:DesireOtherAlternative
133
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.
Concern ID: 29428
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1205 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
FF1300FortFunston:DesireOtherAlternative
134
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 off-
FF1300FortFunston:DesireOtherAlternative
135
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: 29429
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative E because it allows for a balance of off-leash, on-
leash, and no-dog areas and/or still allows for protection of the environment.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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 off-
leash dogs could accommodate walkers and dogs of various abilities.
FF1300FortFunston:DesireOtherAlternative
136
Concern ID: 29430
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1544 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190729 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ft. Funston
N
o 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.
Concern ID: 29432
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative B.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4683 Organization: Not Specified
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
FF1300FortFunston:DesireOtherAlternative
137
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 598 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
Concern ID: 29434
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1185 Organization: Not Specified
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.
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
138
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.
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
139
Concern ID: 29435
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA Rotation - Commenters suggest closing certain sections of the park in shifts
(rotate ROLAs) as necessary to aid in natural resource preservation.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
Concern ID: 29436
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 279 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
140
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'
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
141
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.
Concern ID: 29437
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 54 Organization: Not Specified
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.
Anything less than this is destroying what is wonderful about Fort Funston.
Leave the following area off leash:
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
142
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 off-
leash 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: 29438
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time Restrictions - Commenters have suggested time constraints (week vs.
weekday, seasonal, hours of day) for off-leash dogs at ROLAs (including seasonal
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
143
restrictions for bank swallows; moveable keep out signs for hang gliding areas) or
at the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 279 Organization: Not Specified
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 off-
leash 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 6am-
1pm.
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
p
eople 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
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
144
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.
Concern ID: 29439
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Signs - Clear signage stating the dog walking regulations and areas for ROLAs, on-
leash 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 457 Organization: Tax Payer
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 off-
leash 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?
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
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
145
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.
Concern ID: 29440
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1913 Organization: Not Specified
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
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
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
146
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.
Concern ID: 31167
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3747 Organization: Not Specified
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:
- 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
p
ublic 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.
Concern ID: 31168
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 235 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180754 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
147
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
Concern ID: 29299
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Keep Fort Mason as an on-leash area so that all user groups can enjoy Fort Mason.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1079 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192214 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
FF1400FortFunston:SuggestChangeinAlternative
148
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
Concern ID: 29302
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 567 Organization: Not Specified
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
p
arks. 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.
...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?
FM1200FortMason:OpposePreferredAlternative
149
Concern ID: 29305
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters believe that there is no technical or scientific basis for changing the
current conditions at Fort Mason.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29306
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative A is preferred since dog walking conditions have been working well.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 790 Organization: Not Specified
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.
Concern ID: 29310
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 193 Organization: Not Specified
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.
FM1400 - Fort Mason: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29300
CONCERN ROLAs - The Great Meadow should be an area for off-leash dog walking since it is
FM1400FortMason:SuggestChangeinAlternative
150
S
TATEMENT: 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
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
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.
Concern ID: 29301
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2905 Organization: Not Specified
FM1400FortMason:SuggestChangeinAlternative
151
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: 29304
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o Dog Experience - There should be some areas of Fort Mason that are dog free
areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
Concern ID: 29308
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2170 Organization: Not Specified
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 non-
dog 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.
1. Time of Day. During morning and evening hours there are often more people
FM1400FortMason:SuggestChangeinAlternative
152
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: 29309
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-leash dog walking at the Great Meadow and a much smaller area in Laguna
Green for dog walking.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 30341
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Fencing: The ROLA in alternative D should have a physical barrier to separate it
from the Laguna Green area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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 o
f
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
Concern ID: 29483
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10 Organization: Not Specified
FP1400FortPoint:SuggestChangeinAlternative
153
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
Concern ID: 29484
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
Concern ID: 29485
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4215 Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
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.
FP1400 - Fort Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29486
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLAs - There should be more off-leash areas for dogs to run, particularly on the
beach and on Fort Point trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
FP1400FortPoint:SuggestChangeinAlternative
154
infested bluffs surrounding the parking lot. Otherwise, dogs have no business in the
areas listed where seabirds forage, interact, and mate.
Concern ID: 29487
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4410 Organization: Not Specified
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.
FT1100 - Fort Miley: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29288
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenter supports the preferred alternative.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10 Organization: Not Specified
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
Concern ID: 29289
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenter is opposed to changing the existing leash laws at this site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 548 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182016 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am opposed to the changes in leash laws pertaining to
N
PS lands in San Francisco.
FT1300 - Fort Miley: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29291
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenter supports alternative B (no dogs) and signage should be made available.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 71 Organization: none
Comment ID: 181826 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
FT1400FortMiley:SuggestChangeinAlternative
155
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
Concern ID: 29292
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2023 Organization: Not Specified
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).
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.
N
ote: Commenter is actually referring
t
o Alternative E, not Alternative D.
Concern ID: 29293
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4354 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209526 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: LANDS END/FORT MILEY
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
p
ortion 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.
FT1400FortMiley:SuggestChangeinAlternative
156
GA1000 - Impact Analysis: General Comment
Concern ID: 31873
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Several impacts levels and other objectives require further definition and
explanation to make them more measurable or clear.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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 dog-
walking 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 suppor
t
for the plan to maximize management of dog walking use."
GA2000 - Impact Analysis: Use Trends And Assumptions
Concern ID: 30514
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
GA1000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralComment
157
Concern ID: 30515
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The DEIS did not take into account the fact that some GGNRA sites are under-
utilized (Fort Funston, Crissy Field) or utilized almost solely by dog walkers or
mostly paved sites.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 373 Organization: Citizen, Property Owner & Tax Payer
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: 30516
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that allowing dogs at GGNRA makes more work for park
employees.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
Concern ID: 30517
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 723 Organization: Not Specified
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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
158
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
b
eing 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: 30518
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters disagree with assumptions in the DEIS concerning site usage
(morning vs. evening usage) or visitation trends/rates at the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
159
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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
160
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: 30519
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with the general assumptions that blame dogs concerning
dog waste and overstate the issue of dog bites.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
161
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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
162
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
Concern ID: 30520
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1723 Organization: Not Specified
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.
-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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
163
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
p
resented at this stretch of coastline. Any use of the beach should, for public safety,
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
164
be restricted from swimming.
Concern ID: 30521
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters question the assumption that some visitors experience incidents with
dogs and do not report the incidents, when this is an actual fact.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 30522
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters question the assumption that elder visitors or visitors who are
minorities are afraid of dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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).
Concern ID: 30523
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4560 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GA2000ImpactAnalysis:UseTrendsandAssumptions
165
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 off-
leash dogs.
Concern ID: 30524
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with assumptions made at certain park sites (such as the
vandalism at Crissy Field is a result of dog walkers).
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 30091
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 129 Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
166
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..."
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
167
"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: 30092
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
168
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
j
ustify 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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
169
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.
Concern ID: 30093
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3789 Organization: Not Specified
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
170
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
j
ournal.
Concern ID: 30094
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1580 Organization: Not Specified
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 off-
leash dogs had a major impact on the diversity, abundance, and feeding behaviors o
f
birds and small mammals. However, when they did the actual research, they found
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
171
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
172
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.
Concern ID: 30095
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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,
N
ola Chow study, Forrest Cassidy/St. Clair/Warren study of snowy plover) or some
studies were not emphasized enough (Lafferty studies).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 624 Organization: Not Specified
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
173
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."
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
174
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,
N
ative 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.
Concern ID: 30096
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1562 Organization: Not Specified
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
175
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.
Concern ID: 30168
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 350 Organization: Not Specified
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.
(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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
176
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
177
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1510 Organization: Not Specified
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 2001-
2006, 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
N
eed for Action, why is law enforcement only spending one percent of its time on
dog management issues?
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
178
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 -
N
one. 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 prefer
r
ed 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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
179
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.
Concern ID: 30175
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1510 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
180
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: 30177
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 30178
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with the blanket assumption that non-compliance will
result in adverse impacts to the environment.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
Concern ID: 30671
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 420 Organization: none
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
181
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: 31406
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
182
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3149 Organization: Not Specified
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
N
orthern Harrie
r
N
uttall's White-crowned Sparrow
N
uttall's Woodpecke
r
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
Concern ID: 31409
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3149 Organization: Not Specified
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
GA3000ImpactAnalysis:GeneralMethodologyforEstablishingImpacts/Effects
183
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.
Concern ID: 31415
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3945 Organization: Not Specified
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: 31740
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4678 Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
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.
GA4000 - Impact Analysis: Impairment Analysis-General Methodology
There were no comments for GA4000
GC1000 - Off-leash dogs: Support
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
184
Concern ID: 29633
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 222 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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 gree
t
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
185
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
p
ersonally, 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.
Concern ID: 29634
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1019 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
186
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
187
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.
Concern ID: 29635
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 391 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
188
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.
Concern ID: 29636
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 195 Organization: Not Specified
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.
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
189
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 o
f
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: 29637
CONCERN Regardless of whether you own a dog or not, it is pleasurable to watch dogs
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
190
S
TATEMENT: 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 301 Organization: None
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
b
ad 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.
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
191
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 leash-
free. 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.
Concern ID: 29638
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 334 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
192
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.
Concern ID: 29639
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 507 Organization: Soceity Dogs
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
193
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
194
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.
Concern ID: 29641
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 819 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
195
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 res
p
onsible, 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.
Concern ID: 29642
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2394 Organization: Golden Gate National Parks
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
196
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 off-
leash 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 off-
leash, the additional restrictions proposed lack common sense or factual support,
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
197
and ignore the GGNRA mandate to truly serve the wide-ranging Bay Area
community.
GC2000 - Off-leash dogs: Oppose
Concern ID: 29750
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 299 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
198
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.
Concern ID: 29751
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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. Off-
leash dogs also result in more feces that are not seen by their owners, which can
have health and visitor experience impacts.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 306 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
199
p
ark. 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 so-
called 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.
Concern ID: 29752
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2155 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200523 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
200
Representative Quote: I like dogs, but do not want them roaming free in the
N
ational 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.
Concern ID: 29753
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 897 Organization: Not Specified
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.
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
201
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).
Concern ID: 29755
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2314 Organization: Not Specified
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 off-
leash 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
GC2000Offleashdogs:Oppose
202
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
Concern ID: 30536
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 289 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
203
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.
N
PS 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.
Concern ID: 30537
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 276 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
204
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 well-
being 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.
Concern ID: 30538
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 395 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181187 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
205
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.
Concern ID: 30539
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 463 Organization: Montara Dog Blog
Comment ID: 181741 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In summary, I would like to push for "Alternative A" to
p
ass. 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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
206
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.:
Concern ID: 30540
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1587 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
p
roperties in the NPS system is appropriate. The data provided from 2007 and 2008
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
207
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 site-
specific 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.
Concern ID: 30541
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 557 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
208
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
b
eautiful 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: 30625
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
209
maintain historical recreational access.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2808 Organization: Not Specified
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.
Concern ID: 30626
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4016 Organization: San Francisco resident
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
N
ational 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.
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
210
Concern ID: 30627
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2354 Organization: Not Specified
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 well-
being of both dogs and humans. Dogs get needed exercise which keeps them well-
behaved and these particular off-leash areas allow for unique and healthy human
social interactions.
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-
b
ased 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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
211
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
GC3000GeneralComment:SupportcurrentManagement
212
with issues regarding all recreational visitors in a public forum on a quarterly basis.
GC4000 - General Comment: Continue to allow dogs within GGNRA
Concern ID: 29758
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 356 Organization: Not Specified
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.
Concern ID: 29759
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Restricting dogs from the park will not provide protection of resources in the
GGNRA, and will significantly affect those visitors that enjoy having dogs at the
park. Restricting dog will also cause problems at other areas that allow dogs.
R
epresenta
t
ive Quote(s): Corr. ID: 556 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC4000GeneralComment:ContinuetoallowdogswithinGGNRA
213
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
Concern ID: 29760
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 582 Organization: Not Specified
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.)
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
GC4000GeneralComment:ContinuetoallowdogswithinGGNRA
214
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: 29761
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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-
b
eing 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.
GC4000GeneralComment:ContinuetoallowdogswithinGGNRA
215
GC4010 - General Comment: Ban all dogs from GGNRA
Concern ID: 29763
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 67 Organization: Self
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.
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
GC4010GeneralComment:BanalldogsfromGGNRA
216
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.
Concern ID: 29764
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2339 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
GC4010GeneralComment:BanalldogsfromGGNRA
217
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
N
ational 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: 29865
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29867
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs in national parks or public areas should be leashed. Having dogs on-leash in
national parks is more in line with NPS policy.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
218
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.
Concern ID: 29925
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 25 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
b
ite" 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.
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
219
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: 29927
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
220
do not want to be approached by them in the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 521 Organization: Not Specified
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.
Concern ID: 29928
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2288 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
221
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.
Concern ID: 29929
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 238 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
222
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.
Concern ID: 29930
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2437 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
223
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
p
erhaps 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: 29934
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs can still be happily walked and enjoy their time while on-leash. Because of
this, on-leash dog walking is a good option.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
GC5000Onleashdogs:Support
224
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: 29935
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having dogs on-leash will encourage more exercise for visitors and improve
overall health.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
p
ark 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
Concern ID: 29846
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs on-leash are more likely to be aggressive towards people and other dogs. On-
leash dogs are more likely to get frustrated and feel more protective of their
owners, which can cause aggression
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 7Organization: Not Specified
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: 29849
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3399 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203140 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A leash rule may be an easy answer but it is far from fair
GC6000Onleashdogs:Oppose
225
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.
N
o 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.
Concern ID: 29855
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1860 Organization: Self
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
GC6000Onleashdogs:Oppose
226
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.
Concern ID: 29857
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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 on-
leash. Alternately, others may feel that having to keep their dogs on-leash lessens
the experience of the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1673 Organization: Not Specified
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.
-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 Chapte
r
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: 29859
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29860
CONCERN Having a dog on-leash presents a greater hazard to cyclists that having dogs off-
GC6000Onleashdogs:Oppose
227
S
TATEMENT: leash.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 395 Organization: Not Specified
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
Concern ID: 30527
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 300 Organization: Not Specified
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 off-
leash 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 on-
leash, 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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
228
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-
b
ehaved dogs who jump
on people, tussle with other dogs and steal food from picnickers while their
inattentive owners ignore the situation.
Concern ID: 30528
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters supported the plan as it would improve visitor experience for those
p
ark 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1053 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
229
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?
Concern ID: 30529
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 281 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
230
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: 30530
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 20 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
231
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.
Concern ID: 30531
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 835 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
232
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
Concern ID: 30532
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4669 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
Concern ID: 30533
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 908 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
233
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.
Concern ID: 30534
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed plan provides clear and enforceable rules, which will make it more
likely that visitors will comply with the regulations. In addition, the compliance-
b
ased management will also help to provide incentives for compliance with the new
restrictions.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3059 Organization: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
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: 30535
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed dog management plan is beneficial for those users who would like to
continue to ride horses in the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 30628
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 229 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180728 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The vast majority of dog owners are respectful, law-
abiding 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
GC7000GeneralComment:SupportNewDogManagementPlan
234
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:
N
ature 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.
Concern ID: 30629
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 275 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
235
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
p
lan 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.
Concern ID: 30630
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1203 Organization: Not Specified
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
p
roposal 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
N
orthern 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.
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
236
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-dog-
accompanied 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.
Concern ID: 30631
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 335 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
237
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 dog-
owning 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 off-
leash 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: 30632
CONCERN Dog owners already have so little access to areas in the GGNRA with their dogs, to
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
238
S
TATEMENT: 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 370 Organization: Not Specified
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
N
ational 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 off-
leash 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 o
f
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
239
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.
Concern ID: 30633
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quo
t
e(s): Corr. ID: 399 Organization: Not Specified
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.
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
240
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
p
art 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 off-
leash 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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
241
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.
Concern ID: 30638
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 40 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181770 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
242
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 much-
most-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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
243
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,
N
PS 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.
Concern ID: 30639
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 626 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
244
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.
Concern ID: 30640
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Off-leash dogs interact with each other and park users better than dogs that are on-
leash. 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3764 Organization: Not Specified
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
p
ark 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.)
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
245
behavior of all the dogs who showed up at the protest march on Mar. 21.
Concern ID: 30643
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 551 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
246
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 12-
year 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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
247
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
p
ossible the outdoor recreation opportunities available to the region." The proposed
dog ban appears to be in direct opposition to that mandate.
Concern ID: 30644
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 587 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
248
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 long-
term 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.
Concern ID: 30654
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1016 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
249
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.
N
ew 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)
Concern ID: 30655
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1507 Organization: Not Specified
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
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.
Concern ID: 30656
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 971 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
250
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 Valley-
Muir 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.
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
251
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
j
eopardy. 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.
Concern ID: 30657
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1804 Organization: Not Specified
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.
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
252
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
p
resenting 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.
Concern ID: 30658
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresen
t
ative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1226 Organization: Not Specified
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
253
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 them-
not 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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
254
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.
Concern ID: 30660
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1329 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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: 30662
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
255
as more important than the safety and recreation of some users, including children,
and those who are frail or elderly.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2166 Organization: Not Specified
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
N
ational 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.
Concern ID: 30663
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3005 Organization: Not Specified
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 off-
leash 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 off-
leash 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: 30664
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
256
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
Concern ID: 30665
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3347 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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, kite-
fliers; 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.
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
257
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 off-
lease 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.
Concern ID: 30666
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3571 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203568 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
258
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,
N
ative 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.
Concern ID: 31555
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4713 Organization: Animal Care and Control Department,
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: 31837
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
259
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1407 Organization: Not Specified
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 ID: 31862
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2940 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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.
GC8000GeneralComment:OpposeNewDogManagementPlan
260
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: 29643
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The GGNRA should follow the standards of other national parks, which allow on-
leash dogs only in on restricted trails and areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
GC9010GeneralComment:SupportAlternativeBforAllSites
261
Concern ID: 29644
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1818 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191809 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please accept this plea for more restrictive dog-leashing
regulations and for their strict enforcement.
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
GC9010GeneralComment:SupportAlternativeBforAllSites
262
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
b
ravely 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.
Concern ID: 29645
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2737 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC9010GeneralComment:SupportAlternativeBforAllSites
263
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
N
PS 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: 29646
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
GC9020GeneralComment:SupportAlternativeCforAllSites
264
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: 29647
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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 off-
leash 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
GC9030GeneralComment:SupportAlternativeDforAllSites
265
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: 29648
CONCERN Dog walking restrictions under alternative D limit off-leash dog walking in many
GC9030GeneralComment:SupportAlternativeDforAllSites
266
S
TATEMENT: areas of Golden Gate and would benefit visitor safety and experience.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 722 Organization: Not Specified
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 off-
leash 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 above-
mentioned areas.
GC9040 - General Comment: Support Alternative E for All Sites
Concern ID: 29649
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support alternative E because there is a compromise between off-leash
dog walking areas and areas for a no dog experience.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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,
GC9050GeneralComment:OpposeAlternativeAforAllSites
267
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 off-
leash 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-dog-
restrictive 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: 29527
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dog walkers are not following the current rules therefore these rules should not
continue.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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.
Concern ID: 29528
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2133 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29529
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative A is unacceptable because it violates the NPS mandate to protect the
resources of GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4683 Organization: Not Specified
GC9050GeneralComment:OpposeAlternativeAforAllSites
268
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
N
ational 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: 29530
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative B is unacceptable because it is not a balanced approach to dog
management.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29531
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29532
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
Concern ID: 29533
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenter disagrees with alternatives B-E.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1376 Organization: Not Specified
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.
GC9080GeneralComment:OpposeAlternativeDforAllSites
269
GC9080 - General Comment: Oppose Alternative D for All Sites
Concern ID: 29535
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 310 Organization: Not Specified
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 voice-
control dog areas open in the GGNRA.
Concern ID: 29536
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative D is an outright ban of one segment of the population
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3953 Organization: Not Specified
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
Concern ID: 29537
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenter does not agree with the common to all elements of alternative E.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2047 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193296 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Elements common to all action alternatives is a trap door
in alternative E
Concern ID: 29538
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4577 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
GC9090GeneralComment:OpposeAlternativeEforAllSites
270
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: 29539
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative E is unsustainable, due to diminishing resources it cannot be funded or
implemented.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29504
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 660 Organization: Not Specified
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 Chapte
r
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]".
Impacts to Migrating Waterbirds
Shorebird studies (e.g., Guts Don't Fly: Small Digestive Organs in Obese Bar-
Tailed 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
GR2010Geologic/SoilResources:AffectedEnvironment
271
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 off-
leash 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..
Concern ID: 29505
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1134 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192461 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
GR2010Geologic/SoilResources:AffectedEnvironment
272
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,
j
oggers, 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
GR2010Geologic/SoilResources:AffectedEnvironment
273
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: 29506
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The DEIS fails to address toxic substances and unexploded ordinances remaining at
Fort Funston that could contribute to soil contamination.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29507
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1833 Organization: Not Specified
GR4000Geologic/SoilResources:ImpactOfProposalsAndAlternatives
274
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
Concern ID: 29508
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4405 Organization: Montara Dog Walking Group
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
N
ational 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: 29509
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
GR5000Geologic/SoilResources:CumulativeImpacts
275
For representative quote, please see Concern 29248 (MB1200), Comment 203793
GR6000 - Geologic Resources: Impairment Analyses
Concern ID: 29510
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4404 Organization: Not Specified
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.
HS2010 - Health and Safety: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 29730
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 319 Organization: Not Specified
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.
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
276
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
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
277
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?
Concern ID: 29731
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 253 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
p
utting 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
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
278
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.
Concern ID: 29732
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 311 Organization: Not Specified
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 run-
off 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
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
279
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.
Concern ID: 29733
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1181 Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
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
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
280
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 off-
leash 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
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
281
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.
Concern ID: 29734
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1803 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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-feces-
caused 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
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
282
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-
p
age 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.
HS2010HealthandSafety:AffectedEnvironment
283
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: 31538
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29735
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 543 Organization: Not Specified
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
HS4000HealthandSafety:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
284
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).
Concern ID: 29736
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2304 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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-
b
eing of people?
I hope that you will reconsider the recommendations in the proposed plan.
HS4000HealthandSafety:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
285
Concern ID: 29737
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1696 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191110 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston-
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 over-
whelming 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
HS4000HealthandSafety:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
286
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.
Concern ID: 29738
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1351 Organization: Not Specified
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
HS4000HealthandSafety:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
287
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
HS4000HealthandSafety:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
288
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Allowing unleashed dogs on narrow trails is dangerous, as this could allow people
to fall off of trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4459 Organization: Not Specified
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.
Concern ID: 31783
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4035 Organization: Not Specified
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.
HS4010 - Health and Safety: Impacts of Dogs vs. Humans
Concern ID: 29742
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2051 Organization: Not Specified
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
HS4010HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsvs.Humans
289
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 on-
leash 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.
Concern ID: 29743
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1291 Organization: Not Specified
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.
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
HS4010HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsvs.Humans
290
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.
N
o 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
HS4010HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsvs.Humans
291
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 i
f
the dog had bit me, as I was holding my arm and looking at the slobber on my
j
acket 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: 29744
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
HS4010HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsvs.Humans
292
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-
b
ehaved, 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 life-
changingly 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
HS4010HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsvs.Humans
293
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
j
ustify the restrictions being put forth in the GGNRA's preferred alternative.
Concern ID: 29745
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1169 Organization: Not Specified
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
HS4010HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsvs.Humans
294
to others.
HS4015 - Health and Safety: Impacts of Dog Related Incidents
Concern ID: 29746
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogfights have resulted in injuries and even death to dogs at the park, as well as
injuries to the owners.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
j
urisdiction. 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.
Concern ID: 29747
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 843 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186217 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
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
HS4015HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsRelatedIncidents
295
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
Concern ID: 29748
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Incidents between dogs are extremely rare, and are not serious when they occur.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2923 Organization: Not Specified
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
p
erspective. 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).
HS4015HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsRelatedIncidents
296
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/injury-
bles/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.
Concern ID: 29749
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 243 Organization: Not Specified
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
HS4015HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsRelatedIncidents
297
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
HS4015HealthandSafety:ImpactofDogsRelatedIncidents
298
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: 29290
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative at Homestead Valley because of the
on-leash restrictions to protect wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29294
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative A for Homestead Valley because it allows off-
leash access in this area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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: 29296
CONCERN Commenters support Alternative A for Homestead Valley because it allows off-
HV1300‐HomesteadValley:DesireOtherAlternative
299
S
TATEMENT: leash access in this area.
For other representative quotes, please see Concern 207131 (HV1200), Comment
207131 and Concern 29237 (OV1300), Comment 181777.
Concern ID: 29298
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1473 Organization: Marin Audubon
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: 29295
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters suggest in addition to Alternative A, limiting the number of dogs
under voice control to 6 per dog walker at Homestead Valley.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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].
Concern ID: 31549
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4687 Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
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.
LE1100LandsEnd:SupportPreferredAlternative
300
LE1100 - Lands End: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29312
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2105 Organization: Not Specified
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.
LE1200 - Lands End: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29313
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1446 Organization: Not Specified
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:
-- 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
LE1200LandsEnd:OpposePreferredAlternative
301
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: 29314
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative shown does not provide an adequate way to have a no-dog
experience at the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29315
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4463 Organization: Not Specified
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 above-
mentioned areas
Concern ID: 29316
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
LE1300LandsEnd:DesireOtherAlternative
302
the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4651 Organization: Not Specified
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
Concern ID: 29317
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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-
b
ased management rate of 95% or higher, and the implementation of an
easy system to report violations.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4584 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29318
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
Concern ID: 29320
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29321
LE1400LandsEnd:SuggestChangeinAlternative
303
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 124 Organization: Not Specified
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 ID: 30928
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash Areas - On-leash dog walking should be required within the parking lots
and the paved area of the Coastal Trail.
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
Concern ID: 29765
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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
N
ational 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 521 Organization: Not Specified
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
LP1000LawsandPolicies:ImpactofGGNRAactionsonotherNPSunits’enforcementofservicewide
policiesandregulations
304
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.
Concern ID: 29766
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 651 Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 182579 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What is permitted in GGNRA should be permitted in all
N
ational 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?
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!
Concern ID: 29767
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1259 Organization: Not Specified
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
LP1000LawsandPolicies:ImpactofGGNRAactionsonotherNPSunits’enforcementofservicewide
policiesandregulations
305
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
N
OT 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!
Concern ID: 29768
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1334 Organization: Not Specified
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: 29769
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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).
R
epresentative Quote(s): 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
LP1000LawsandPolicies:ImpactofGGNRAactionsonotherNPSunits’enforcementofservicewide
policiesandregulations
306
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
Concern ID: 29847
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
PS 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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 88 Organization: Not Specified
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
LU1000LandUse:PoliciesandHistoricalUse
307
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.
Concern ID: 29851
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 860 Organization: Not Specified
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!
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.
LU1000LandUse:PoliciesandHistoricalUse
308
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.
Concern ID: 29854
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
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.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 95 Organization: Not Specified
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 the city
Corr. ID: 1875 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200355 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly oppose the severe reduction in space allocated
for recreation with dogs in the GGNRA. The land was given with the understanding
that it would continue to be a recreation area.The other parks in the city would be
overwhelmed by dogs if this plan passes.I think the land should be given back to
LU1000LandUse:PoliciesandHistoricalUse
309
the city if the scope of use is changed in this way. I think that there can be balance
where dog owners and non dog owners can all enjoy the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3033 Organization: Self
Comment ID: 201037 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The "dog management" issue is emblematic of a much
larger problem, in that there is a serious lack of understanding of appropriate land-
use policy when formulating design-guidelines for our parklands.
Fundamentally, the GGNRA is composed of two distinct land-use patterns whose
basic criteria are at direct odds with each other: urban & wilderness.
The Presidio & Ocean Beach areas of San Francisco are an integral part of the
urban-parkland fabric, within the densest urban area west of the Hudson River.
Conversely, areas of the GGNRA - north of the Golden Gate and south of Ft.
Funston - are part of a rural-wilderness domain that is the polar opposite, as viewed
in land-use planning.
Design priorities for wilderness parks are not design priorities for urban parks.
While parks do and should contain a variety of components for the pleasure &
enjoyment of visitors, the emphasis on individual park elements should be based on
the overriding requirements of appropriate land-use patterns.
Examples include the following contentious design issues: Dogs vs. Snowy
Plovers; Exotic Plants vs. Native Plants. In the Wilderness Park (Pt. Reyes),
Plovers & Native Plants would have priority and areas for Dogs & Exotic Plants
would be contained in a few, small, isolated areas only. In the Urban Park (San
Francisco) Dogs, Ice-
p
lants & Monterrey Cypress would have priority over Plovers
& native plants.
The emphasis in urban parklands would be: recreation, human (& canine) activities
with a few, isolated, natural areas interspersed throughout. In the Wilderness Park,
the emphasis would be: sustainable natural areas, native plant restoration, and
protected habitat with a few, isolated, recreation spots interspersed throughout.
The mission statements of the National Park Service (NPS) & GGNRA address
Wilderness and Historical Preservation issues only. The "dna" of these agencies
renders them as not an appropriate steward for San Francisco's small and limited
urban parklands. Every few years, over the past two decades, the GGNRA develops
another policy-ban on dogs. After years of: meetings, studies and policy changes,
the issue never goes away. The GGNRA will not allow dogs within their realm.
CONCLUSION: Either the GGNRA comes up with a strict 2-park policy
employing proper land-use principles or the San Francisco portion should be
returned to the San Francisco Recreation & Park Department for proper care &
management.
Corr. ID: 3499 Organization: ASPCA
Comment ID: 203397 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As originally outlined in the letter sent to you earlier, I am
vehemently opposed to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area's (GGNRA)
Draft Dog Management Plan. The plan proposes to either eliminate or severely
limit dog-walking access in 21 locations in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo
counties - including traditional off-leash areas like Crissy Field, Fort Funston,
Marin Headlands, Mori Point, Muir Beach, Ocean Beach, and Rodeo Beach.
LU1000LandUse:PoliciesandHistoricalUse
310
For people with dogs in the GGNRA area,located in a major urban area with
minimal open space, these restrictions will have a dramatic impact, much so that
those whose pets are such an important part of their family very well might
consider moving where there are less restricte rules and regulations. I believe an
"acceptable" dog management plan MUST take into consideration the impacts of
the proposed plan on neighboring city parks, on the health and well-
b
eing of people
who enjoy recreational dog walking, their pets or pets of friends unable to walk
their pets, and must respect the recreational values that are part of the GGNRA's
original mission ("to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open
space"), which this plan fails to do.
To do anything opposed to the original GGNRA mission would be egregious and
liable to civil action.
Corr. ID: 3993 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207426 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In all that time my dog has never had a negative
environmental impact, nor has any of my dogs ever had a negative exchange with
another living creature, including wildlife, other pets, or human beings.
Having said all that, I also absolutely believe that a "National Park" in a densely
populated urban environment is different from a park in a pristine wilderness such
as Yosemite or Yellowstone.
Much of the GGNRA land in question was deeded to the NPS by the City of San
Francisco in good faith with the stipulation that traditional recreational uses be
preserved. The Park Service has acted in bad faith by slowly chipping away at off-
leash recreation in Fort Funston and Ocean Beach. The City of San Francisco is
within its rights to rescind the gift of these areas, and if you proceed with restricting
off-leash recreation in these areas, please be prepared for the City to do just that,
because the dog owning community is a HUGE percentage of the SF population,
and we are well-heeled and well-organized.
Concern ID: 29856
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Although off-leash dog walking may have occurred in the GGNRA historically,
this does not entail that it should be continued in the future. Environmental impacts
should be assessed.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29755 (GC2000), Comment 195288.
LU2000 - Other Agencies Policies and mandates Regarding Dog Management
Concern ID: 29706
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters felt that the GGNRA needed to work more closely with the city on
dog management issues to establish more off-leash dog walking opportunities.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 346 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181119 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To be fair, however, if that is the most sensitive natural
habitat in need of special care, then so it should be.
But then help us find a way to establish an equivalent amount of space for
permanent, fenced and significant off-leash dog parks in San Francisco and our
surrounding areas.
Just as certain locations are designated for the protection of local flora and fauna, it
LU2000OtherAgenciesPoliciesandmandatesRegardingDogManagement
311
only makes sense to set aside a number of large tracts dedicated to the health and
well-being of our area's lively and loved, leashed and off-leash, canine population -
- and the humans who want to be with them.
Corr. ID: 1958 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192714 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Concern: How is the Park Service co-ordinating
with/cooperating with SF City Government?
Corr. ID: 4213 Organization: California State Senate
Comment ID: 208875 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: I appreciate that the GGNRA embraced that idea and
attempted to go through the negotiated rulemaking process. While that effort was
not successful, I encourage the GGNRA, in its ongoing efforts to be open, public,
and fair, to continue to be as collaborative as possible as this process moves
forward given the controversial nature of this issue.
I also encourage the GGNRA to extend that spirit of collaboration and work with
the City to resolve this issue. The GGNRA, though federally operated, is a partner
in the San Francisco community. To transfer responsibility of dealing with this
problem to the city without assisting in an assessment of and plan to deal with it
would be irresponsible and, more importantly, would not solve the problem.
Concern ID: 29707
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The Park Service should be coordinating with agencies that manage other trails and
roads on management policies as there is a connecting network of trails, with many
user groups.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2149 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193447 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is important that there be consistency between and
amongst all the several agencies on road and trail use policies and standards
because of the existence of a network of inter-connected roads + trails that are used
by all sorts of users
LU3000 - Land Use: Dog Parks Provided by San Francisco and Other Municipalities
Concern ID: 29824
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have stated that there are already not enough city parks that allow off-
leash dog walking or parks do not allow dogs at all. Implementing the plan will
only make the already crowded parks in San Francisco even more crowded. The
City of San Francisco should not have to absorb the visitors from GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 223 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180699 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are already too many parks that don't allow dogs to
be off leash. Let us keep the ones we have.
Corr. ID: 242 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180804 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Being able to roam freely with them on Chrissy Field,
Ocean Beach, and Fort Funston is invaluable, since most of the city's parks and
trails,and of course all the state parks, are closed to dogs entirely.
Corr. ID: 251 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180831 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: By restricting the off-leash dog areas to such small
portions of this outdoor space, when the legal places to have dogs off leash is
LU3000LandUse:DogParksProvidedbySanFranciscoandOtheMunicipalities
312
already extremely restricted in San Francisco, you will just make those few places
so incredibly crowded and they will no longer be enjoyable locations to visit
Concern ID: 29829
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have stated that there are plenty of alternative off-leash dog walking
p
arks in the city. Almost all the fire roads within the open space of district parks are
open to off-leash dog walking. Many of the dog parks of San Francisco are
underutilized - signage is poor at some parks resulting in under use. There are
hundreds of acres available throughout the San Francisco City Park system
available for dogs, but only the National Parks can provide the best protection of
flora and fauna. National Parks should not have to provide dog parks for local
residents or areas for commercial walkers.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 112 Organization: n/a
Comment ID: 181976 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support the restriction of dogs, even leased dogs, in
the parks.I believe there are sufficient dog parks scattered thru out the Bay Area
that can accommodate dogs, particularly off leash.
Corr. ID: 513 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181919 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: San Francisco has 17 off-leash areas where dogs can run
unfettered. That certainly should be enough.
Corr. ID: 1684 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191083 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) GGNRA is actually being generous in providing ANY
off-leash dog areas at all. Most national parks do not do this.
3) There are AMPLE other off-leash areas in Marin & SF & the East Bay, e.g.
almost ALL the fire roads within open space district parks. And ther are numerous
dog parks everywhere. I feel the combination of these & areas provided by
GGNRA provide more than enough choices/variety for any dog owner
Corr. ID: 2194 Organization: University of Louisville
Comment ID: 200690 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are hundreds of acres available throughout the S.F.
city park system available for dogs to play in, but only the National Parks have the
purview of restoring native flora and fauna. Please limit the destructive potential of
visiting dogs, by requiring dog owners to be just as responsible as they claim to be.
Modern leashes still provide plenty of mobility, and it's not worth sacrificing the
park's biodiversity, nor the hard work of the park employees and volunteers.
Corr. ID: 2621 Organization: NPCA
Comment ID: 195478 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: San Francisco, and in fact most of the North and South
Bay areas, have some of the most liberal dog-friendly facilities in the country. This
means, in short, that there are plenty of places for dogs to run off leash dog parks to
play in and areas to hike and walk on leash.
Corr. ID: 4408 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206409 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A fellow ACWC commissioner, and I recently toured all
of the dog parks in San Francisco and found them to be very underutilized.
Additionally, the designated areas are poorly demarcated, signage is poor, and leash
laws are not enforced. The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, over
many years, has dedicated money to building fenced dog parks and designating dog
play areas.
LU3000LandUse:DogParksProvidedbySanFranciscoandOtheMunicipalities
313
N
one were seen that were crowded, and many were almost completely empty.
There is not a problem with not having many choices of spaces for dogs in SF, but
rather a problem with distribution of the dogs across these spaces. And some dogs
do not even use these spaces. In fact, many dog owners do not go to public parks at
all, but rather walk their dogs in their own neighborhoods. They do not regularly
get into the car to take their dogs, small ones and large ones, elsewhere.
Concern ID: 29839
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The plan will cause more greenhouse gas emissions because visitors will now have
to drive to parks that have off-lease dog walking, whereas they are walking now
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 25 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181466 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As residents of Muir Beach, there aren't a lot of choices for
walking a dog. Muir Beach is a small community that is ringed by state and
national park land. Restricting to the options that allow no dogs would only mean
that we have to use our greenhouse gas polluting cars to go somewhere that allows
dogs I would posit that my car harms the environment more than my dog, unless
the GGNRA has evidence to the contrary to present to the public.
Concern ID: 29844
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Many commenters believe that the alternative dog parks listed in the plan are not
viable alternatives to GGNRA dog walking areas. Many of the city dog parks
referenced in the DEIS are not set up for off-leash dog walking - they need to be
fenced since they are close to busy streets. The city parks are not comparable
because visitors cannot take their dogs hiking in city parks. San Mateo County has
limited off-leash dog walking areas. There are very few coastal areas in Marin
County that allows dogs. Many dog parks are small confined spaces without
adequate shade and access to water and some have playgrounds full of small
children. The parks listed in the plan cannot support the added demand that the plan
will cause.
For additional Representative Quotes, please see Concern 29329 (RB1300),
Comment 192206.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1636 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190963 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -San Francisco parks are not set up for off leash use - need
to be fenced to prevent dogs from going into the street
Corr. ID: 4567 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209916 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With regards to the Adjacent Parks section, the Remington
Dog Park has a limit of 3 dogs per dog walker, so this is not a viable alternative to
the GGNRA land and should not be even be mentioned. No dog park should be
listed as an alternative adjacent park, since you cannot take dogs hiking in a dog
park. Many of the 26 parks within a 5-mile radius listed are small neighborhood
parks with leash laws and playgrounds full of toddlers. It is misleading to list them
as alternatives to GGNRA. The only viable alternative is Marin County Open
Space. These areas cannot accommodate all the dog walkers currently walking on
GGNRA land without becoming overcrowded. In summary, changing the fire roads
from Marin City to Oakwood Valley to leash-only access will have a huge
detrimental impact on other hiking areas in the county especially in Southern
Marin.
Concern ID: 31269
LU3000LandUse:DogParksProvidedbySanFranciscoandOtheMunicipalities
314
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
These policies are the result of the impact of other agencies restricting dog use,
which has caused the GGNRA to protect itself from the influx of visitors from
areas where dog walking has been restricted.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 547 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181994 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In part I see this document the result of the lack of regional
management. That is, as more and more agencies listen to their lawyers and restrict
dog use, less and less land is available for the walking of dogs. So, now GGNRA
must protect itself as more and more people have been finding the only 'freedom' to
b
e ahd is on certain GGNRA lands, that they in fact own (in a manner of speaking).
Concern ID: 31605
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters noted that although there is a lot of acreage provided for dog walking
in the area, that there are also more dogs, and requested that this relationship be
further studied.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4702 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227481 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: [Comment was originally presented at BOS committee
hearing 4-11-11 by Ilana Minkoff]
At any rate, I am also curious to know ' it's been said many times today ' that our
city has more acreage than any other city, for dogs ' how many more dogs do we
have than all these other cities combined as well? That would be my big question,
so if you could please research this issue thoroughly and support the resolution to
oppose the GGNRA, both Lucy and I would really appreciate it.
LU3010 - Adjacent Lands: Impacts to other State or County Parks
Concern ID: 29629
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters either oppose or is concerned that the proposed DEIS will cause
overcrowding in the remaining off-leash areas at GGNRA or at other dog parks,
which may lead to overburdened dog parks, more traffic, more dog waste and/or
more dog-to-dog conflicts.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 13 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181440 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: By restricting off leash walking in the GGNRA you may
inadvertently destroy our neighborhood parks. There are just too many dogs and
not enough parks already.
Corr. ID: 426 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181611 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If we were to loose the small off leash areas that we have
currently, all SF dog walkers and owners would take over and invade the even
smaller number of legal off leash SF City Parks. These displacements will
inevitable cause more problems for SF residents and neighborhoods due to the lack
of other options to exercise their dogs.
Corr. ID: 624 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182741 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Public health and happiness will be severely affected and
there is likely to be overcrowding in other areas of the city that will be
overwhelmed by the sudden influx of dogs and dog-owners who will continue to
seek areas that allow off-leash recreation.
LU3010AdjacentLands:ImpactstootherStateorCountyParks
315
Corr. ID: 673 Organization: Private citizen
Comment ID: 182621 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Finally, restricting dog walkers to leash laws will force
them to abandon the GGNRA and use more dog-friendly areas in San Francisco.
This will place an unfair burden on the City Parks and Recreation Department
Corr. ID: 1407 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195334 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Our local parks were not designed to accommodate the
quantity of traffic that would result from the closure of the GGNRA to owners and
their dogs. The proposal passing will cause overcrowding and tensions due to
overuse. It will also degrade our city parks due to sheer numbers or users, further
burdening a local Parks and Rec Department already facing budget constraints.
Corr. ID: 1776 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191573 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Unfortunately, dog parks can be crowded and small and
don't have enough open space for many dogs to get maximum exercise. Also, the
smaller space in a dog park doesn't allow for enough space to escape from
unsocalized dogs that unfortunately frequent dog parks. Overcrowding of dog parks
will occur if the National Parks have off-leash restrictions ultimately causing more
potential, unwelcome situations arising from unsocialized and possibly aggressive
dogs.
Corr. ID: 2808 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201105 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am strongly in favor of allowing dogs off-leash in as
many GGNRA areas as possible. The more places that one can walk their dog(s)
off-leash, the better. I hope you will consider the impact on San Francisco if off
leash dog walking is restricted or banned in the GGNRA. Banning or further
limiting off leash dogs will have a significant negative impact on San Francisco and
Mann county parks. At least 10,000 dogs visit the GGNRA every day. San
Francisco city parks are much, much smaller than the GGNRA and will be unable
to absorb the impact of all those dogs if they are forced out of the GGNRA. The
negative impact on city parks far outweighs any potential negative impacts in the
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3997 Organization: retired
Comment ID: 207484 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I deeply resent this third attempt to largely negate the 1979
Pet Policy.
If you severely limit the off-leash area, as is planned, you will have overcrowding
with it's problems.
Another issue is the Native Plant situation. Some years ago a great effort was
initiated, building fences and planting native plants. Since then, these efforts have
ceased. The fences are falling down and covered with sand. Planted areas are filled
with weeds and no effort is being expended to maintain them.
One other aspect to this effort to severely limit the off-leash area is on our local San
Francisco Parks that allow off-leash dog walking. One example is Stern Grove.
Recently, when Fort Funston was closed for a day due to the Tsunami warning,
many dog walkers including some professional dog walkers with multiple dogs,
converged on Stern Grove, increasing the number of dogs from the usual fifty to
between two and three hundred. According to the local San Franciscans who utilize
Stern Grove on a daily basis, this created a very unstable and over-crowded
situation. Other San Francisco dog friendly parks will also be negatively affected.
LU3010AdjacentLands:ImpactstootherStateorCountyParks
316
Fort Funston does not exist in a vacuum.
Corr. ID: 4201 Organization: self, City College of San Francisco
employee
Comment ID: 208837 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Any attempt to make GGNRA areas off limits to
unleashed dogs (except for areas enclosed for habitat restoration & for the safety of
the dogs, say, from traffic) will ultimately put unbearable pressure on City parks-
particularly Golden Gate Park. This pressure would not just be on professional and
semi-professional dog-walkers; it would be an unacceptable hardship on dog
owners and their dogs (some of whom rely on dog-walkers), who would be
crowded into fewer and smaller spaces, which would embitter the current pleasant
social interactions between people and between dogs, and where parking is already
a problem. Golden Gate Park is already approaching the breaking point.
Concern ID: 29630
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have stated that the proposed DEIS did not adequately evaluate the
environmental and social impacts to other nearby city parks and playgrounds where
visitors will begin to use for dog walking due to changes in the regulations at
GGNRA. The EIS should include the number of dog walkers at each site and the
number of dog walkers expected to move to other dog walking areas due to change
in regulations.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 593 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182149 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Without a valid environmental impact report indicating
that the current usage is having a negative impact on the GGNRA, there's no reason
this proposal should be accepted. The proposal fails to consider how it will impact
City parks and playground if people are forced off GGNRA land. It's just makes no
sense to change the policy now, with more and more people living in the Bay Area
and coming to the GGNRA with their dogs.
Corr. ID: 1332 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195089 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 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. 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 off-leash 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.
Corr. ID: 3737 Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204249 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Recreation - The GGNRA has a recreation mandate and
the DEIS treats recreation as an adverse impact, rather than a value to be preserved.
DEIS should add section evaluating benefits of recreation.
Urban Environment - The GGNRA is in a dense urban area, yet the DEIS is written
LU3010AdjacentLands:ImpactstootherStateorCountyParks
317
as if the Bay Area and its residents don't exist just outside its boundaries. This is an
urban area, not a pristine wilderness. The DEIS ignores impact on residents or area
resources, especially city parks if restrictions take effect. Note that the SF Board of
Supervisors passed a resolution opposing the Preferred Alternative because of the
lack of study of impacts on city parks.
Corr. ID: 4213 Organization: California State Senate
Comment ID: 208873 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: 2) Consideration of Impact on City Parks
The draft plan does not adequately consider or evaluate potential impacts on city
parks. Rather, the draft plan appears to concentrate on economic factors such as
impacts on nearby businesses and commercial dog walking, while grazing over
potential changes in park use behaviors and the effect on city parks. The ultimate
conclusion that the "potential impacts on social and economic conditions [in San
Francisco] would be highly unlikely to exceed a 'negligible' threshold, and are
therefore eliminated from detailed consideration" (1) is incomplete and inadequate.
I believe the GGNRA is mistaken and misguided in its reasoning on this point, and
that the impacts on city infrastructure should be fully evaluated and addressed in
the revised plan.
Corr. ID: 4311 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209357 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Chapter 4, which discusses environmental impacts, should
include a thorough discussion of the impacts to the San Francisco urban
environment and to our city parks. However, these impacts have clearly not been
analyzed. The discussion of each area contains essentially the same phrases, that
there are 38 parks with a 10-mile radius and that the effects of increased use are not
expected to be great. On p.424-, the DEIS states that impacts to Lake Merced, the
closet off-leash park to Fort Funston, would be minor since not all dog walkers
would stop using Fort Funston. But there are no numbers to support this. The DEIS
must include the number of dog walkers currently visiting Fort Funston, the
number expected to move to other areas, the acreage available to off-leash dog
walking now and with the preferred alternative at Fort Funston, and the acreage
available to off- leash dog walking in the Lake Merced area.
Concern ID: 29631
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There are concerns that the proposed DEIS will cause environmental issues or
unpleasant visitor experience at other parks.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 400 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181192 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I really understand how eroded the dunes are getting from
overuse by dogs, but believe the impact on local parks, enclosed dog parks, and any
other recreation area that allows dogs will cause much worse damage.
Corr. ID: 1015 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191778 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the ban on dogs in GGRNA, but I am also
concerned about the impact of the law on other parks in the city. I used to love to
walk on the beach at Chrissy Field, but have stopped visiting the park because of
the large numbers of dogs there. My husband won't go there either, because of the
dogs. I am concerned that the public parks in the center of SF will become more
p
opulated with dogs than before however. I live within walking distance of Duboce
Park and Alamo Square park, where the dog owners often flaunt the leash rules for
the areas of the parks where dogs should be leashed, creating unpleasant
experiences for me and my husband.
Corr. ID: 4456 Organization: Not Specified
LU3010AdjacentLands:ImpactstootherStateorCountyParks
318
Comment ID: 208522 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition the damage to the city parks will be enormous.
On the day of the tsunami warning (3/11/2011) Stem Grove, as I am sure was the
case with other parks as well, was literally overrun with dogs because they were not
allowed on the coastlines. If this were a daily occurance, the damage would become
insurmountable without a huge expense and the parks are much more populated
with people and children than the beaches are with the exception of the handful of
sunny days in San Francisco.
Concern ID: 31557
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Considering existing use in adjacent city parks and the lands still open to dog
walking in the GGNRA under the proposed plan, there would not be impacts on
city parks and other areas utilized by dog owners in the area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4700 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227459 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: [Comment was originally presented at BOS committee
hearing 4-11-11 by Frank Dean]
Well, it was not an exhaustive study; I will concede that. But basically we looked at
the existing levels of use in city parks by dogs and users, and we looked at what we
are proposing ' realizing again that it's not a ban, we're, we're, we're shifting people
around within the existing parks that we manage, we're not banning them, to
concentrate or focus the use in certain zones and to steer them away from other
areas that might be more sensitive. We in the end did not believe that there would
be significant impact on, on the adjacent parklands, whether they be city of San
Francisco or San Mateo or Marin.
LU3020 - Adjacent Lands: Impacts to other Dog Parks
Concern ID: 29703
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have stated that the proposed DEIS did not adequately evaluate
impacts to other dog parks in the plan. Impacts to the surrounding areas should be
considered in the DEIS. Some areas suggested for off-leash dog walking within the
dcument, such as Lake Merced has been closed to dogs for years. Commenters are
concerned that the proposed DEIS will cause environmental issues at other dog
parks.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 419 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181602 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It will overload other city parks in SF and Marin as dog
owners are pushed out of the GGNRA off-leash area. This concentration of dogs in
small spaces will lead to environmental problems and social issues
Corr. ID: 914 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191325 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crowding SF's dog population in the few small dog parks
that exist in the city is outrageous, and would certainly result in more
environmental destruction and chaos than the proposal suggests.
Corr. ID: 1267 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194975 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What is going to happen to my neighborhood park, Alamo
Square, when the amount of land available for off leash recreation within the
GGNRA is drastically reduced? No where within the DEIS is this impact even
considered. The GGNRA is an urban park and the impact on the surrounding
LU3020AdjacentLands:ImpactstootherDogParks
319
communities when changing park access regulations must be considered.
Corr. ID: 1803 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191654 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 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 off-leash 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.
Corr. ID: 3733 Organization: SF DOG, Save McLaren Park
Comment ID: 204573 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The contraction of areas available for off-leash recreation
will significantly compromise the park experience for people with dogs, and could
lead to an increase in conflict as more and more people are forced into smaller and
smaller areas. The impacts of people moving from the GGNRA into city parks is
not adequately addressed in the DEIS.
Any alternative must address these impacts on city parks and ways to mitigate
them.
Corr. ID: 4356 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209500 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With the multitude of dog households in this area, taking
away our off-leash parks would mean pushing hundreds of dogs into already
crowded city parks. This increases conflict, aggression, trash, traffic, and all the
attendant over-crowding ill effects. I do not believe the GGNRA has studied or
documented this potential negative impact.
Corr. ID: 4583 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209991 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: GGNRA/DEIS made no good faith attempt to analyze
potential impacts on neighboring parks if recreational dog walkers are displaced
from GGNRA sites. The DEIS repeats, "An increase in visitation in nearby parks is
not likely..." in many instances where an increase in visitation to nearby parks is
assured. Consider, as only one example of many, Alternative C, the Preferred
Alternative for Fort Funston. Most of the off-leash area at Fort Funston will
disappear under this alternative. The many people who visit this heavily used park
will not fit into the small areas remaining. Yet GGNRA doesn't acknowledge they
will go elsewhere, and says, "An increase in visitation in nearby parks is not
likely." (DEIS p 1530) This allows the unsubstantiated conclusion that the
Preferred Alternative will have, "No indirect impacts in adjacent parks."
Concern ID: 29704
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters are concerned that the proposed DEIS will force dog owners to take
their dogs to other dog parks that are either unsafe, too small, or too confined for
their dogs.
LU3020AdjacentLands:ImpactstootherDogParks
320
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 269 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180873 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Without exercise, like humans, dogs will not only be
mentally challenged but curbing their natural instincts for exercise will make for
complicated gatherings at dogs parks already overrun and burdened with human
excrement and trash. I am speaking of the two parks (Duboce and Dolores) near my
house where it is not safe for my dog to play with other dogs.
Corr. ID: 3192 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203952 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a Native American, I respect the land of my ancestors,
and my family has lived in this part of Northern California for a thousand years.
This debate continues to remain a debate between the nature of the areas of concern
and what they are meant to serve. Pristine wilderness vs. multi-recreational urban
land.
I take my dog to Fort Funston every day for off leash exercise, and there is nowhere
else where she and I could renew our spirits than here. She or I could not be
confined to a dog park, and I could not bear to see the state of the "dog run" area
that the Preferred Alternative suggests after a few months.
This city has grown into an area of dog lovers and that won't change by re-thinking
the nature of these areas and pretending they are wilderness lands.
Please penalize those dog owners or walkers who walk their dogs irresponsibly
rather than punish all of us by taking away this critical land.
MB1100 - Muir Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29245
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Implementing the preferred alternative at Muir Beach will protect important natural
resources. The Big Lagoon, Redwood Creek and the riparian areas, and the species
living in these areas are impacted by dogs in these areas, even though dogs are
currently restricted.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 666 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181557 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are off leash where they shouldn't be. They are in the
Big Lagoon often, Redwood Creek and the riparian zone where they can impact
salmonid and frog species recovery. Dogs run after shorebirds, which are
disappearing at an alarming rate. Though I have observed all regulations, cleaned
up after my dog, (he doesn't chase anything) and kept him leashed in restricted
areas, I cannot condone the further permitting of dogs on Muir Beach. It has gotten
too impacting. However if dogs continue to be allowed at these beaches, the
responsibility lies on Park Service to provide better education and clarity about
where and why dogs are restricted.
Corr. ID: 4263 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209140 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the preferred Alternative to the Muir Beach
portion of the GGNRA Dog Management Plan.
The impact of dogs, especially off leash, to wildlife is real. There have been
virtually no shorebirds or other marine birds resting on Muir Beach (in the 16 years
in which I have lived in Muir Beach) except very early in the morning before dog
walkers arrive (very early on Saturdays, especially). Without dogs on the main
beach, there is a possibility of actual nesting of some shore species and those which
MB1100MuirBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
321
could nest in the front lagoon.
Concern ID: 29246
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative should be implemented to protect visitor experience. The
abundance of dogs off-leash detracts from the enjoyment of picnicking or being at
the beach. Dogs defecating especially affects the ability to enjoy being at Muir
Beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1066 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192188 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a Berkeley resident who frequently visits GGNRA
sites for hiking outings on weekends. I have been hiking and picnicking at Muir
Beach since 1978 and have seen many changes in that area over the decades.
Most disturbing to me is the overabundance of dogs off leash. I no longer feel
comfortable picnicking or even sitting on the sand, as I've watched too many dogs
urinate and defecate on the beach, with no owner in sight. Even when an owner is
responsibly monitoring their dog's behavior, there's not much an owner can do
when a dog has a loose bowel movement that cannot be picked up with a plastic
baggie and tossed in a garbage can.
In addition, dogs off leash are a danger to toddlers and small children.
Please restrict all off-leash dogs to special, fenced areas within the GGNRA. And
please make tiny, gem-like Muir Beach a completely dog-free area.
I support Alternative D of the Draft Dog Management Plan.
Concern ID: 29247
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative will enhance visitor safety. Some visitors are concerned
that off-leash dogs pose a safety threat to them and their children, citing examples
of dogs exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3548 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203409 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly prefer that the Marin Headlands Trails of
Tennessee Valley, Coastal Trail, Coyote Ridge and Miwok Trails exclude dogs.
I also strongly prefer that dogs not be allowed on Muir Beach, and that they be on
leash at Stinson Beach and/or the beach is divided into two sections, with one being
dogs allowed and one being dogs not allowed. This would need to be clearly posted
and enforced to ensure that dogs don't wander to the wrong side and that dog
owners understand the rules.
My stance comes as a result of several incidences over the years of dogs
approaching us in a threatening way. We have had the experience, on more than
one occasion, of off-leash dogs growling and baring their teeth and charging at us
and our on-leash dog who was not evoking a challenge. We have children and felt
that their safety was in immediate peril. One time on the Miwok Trail, I was
terrified, especially since the dog owner was claiming his dogs were nice, even
while they growled and charged at us. Many owners like him have claimed their
dogs are harmless, even as their dogs displayed behavior to the contrary, and they
refused to leash the dogs even though it was supposed to be an on-leash trail.
I feel that the on-leash rule almost never works, since no one is there to enforce it. I
cannot go on a relaxing hike if I have to be the one to contend with those who do
not respect the rules nor my right to feel secure.
On the main Tennessee Valley trail, where dogs are not allowed at all, I have never
MB1100MuirBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
322
had a problem and have only seen a dog once. It seems obvious that people will not
bring dogs if they are not allowed at all and this rule is clearly posted. But if the
rules are confusing or if they are more lenient, such as if on-leash is okay, then it
seems a majority of people will let their dogs off-leash, and perhaps just carry the
leash separately. I have seen this more times than not. If I politely ask them to put
their dog on a leash while they pass us, the response is typically that their dog is
harmless, and they would rather argue and defend their dog's character than to
comply with the rule and my request. It seems the only way to change this would
be to not allow dogs in those areas.
MB1200 - Muir Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29248
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative to only allow dogs in the parking lot at Muir Beach would
represent a major change from the historic use of this area. Dogs have been allowed
on Muir Beach for many years and this use should continue. In addition, the
preferred alternative is not logical. Commenters don't understand why visitors
would bring their dogs to Muir Beach only to be allowed to walk on-leash in the
parking lot. The alternative beach, Little Beach that the park recommends for dog
walking is not accessible without crossing the main beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 17 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181447 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a resident of Muir Beach, the proposed ban on dogs at
the beach is extremely upsetting to myself and most of the community. Dogs have
been permitted at Muir Beach since the formation of the GGNRA (with the
exception of a brief period that was soon overturned), so this is a distinct departure
via this proposed rule.
Corr. ID: 315 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181066 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please reconsider the plan for Muir Beach. It makes no
sense to allow dogs on-leash in the parking lot, then ban them from the beach. Why
would I take my dog to Muir Beach to walk him around the parking lot on-leash? I
take my dog to Muir Beach so he can run and play ball, he's a lab retriever. A dog
playing on the beach should be allowed off-leash and under voice control like mine
is. If you want to have a leash law in the parking lot, or on the trail to the beach, or
anywhere near the fresh water marsh-like area, I can see that, but banning dogs
from the beach for off-leash makes no sense. Your own report shows little to no
impact on the area one way or the other. Please stop trying to regulate what does
not need regulating.
Corr. ID: 1340 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195147 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative D is Not Viable
The preferred plan states that "off-leash dog walking can occur at a small beach
area on county property adjacent to the NPS beach". The area they refer to is called
"Little Beach" and it is not accessible without crossing the main beach or driving
along neighborhood private roads. Squeezing people over to that beach for use with
their dogs is not a reasonable alternative.
Corr. ID: 2163 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200559 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing my express my concern and opinion about the
ban of dogs on Muir Beach and the coastal trail, because this is the area I am
familiar with and will impact my daily life. I have grown up in Muir Beach since
1963 and I live there now. Muir beach has historically always been a "dog friendly"
MB1200MuirBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
323
area and should remain that way. The current dog management rules form the
GGNRA have been and are working fine
Corr. ID: 3152 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203793 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The data presented in the Draft Plan does not support
Alternative D being designated as the Preferred Alternative.The data presented in
the Draft Plan only supports Alternative Plan A, the No Action alternative.The data,
itself, however, is deeply flawed as is the methodology used in the Draft Plan as
regarding Muir Beach.Dogs have been allowed off-leash at Muir Beach for more
than 150 years.The Draft Plan does not provide any compelling reason why the
N
ational Park Service (NPS) should interfere with this long-standing right of the
people of Marin County to let their dogs enjoy the beach.If the Park Service has to
take action at Muir Beach, just restrict dogs to being on leash in the parking lot and
the boardwalk leading to the beach.Restrict dogs from being in Redwood Creek,
and if necessary, build better fences around the lagoon and the dune.And if there
times of the year when the presence of dogs threatens the breeding habitat of
migrating birds, then just prohibit the presence of dogs during that limited
period.You provide no data showing that any significant or permanent damage to
the ecosystem has occurred after more than 150 years of dogs running free and no
data showing an acceleration of damage in recent years.If the fencing is inadequate
to discourage dogs then just fix the fencing.There is no data supporting the
conclusion that nutrient addition from dog waste during the last 150 years at Muir
Beach has had a "long-term cumulative moderate adverse impact on the soil." If the
presence of dogs has not destroyed or damaged any "archeological resources" at
Muir Beach in the last 150 years, the desire to protect archeological resources does
not justify restricting dogs at Muir Beach.Heal the Bay's Summer Beach Report
Card 2010 gives North, Central and South Muir Beaches an A+ for water quality
for both dry and wet times of the year.There is no evidence that dogs have
permanently damaged the riparian vegetation in the last 150 years.But there is no
evidence that this is a problem at Muir Beach. Dogs run free at Muir
Beach;Redwood Creek has amphibians and reptiles.If there is a problem, then ban
dogs from Redwood Creek, not the beach.What has the affect been on the sea
mammal population?Let me save you the trouble of doing the research-there has
been no impact.There is no documentation that dogs have either directly or
indirectly affected the coho salmon in Redwood Creek.
Concern ID: 29249
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs should continue to be allowed at Muir Beach to ensure the safety of their
owners when exercising. Women and children visitors especially feel safer walking
alone when they have their dog(s) with them.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2192 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200587 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Of key importance is that our daughter routinely excercises
our dog in the area bordering our home in Mill Valley, the Marin Headlands, and
Muir Beach. This has been an incredible bonding experience for the two of them
and a wonderful way for my daughter to safely hike on her own or with her other
learning disabled friends. If the dog were not permitted to go with them, they would
not be allowed to go for safety reasons. Getting learning disabled kids to feel
motivated to venture into the world, let alone exercise independently, is a huge task
which would be impossible without dog access to the GGNRA in our area.
Concern ID: 29250
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs and people should be able to enjoy Muir Beach. Walking your dog or
allowing your dog to run off-leash at Muir Beach provides enjoyment to people and
MB1200MuirBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
324
dogs. Even visitors who don't have dogs enjoy seeing dogs play on the beach and
thus benefit from the experience. Commenters also stated that they have seen
children damage some of the natural resources in the area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 18 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181448 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs on Muir Beach are a wonderful thing. Having the
beach available as an area where off-lease dogs, under their owners control is
permissible should be preserved.Signage encouraging this would be appropriate as
well as additional pet waste collection bag dispensers.
Corr. ID: 49 Organization: resident of California/ member of
Sierra Club
Comment ID: 181782 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Muir Beach has always been a wonderful place to walk
and to play with my dogs. Owners are responsible for their dogs behavior, but the
opportunisty to run the shore, play catch and tease should NOT be taken away.
Corr. ID: 264 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180854 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On a nice weekend most of the playing in the creek mouth
is by children who often build dams (mostly boys) across the endangered salmon
habitat.
Corr. ID: 881 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190045 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am individual who is not a dog owner. However I enjoy
the dogs on the beach. I think it would be a shame to keep dogs off of Muir Beach.
Concern ID: 31818
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The suggestion of Little Beach as an alternative to Muir Beach for those with dogs
is not feasible. The road is not well equipped to handle traffic and parking, the
beach is not easily accessible, with the main access coming from Muir Beach,
which would be off-limits to dogs. The trail to the beach is rocky, and difficult to
use, especially at high tide. Little Beach lacks the necessary facilities for visitors.
Commenters mentioned that Little Beach is a nude beach, and they did not feel
comfortable taking their children there. In addition the location of Little Beach is
not identified on Map 26 and 27, Adjacent Dog Use Areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 264 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180851 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: From what I read in your EIS you are suggesting that
people and their dogs go to Little Beach! This is ludicrous. The road to and from
there (sunset way) is not equipped to handle any more traffic. It is basically a fire
road and needs to remain that way. There is no parking and what little there is on
the roadside is usually residential parking. There are no facilities at Little Beach
and during the winter months the beach is pretty much unusable as the sand washes
out and it becomes just another bit of rocky coastline.
Corr. ID: 284 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180974 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Little Beach is not accessible without crossing the main
beach or driving along neighborhood private streets. Most of the time, the rocks are
impassible because of surf and tides. There is NO PUBLIC PARKING
WHATSOEVER on Sunset Way or Pacific Way. Both roads are private, with no
shoulder parking and all spaces belong to homeowners. All lanes are fire lanes.
Extra and illegally parked cars would create a hazard for the surrounding
community in terms of blocking access to emergency vehicles.
Corr. ID: 1048 Organization: Not Specified
MB1200MuirBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
325
Comment ID: 192128 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Alternative document, in the section on Muir
Beach, says "Off-leash dog walking can occur at a small beach area on county
property adjacent to the NPS beach," however, that area does not seem to be
identified on Map 5 Muir Beach. Looking at that map, I have to assume it's the
southern-most end of the beach, the area outside of the green boundary line. If that
is the area, how is it to be accessible? The only allowable way out of the parking lot
(with a dog) as shown on the map is the Pacific Way Trail, which is "to be built."
The map doesn't show the path a dog-walker would have to take via the Pacific
Way Trail to reach the south end of the beach, but it appears it could be several
miles, which is hardly a practical option, especially for the elderly or handicapped.
So what is the proposed access method for this beach area with a dog? Boat?
Helicopter?
I've looked at Maps 26 27 Adjacent Dog Use Areas but I don't see the adjacent
county property identified on those maps either. Please let me know if I have
missed something. I look forward to clarification on this.
Corr. ID: 4257 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209178 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also wanted to add that I read in the DEIS that a part of
Muir Beach known as Little Beach would remain dog friendly. This alternative
would not work for us. My children at 7 and 10 and we do not go to Little Beach on
nice days because it's a nude beach and we've encountered too many inappropriate
things going on there. PLUS to expect that non-Muir Beach residents take their
dogs to Little Beach would not work. As the website
KeepMuirBeachDogFriendly.com states: Little Beach" is not accessible without
crossing the main beach or driving along neighborhood private roads. Most of the
time, the rocks are impassible because of surf and tides. The "social trail" from
Pacific Way to the north end of Big Beach is a steep, hazardous, rocky pathway,
with no handrails. There is no public parking on Sunset Way or Pacific Way. All
spaces are on private property. All lanes are fire lanes. Extra and illegally parked
cars would create a hazard for the surrounding community in terms of blocking
access to emergency vehicles. For those who would arrive on foot via the road,
there are no amenities or services for Little Beach. No trash cans. No toilets. In
addition, Little Beach oftentimes has no beach at all during the winter or at high
tide. Squeezing people over to that beach for use with their dogs is not a reasonable
alternative. Formally stating and implementing such a plan would require
appropriate impact studies and input from the surrounding community.
MB1300 - Muir Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29251
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Continue to allow dogs off-leash and select alternative A as the preferred
alternative.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 47 Organization: Muir Beach Community Service
District
Comment ID: 181779 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support continuing the access off leach under voice
control policy for dogs on Muir Beach.Many people use Muir beach for recreation
specifically because of the access under voice control policy.
Corr. ID: 181 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182293 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding the plans for Muir Beach, My preferred
alternative is Alternative A, which would require dogs to be on leash adjacent to
MB1300MuirBeach:DesireOtherAlternative
326
the environmentally sensitive areas, but would leave the beach available for voice
control.
Corr. ID: 201 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180611 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Muir Beach: I prefer Alternative A. I have been using this
beach for years to recreate with my dog and I see no problem with the current
practice of voice control on the beach.
Corr. ID: 1759 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191494 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: am writing simply to share my view that Muir Beach
should remain open to dog owners and their pets. I have been walking my two dogs
there for over 10 years and I have never had any issues with wildlife or with other
persons at this beach. Indeed, most beach goers seem to relish the presence of
j
oyful dogs.
I am also confused with how these rules interface with retrievers being in the water
at Muir Beach. Would this be off limits, too?
It seems such a shame to limit park use and exclude this happy & healthy form of
exercise which has been permitted for decades
Corr. ID: 1827 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191937 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly urge you to continue to use education rather than
segregation. I am a birdwatcher and a naturalist and appreciate the work that has
been done on the lagoon. I love to see the otters and look forward to a time when
the salmon are breeding. I do not feel that banning dogs from the entire beach is
necessary or warranted. Post more signs regarding the restoration of Redwood
Creek and its sensitive habitat clearly stating the rules. There are usually more
children than dogs playing in Redwood Creek. I support Map 5A which continues
off leash beach access for dogs and Map 7A which keeps the Coastal Fire Rd and
the Trail at Muir Beach open for dogs.
Concern ID: 29253
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters preferred alternative B as it allows dogs on the beach but protects the
sensitive resources since the dogs would be on-leash.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 466 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181750 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regading Muir Beach: Against Preferred Alternative D
The plan to remove all dog access to Muir Beach is not fair to those of us
responsible pet owners who have enjoyed taking our dogs there for years. At the
very least, alternatives B, C, or E should be implemented if the current usage has
been determined to be unacceptable to the environment.
I have no issues with keeping my dog on a leash if it is necessary, but telling me I
can't bring my dog is unfair
Corr. ID: 943 Organization: Muir Beach resident
Comment ID: 191493 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I don't agree with closing Muir Beach to dogs altogether. I
actually wouldn't object to allowing dogs on-leash if it is a viable alternative to
b
anning dogs altogether. Allowing dogs on leash would mitigate many of the safety
and habitat concerns that seem to be the main objections to allowing dogs in areas
that are both wildlife habitat and public recreation.
MB1300MuirBeach:DesireOtherAlternative
327
Corr. ID: 4265 Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209119 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MUIR BEACH. Alternative B, in which dogs would be on
leash, should be implemented for this area to protect sensitive habitat (tidal lagoon,
dunes, beach, and Redwood Creek) and associated wildlife from disturbance by
dogs.
Corr. ID: 4541 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209718 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I recognize the importance of the frog habitat and nesting
area for birds and the future Salmon and possibly steel head trout areas near the
wetland adjacent to Muir Beach. Given these sensitive areas I recommend that dogs
be restricted to on leash only at Muir Beach. I recognize that this is a major change
for the use at Muir Beach but the change has been taking place for years. Muir
Beach is transforming to a wonderful Natural Gem and we must respect the
sensitive nature of it. I do not thing it is appropriate for dogs to run off leash at
Muir beach because they will disrupt the shorebird population and frog population
that I suspect will return.
Concern ID: 29254
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters preferred alternative E as it protects the sensitive resources and still
allows dogs off-leash in a ROLA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 438 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181671 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I understand the reasons behind the preferred alternatives,
but dogs - and their owners - have the same rights to recreate in public areas too. I
was told by a park ranger that dogs were going to be banned from Muir beach
because of environmental concerns, especially for the creek restoration.
A more reasonable solution would be to let the dogs be off leash on the southern
part of the beach, and signage could be placed along the stream that specifically
bans dogs from that area.
Corr. ID: 1715 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191159 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: (3) Muir beach should protect the lagoon but provide
ROLA areas. Alt 5-E is more appropriate.
MB1400 - Muir Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29252
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Allow ROLAs at Muir Beach. Some suggested areas for ROLAs include
the southern portion of Muir Beach, the far northern portion of Muir Beach (near
the nude beach), with the area between for on-leash dog walking. Another
suggestion included a ¾ mile loop from the parking lot around the Middle Green
Gulch trail back to Pacific Way, the Pacific Way Trail and the parking lot.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181584 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Muir Beach (proposed Alternative D): Current proposal
prohibits dogs from Muir Beach, in interest of the lagoon. Instead, I propose off-
leash dog walking on the southern end of the beach, nearest the cliffs (opposite end
from the lagoon) and in the area (currently popular with nude sunbathers) below the
houses at the far northern end. On leash only on the rest of the beach, and no dogs
in the lagoon.
MB1400MuirBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
328
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203369 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: COMMENTS ON TWO SPECIFIC MARIN AREAS
Save Our Seashore generally supports GGNRA's Preferred Alternatives in Marin
County, but we believe that dog walking opportunities could be better balanced by
being less limited at Muir Beach and being more limited at Rodeo yet retaining off-
leash opportunities at both areas.
The Muir Beach Preferred Alternative totally eliminates the former off-leash zone
and replaces it with an on-leash Pacific Way trail that ends at the parking lot. We
suggest instead that Preferred Alternative include the currently-signed NPS on-
leash trail that completes a 3/4 mile loop from the parking lot around the Middle
Green Gulch trail back to Pacific Way, the Pacific Way Trail and the parking lot.
This loop runs on Green Gulch land that by informal agreement with NPS has long
allowed emergency vehicles, bikes and dogs, including off-leash. However, we
believe this loop was left off the "existing conditions" (Alternative A) because at
the time the DEIS was developed, GGNRA had not yet consummated its easement
with Green Gulch. Now that the easement is formal, the loop should be shown both
as existing and in our opinion as the Preferred Alternative. Including the fire road
portions of the loop as a ROLA would be consistent with Marin County Open
Space rules that allow off- leash use of Fire Roads and would create a largely off-
leash loop that would partially compensate dog walkers for the removal of the
public beach as an off-leash area (residents still have "Little Beach" as an option).
In our opinion, the topography of the road and the existing farm fences at Green
Gulch provide adequate "fencing" and visual notice of an off-leash area.
Concern ID: 29255
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Signage and Education - Additional signage clearly stating Muir Beach dog
walking regulations and consequences need to be installed preferably at the
footbridge to the beach. Signs educating visitors on restoration activities would
reduce visitors within the lagoon and creek.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 840 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209620 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do understand the need to keep unleashed dogs out of
restored areas, and I do practice precaution when I walk my dog off-leash at Muir
Beach. So, I do feel that I can continue to abide by the policies already in place at
this location. I would not visit the Beach if I could not allow my dog off-leash there.
It is the main reason I visit and support this area.
All that said, I am worried that some dog owners do not diligently abide by Muir
Beach policies, mainly because not enough clear, no-nonsense, uncompromising
signage is posted. Added or better signage, with posted consequences for non-
adherence, I feel would be enough to re-train the public in keeping their dogs out of
restored areas, if this in fact is a problem.
Corr. ID: 2120 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193396 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Clear signage as to prohibited areas at Muir Beach,
Redwood Creek and the Lagoon. A ticket or two to dog owners and families
playing, swimming, and daming the creek!
Corr. ID: 4543 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209795 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In response to the NPS Dog Management Preferred Plan,
we propose the following alternative plan:
MB1400MuirBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
329
- A dog litter bag dispenser and waste receptacle placed at the footbridge entrance
to the area. Like many dog-friendly parks throughout the Bay Area, this is an
effective way to encourage dog owners to pick up after their pets.
- Increased signage and education efforts provided by NPS so that all visitors to
these areas are aware of current rules and regulations
Specifically:
- a large sign at the footbridge entry to the beach which clearly defines beach rules
for all visitors.
- signs placed at the lagoon and creek areas which forbid swimming,
trampling on vegetation or disturbing wildlife in these areas
Concern ID: 29257
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Dogs should be kept on-leash in areas near sensitive resources to
protect the resources. Dogs on leash on the beach would also mitigate for some of
the safety concerns. Dogs should also be kept on-leash on the boardwalk leading to
the beach and within the parking lot.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1540 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190720 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Muir Beach & Dogs
Why not require dogs on leash in sensative areas
ex: keep away from creek at north end during salmon spawning and away from the
sensative areas for birds. Consider example of McClures Beach where birds' areas
protected during nesting season.
Corr. ID: 3152 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 226795 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If the Park Service has to take action at Muir Beach, just
restrict dogs to being on leash in the parking lot and the boardwalk leading to the
beach.
Concern ID: 30365
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time Restrictions - Create time intervals that would allow ROLAs on the beach.
Dogs could be restricted in early morning or on the weekends. Another suggestion
included alternating days that ROLAs would be allowed. In addition, limit dog
walking during breeding seasons of salmon and migrating birds.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1632 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 223785 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is my understanding that Redwood Creek, which empties
into Muir Beach, provides spawning access to salmon and steelhead in winter
months. If it is concluded that dogs interfere with this access, ban dogs entirely for
the spawning months and open the beach to dogs the rest of the year. This all-or-
nothing plan would be easy to enforce and would be easily understood by dog
owners.
Corr. ID: 2011 Organization: Ocean Riders of Marin
Comment ID: 219036 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Possible limitations such as weekend exclusion or
mornings only (no dogs); or alternate days for families who have children who fear
dogs. If dog owners are given the opportunity to monitor and educate each other to
keep the privilege of dogs on the beach some of the Park Service concerns might be
addressed. If it doesn't work, then the natural consequences would be to move to the
next step. At least you've given them an opportunity.
Corr. ID: 2126 Organization: Not Specified
MB1400MuirBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
330
Comment ID: 193411 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MuBe- Off leash ROLA hours-
example: Before 11:00 AM and/or weekends.
Concern ID: 30367
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA Size - The ROLA proposed in alternative E is too small and should be
increased in size to decrease the risk of conflicts between dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 133 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182231 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed ROLA at Muir Beach is far too limited in
size - dogs tend to have issues with each other in more confined spaces. The size of
the beach prevents too many dogs from being in one place. I can see a problem with
dogs being off leash on the busiest of weekend days, when space is at a premium
Concern ID: 30369
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Fencing - A fenced area for off-leash dog walking should be provided on Muir
Beach. A barrier should also be located along the sand dunes from the bridge to the
creek outlet. Providing fencing will protect the natural resources at the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1979 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193154 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Muir Beach a long time open ocean area - BUT so much
time, energy + planning has gone into lagoon restoration & visitors are often folks
who - not like most Marin residents - let dogs run free + they chase + destroy
ground bird species.
Have a fenced beach area so dogs may run free. Plan a budget for "policing of the
very few who abuse all areas. It makes sense to have closures during Breeding
season - nests disruption a real problem. But you will need education about
ecosystem - fines not as effective as "perhaps" volunteer guardians or GGNRA
personnel.
Corr. ID: 2011 Organization: Ocean Riders of Marin
Comment ID: 200522 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Muir Beach: I would like to see the following: Dogs on
leash in parking lot until they get to the open beach; barrier from bridge to the creek
outlet along the sand dune protection area on beach side of the creek; doggy
disposal baggies at the boardwalk crossing in parking lot; No dogs in creek (as is
now the law);
Corr. ID: 3152 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 226797 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And if there times of the year when the presence of dogs
threatens the breeding habitat of migrating birds, then just prohibit the presence of
dogs during that limited period. The East Bay Regional Park Service can
successfully do this.
Corr. ID: 3152 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 226796 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Restrict dogs from being in Redwood Creek, and if
necessary, build better fences around the lagoon and the dune. The purpose of such
fences would not be to ensure no dog ever enters an area where it does not belong;
the purpose would be to ensure there are not so many dogs in the area as to cause
irreparable harm.
MH1100 - Marin Headlands: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29224
MH1100MarinHeadlands:SupportPreferredAlternative
331
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the restrictions to dogs under the preferred alternative since it
would reduce visitor use conflicts (i.e., running, wildlife photography), protect
wildlife and their habitat, and enforce the prohibition of dogs within Tennessee
Valley.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2117 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193386 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a runner the Marin Headlands preferred alternative is
fine.
Corr. ID: 2172 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200596 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am not clear about Tenn. Valley and its tributary trails to
the north (e.g. Foxx). Per Map 7, none of these permit dogs. If that is the case, I
support this! Tenn Valley has become an off-leash dog walk, with signs prohibiting
routinely ignored. Dogs run over the trail shoulders and on the beach, chasing birds.
Let me urge a separate map for Tenn Valley to make this absolutely clear. Tenn
Valley is popular with visitors from afar (judging from license plates and car
stickers); maybe less so for local residents?; I'm speculating a lot of dogs in Tenn
Valley come with occasional visitors who don't think rules apply to them.
Corr. ID: 4265 Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209120 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MARIN HEADLANDS TRAILS. Alternative C appears to
protect wildlife by removing dogs from some trails and allowing leashed dogs on
other trails.
Some areas of the Marin Headlands should be protected from dogs because of the
value of the Marin Headlands to bobcats. In addition, the habitat of the endangered
Mission blue butterfly should be protected by excluding dogs or restricting access
to dogs on leashes.
MH1200 - Marin Headlands: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29225
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The Preferred Alternative creates safety issues by restricting dogs from some of the
trails; some commenters do not feel safe while hiking without their dog.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 973 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191668 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Coastal Trail:
I fail to understand how a dog on leash causes any problem. There are so few
places someone can hike with a dog. Why remove yet another? I'm a woman and I
often hike alone with my dog. I don't hike on any trails without my dog because it's
so isolated in many places that I don't feel safe. My dog is my protection. You have
removed most of the Headlands from me. Please don't take one of the last trails left
to me.
Concern ID: 29226
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The Preferred Alternative interferes with the visitor experience at the Marin
Headlands. It prevents visitors with dogs from views of the ocean and the San
Francisco Bridge. Commenters also believe that it reduces the amount of trails
currently available to hikers with dogs and does not allow for a long loop
experience. The preferred alternative does not accomodate viistors without cars. In
addition, the preferred alternative does not allow off-leash dog walking, a concern
to visitors who prefer to walk their dogs off leash.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 990 Organization: My own organization
Comment ID: 191706 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
MH1200MarinHeadlands:OpposePreferredAlternative
332
Representative Quote: Don't deplete the few trails that you already have open to
us with dogs. We only visit the Marin Headlands because there are trails available
to dogs, and removing the trails close to the water means that we will be stuck on
trails with no view of the ocean and the SF Golden Gate Bridge. HOW ABOUT
YOU OPEN UP EVEN MORE TRAILS TO THE DOGS!!!!
Corr. ID: 992 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191708 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Marin Headlands is one of those great parks that allows
dogs and it would be a shame if the limited amount of trails that dogs are allowed
on is further reduced. Owning a dog means that when I go hiking, my dog comes
with me. The only reason that I visit Marin Headlands is because it allows dogs. I
will not return to the headlands in the future if trail access for dogs is diminished.
Corr. ID: 1949 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192691 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The opportunity to go on the Coastal Trail give me the
opportunity to practice commands, meet other resposible dog owners, and allow my
dog to run (under voice control). Not having a car, I cannot drive my dog to a dog
park that would be large enough to allow him some freedom and not be confronted
by too many dogs in one small fenced-in area. Keep the Coastal Trail ROLA,
please!
Corr. ID: 2124 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193405 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Marin Headlands. For years we have walked our dogs
on leash up wolf ridge to hill 88. We love to share these beautiful views and spaces
w/our dogs. Please don't limit us to the lower reaches of the headlands. It seems
that existing trails are able to accomodate dogs w/o a negative impact on the flora
and fauna.
Concern ID: 29227
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that the Miwok trail should be closed to dogs since they
believe it is an underused trail.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 941 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191458 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Another example -- the Miwok trail in the Marin
Headlines. But why forbid all dog access on this impressive and underused trail? I
have walked the length of that trail and seen hardly one other trail user. What is
forbidding on-leash dogs achieving here? It simply makes no sense.
Concern ID: 29228
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose the preferred alternative because they do not believe that on-
leash dog walking would negatively impact wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Commenters believe that the additional limits on trail access is not based on or
supported by sound science or any long-term monitoring of the sites.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1639 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200219 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As someone who takes great pleasure in hiking the Marin
Headlands Trails with my dog (a dog who is voice-control trained), I do not
understand in what way on-leash walking on the Coastal Trail would negatively
impact habitat.
Corr. ID: 4533 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209695 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also strongly disagree with other limitations that would
be placed on dog access at Crissy Field and Rodeo Beach in particular. The
MH1200MarinHeadlands:OpposePreferredAlternative
333
additional limits on access in the grassy area, East Beach, West Beach and the paths
to the Central Beach at Crissy Field, as well as in the Marin Headlands, especially
along Wolf Ridge, are untenable and don't appear to be based on or supported by
sound science or any long-term monitoring of the sites. How is it that walking a
dog on leash along Wolf Ridge has a more negative impact than people walking
along the trail, assuming regulations (such as picking up after a pet and not
harassing wildlife) are followed? The Plan/DEIS needs to be revised to include real
science-based information taken from long-term monitoring of the sites that is
conclusive regarding negative impacts before restrictions on recreation with dogs
are suggested or imposed. In addition, the limitations placed on the grassy area of
Crissy Field in connection with events needs should not be open ended. As written,
the GGNRA could potentially always have events planned in the area and the
grassy field can, effectively, always be off limits to people with dogs. There should
be limits placed on the number and frequency of the events if they are to cause
limits on access with dogs.
MH1300 - Marin Headlands: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29229
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support alternative A for the preferred alternative for the Marin
Headlands. It is the only alternative that allows the visitor to have a long loop trail
experience with their dog. The existing off-leash dog walking areas should continue
to be available to dogs and their responsible owners. The commenters believe that
the environmental impacts of dogs to protected butterflies in not evidence-based;
therefore there is no reason to change the trail options at the Marin Headlands.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3827 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209294 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would also strongly suggest incrementally less restriction
on dogs on Marin headlands trails. The potential environmental damage to the
environment of leased dogs on these trails to protected butterflies is not evidence-
based and is likely completely unrealistic. As such, I strongly suggest adopting
alternative A or E at this site as well.
Concern ID: 29230
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support alternative D because it provides the most protection of
natural resources and a high level of visitor safety.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3912 Organization: Alto Bowl Horseowners Association
Comment ID: 205586 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: We believe it's very reasonable that "resource protection"
and "visitor safety" should have highest priority in any plan, yet the NPS preferred
alternatives for all Marin sites except Muir Beach appear to compromise those
obligations in order to enable "multiple use" for the purpose of dog walking. We
strongly suggest that alternative "D" is the most appropriate alternative for all
Marin sites, providing strong protection of natural resources and a high level of
visitor safety.
MH1400 - Marin Headlands: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29231
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Enforcement - NPS should continue to allow off-leash dog walking; however, if an
owner is not responsible in adhering to the rules then they should be ticketed and
fined at a high monetary penalty.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 628 Organization: Not Specified
MH1400MarinHeadlands:SuggestChangeinAlternative
334
Comment ID: 181311 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My suggestion for Rodeo Beach and the Marin Headlands
(it is where I frequent and am most familiar) is to continue to allow dogs to be off
lease and under voice control. However, if an owner is not responsible in adhering
to the concerns/rules of the Park, then they should be ticketed and fined at a high
monetary penalty to serve as a deterrent.
Concern ID: 29232
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - NPS should allow off-leash dog walking on the Coastal Trail and on-leash
dog walking on the other trails. The preference is to keep a long loop trail open to
off-leash dog walking and to create as many loops as possible with fewer dead-end
trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 85 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181892 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Marin Headlands / Rodeo Beach
The preferred alternative massively reduces the trail available for hikers with a dog.
We often complete the loop up the coastal trail to Hill 88 and then down Wolf
Ridge / Miwok to return to Rodeo Beach. The trails are rarely crowded and a well
behaved dog has no more impact than a person. The Hill 88 loop should be kept
open to off-leash dogs. The preferred alternative for Rodeo Beach is acceptable.
Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181585 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Marin Headlands (proposed Alternative C): The current
GGNRA proposal bans dogs from the Coastal Trail, which is the only trail (away
from the parking lot/traffic) that currently allows dogs. Instead, dogs should be
allowed off-leash on the Coastal Trail, on leash on the other mentioned trails, and
off leash on Rodeo Beach. It does not seem logical that the Coastal Trail should
remain a bike trail (nebulous under state traffic laws, more detrimental to sensitive
habitat than dogs) but disallow dogs.
Corr. ID: 3934 Organization: 3rd Supervisorial District of the County
of Marin
Comment ID: 205853 Organization Type: County Government
Representative Quote: Marin Headlands: Again, we would like to suggest that as
many loops be created as possible with fewer dead-end trails. It would certainly be
acceptable to have both off-leash and on-leash areas, but it seems that dogs on leash
should be allowed on sidewalks and roads. For instance, the intersection of the
Rodeo Valley Trail could be connected at McCullough to the Coastal Trail, which
would provide a great deal of variety and options for trail choice
Concern ID: 30389
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Commenters suggested opening other trails to on-leash dog walking
such as Wolf Ridge Trail, Coastal Trail, Coyote Ridge Trail, and Miwok Fire Road.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1340 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195151 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The preferred alternative would eliminate dog access to the
Coastal Fire Road and Trail adjacent to Muir Beach.
As it stands, these are the only remaining trails from Muir Beach that are open to
dogs. For women who hike alone, this new rule presents a serious safety concern.
In addition, we believe that there should be a legal way for a person to walk
between Muir Beach and the
nearest community, Mill Valley. Currently, there is no continuous trail that allows
this access with a dog. Adding a dog-friendly access of the Coyote Ridge Trail to
MH1400MarinHeadlands:SuggestChangeinAlternative
335
Miwok Fire Road would allow hikers with dogs to cross from
Muir Beach into Mill Valley.
Corr. ID: 1820 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191914 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to you regarding the Dog Management Draft
Plan/DEIS for Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I am requesting that you
consider revising your recommendations to continue to allow on-leash dogs on the
following Marin Headlands Trails: Coastal Trail (Hill 88 to Muir Beach) and
(Golden Gate Bridge to Hill 88, including Lagoon Trail), Coastal, Wolf Ridge,
Miwok Loop, South Rodeo Beach Trail, North Miwok Trail (from Tennessee
Valley to Highway 1) and County View Trail.
I walk on those trails frequently with my dog and those hikes are an integral part of
my life. Those traits are generally not crowded and there is a good mix of people
with dogs and people walking without dogs. I have never encountered any
problems between people and dogs, nor have I seen dogs chasing birds or
disrupting the environment
Concern ID: 31553
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
All trails currently available to dogs should be provided as on-leash trails, as there
has been damage to resources at the site. The Coastal trail to Miwok trail and the
Julian Road extension east should also be added as on-leash areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4687 Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
Open Space
Comment ID: 227456 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: New restrictions in the Marin Headlands surely will result
in significant impacts of displacement to county parks. The Headlands trails that
are currently open to off leash use (as shown in alternative A) constitute the
quintessential Marin County trails experience. These trails are beloved by all,
including those who recreate with their dogs. The county acknowledges that current
impacts to resources warrant management changes. If the same trails depicted as
off leash in alternative A were made leash-required, these impacts could be minor.
The draft EIS analysis of impacts to the Marin Headlands trails does not
conclusively indicate closure of these trails to dogs. It does support requiring
leashes. The county wonders if the feasibility of achieving compliance with a leash
rule dictated the decision to choose closure of the loop of the Coastal Trail to Wolf
Trail to Miwok Trail. We urge GGNRA to give further consideration to adding this
loop and the Julian Road (Coastal Trail) extension east to the leash-required
inventory. Perhaps additional outreach and rigor of enforcement could help to
underscore the importance of reducing resource impacts in this iconic area.
MP1100 - Mori Point: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29269
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters supported the preferred alternative. They felt the preferred alternative
includes areas and trails for both visitors who enjoy dogs and those who are seeking
a no-dog experience. In addition, the preferred alternative allows for adequate
protection of sensitive natural resources.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4265 Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209128 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MORI POINT. Dogs should be restricted to leashes on the
Coastal Trail, Old Mori Point Road, and beach within GGNRA boundary to protect
sensitive native grassland habitat and habitat of the California red-legged frog and
San Francisco garter snake.
MP1100MoriPoint:SupportPreferredAlternative
336
Corr. ID: 4354 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209531 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MORI POINT
On a Sunday morning with changeable weather there were fewer people on Mori
Point than I have seen on previous weekday and Saturday visits. I saw the great
progress in native plant restoration and trails since my most recent visit last fall.
Mori Point is a poster child for the encouragement of park stakeholders through
community activism. Many of the plantings on Old Mori Road are obviously just
taking hold.
There is some fencing but many of those plantings and the natural areas behind
them as well as the ponds cannot be well protected from off-leash dogs.
When I paid a subsequent visit on a sunny Sunday afternoon, the situation was
about the same except that there were more people and dogs. In general, the people
with dogs paid attention to the behavior of their animals. I saw only small
incursions into habitat. But I think dogs have to be leashed along Old Mori Road.
About half the dogs I saw were on leash. It is evident why they should be on leash
on the Old Mori Road and the Coastal Trail and why they particularly should not be
allowed on the Headlands Trail which is already beaten down just by human
visitors. In the Preferred Alternative three trail segments have no dogs which
should provide a good alternative experience for those who do not wish to
encounter them.
I endorse the Preferred Alternative.
MP1200 - Mori Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29273
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The restriction of dogs to fewer trails at Mori Point is confusing, and the removal o
f
leashed dogs from certain trails did not seem justified. Restricting dog walking
would impact property values in Fairway Park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 591 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182142 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fairway Park, by my most recent estimate, includes more
than 40 dog owners many of whom frequently use Mori Point to walk their dogs.
Unfortunately, I now feel my use of this space is threatened by a preferred policy
which restricts on leash dogs to 2 trails passing through the space only. This policy
is very confusing based on the environmental reviews on your website which state
little to no impact on habitat by leashed dogs. Further confusing this preferred
policy is the fact that trails which allow dogs on leash are all within 100-200 feet of
trails which prohibit dogs even though they share the same watersheds and natural
features.
Corr. ID: 941 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191455 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For example, consider the Bluff Trail at Mori Point. This
trail is heavily disturbed by generations of human impact. It is littered with concrete
debris from various military installations, many covered with graffiti. Invasive
species of ground cover are rife. The trail is short and leads directly away from park
property. The trail is extensively used by current dog walkers as a way to complete
an easy loop back into Pacifica property. No alternative exists for this loop. There
MP1200MoriPoint:OpposePreferredAlternative
337
are simply no environmental grounds for excluding dogs from this trail. However it
appears that since the "Preferred Alternative" is simply to exclude all dogs
wherever possible then with a stroke of a pen all dogs will be excluded. Why? That
is entirely against the mandate of the Park Service. Have the authors of the report
even visited the site? I would happily show then the widespread, long term, and
ongoing human (not canine!) disturbance to the site if they actually want some hard
facts to add into the report. But instead the authors just seem to follow the
unbalanced agenda of canine restrictions at any costs.
Corr. ID: 1724 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191176 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To restrict dogs from certain trails in Mori Point would (in
my opinion) negatively impact the property values in Fairway Park.
Corr. ID: 1787 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200269 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My comments will be specifically in regards to the Mori
Point. Imagine my shock, when I learned that I might be barred from walking my
dog down Polliwog Path, a trail that backs up to a row of homes, many with dogs.
How could my dog on a leash be a greater threat to the area than that of a dog
inside a fence, just inches away? Truthfully, I feel that my dog poses less danger. I
know where she is at all times on the trail. The dogs in the backyards might break,
dig under or jump their fences, and be loose for hours while their owners are at
work.
I was also dismayed to read that certain other trails and areas at Mori Point could be
designated dog-free. I began to think of how it could negatively impact the value of
my property! Every time a home in our neighborhood comes up for sale, the
description mentions the nearness of the GGNRA. Of course, that is a GGNRA
without dog restriction.
I know that one goal of the Dog Plan is to reduce confusion. It is my opinion that
allowing dogs on some parts of Mori Point, but not others, will only add to the
confusion.
Concern ID: 29275
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative would make access for disabled visitors more difficult,
and would crowd visitors to Mori Point into fewer trails, which may end in
conflicts between users. Additionally, visitors who were seeking a more rugged
experience would not be accommodated with the loss of trails under the preferred
alternative.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1276 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194996 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Cutting off Mori Point and the area by the waster water
treatment is unacceptable. This is a lovely area where we take him several times a
week. Happy dogs are exercised ones. They are less barky and are well socialized.
Dogs are meant to run! If we limit where we can take our dogs(EVEN MORE!)
then we will have more problems b/c those areas will become so crowded that there
will be more incidents of aggression.
Corr. ID: 1702 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191120 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mori Point- keep Plan A - all trails open to leashed dogs.
Proposed plan forces dogs onto trails most used by elderly + small children (low,
flat) - and denies access to longer, more rugged trails needed for dog exercise.
Corr. ID: 3051 Organization: Not Specified
MP1200MoriPoint:OpposePreferredAlternative
338
Comment ID: 201211 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The new rulings by the GGNRA regarding limiting
friendly dogs and their responsible owners is outrageous and without merit... It is
too restricitive! I speak for everyone, esp. disabled seniors...who are very limited as
to where they can access
recreation areas and get exercise.
Very specfically....do not take away The Mori Point walk-way from our Pacifica
Pier, and the off-leash areas of Fort Funston and The Great Highway in S.F. These
are only truly accessible for the handicapped, who also need freedom, recreation
rights and access without parking hassels and increased stress.
Corr. ID: 3726 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202345 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA draft dog management
plan alternatives that further restrict or ban dogs in open spaces.
1) Mori Point in Pacifica. The work GGNRA has been doing in this park has been
fabulous. Though you've cut out some of the trails we used to walk on, what you've
done has made the park more accessible to more people (instead of my secret
almost private place, which I do admittedly miss). However, the plans to close off
upper Mori Trail and Lishumash trail are ill-advised. These trails provide a more
rugged experience that dogs and owners need, move us away from people with
little kids and strollers, and give people more exercise and dogs more places to
sniff, without harming the vegetation or affecting wildlife. Your draft plan also cuts
off all access to the Headlands, which is odd and unfair. It prevents us from the
longer walks along the cliffs heading south, and from meeting up with the trail that
leads to the Quarry, both popular and beautiful walks. Furthermore, the plan to
close off the trail that leads north from lower Mori Road just before we reach the
new ponds (this path fronts backyards), will cut off easy access from the entire
neighborhood. I meet many elderly people, people in wheelchairs or with canes,
and people with young kids who enter the park through this trail. Closing it off will
cause all the people who live there to either have a much longer walk to the main
entrance by the Moose Lodge, or they will have to drive there, increasing parking
congestion amid much more inconvenience.
Corr. ID: 3781 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205172 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk from private property to less used trails at Mori
Point, trails that will not be open to dogs in the Preferred Alternative. I object to the
changes at Mori Point. Dog walking on less used paths reduces interactions
between people who don't like dogs and dogs. Your trail eliminations at Mori Point
forces everyone, regardless of their specific use, to use the same single path
regardless of their activity. If you were concerned with recreational uses and
reducing conflicts, more paths would reduce potential conflicts.
I am also concerned that unlabeled paths currently at Mori Point and marked for
"Realignment" will be eliminated. I hope "Realignment" is not Park-Speak for
remove.
Concern ID: 29277
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters did not support the preferred alternative as they felt that limiting the
trail access would result in issues with enforcement.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3360 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203042 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As resident of Fairway Park, and a concerned citizen and
responsible dog owner, I am compelled to comment on the ill-conceived preferred
MP1200MoriPoint:OpposePreferredAlternative
339
dog policy for Mori Point as outlined on your website.
As many of my neighbors, part of my decision on choosing to live in Fairway Park
was based on the proximity to open space, now GGNRA, Mori Point. I have
walked my dog here on leash for 9 years, collected trash and reported illegal
activity on this land to authorities on several occasions. These incidents have
included off road vehicles and a dog attack by an uncontrolled, off leash dog. As
encouraged by multiple GGNRA signs, I consider myself a steward of this land and
most of my neighbors act in the same way. Fairway Park, by my most recent
estimate, includes more than 40 dog owners many of whom frequently use Mori
Point to walk their dogs. Unfortunately, I now feel my use of this space is
threatened by a preferred policy which restricts on leash dogs to 2 trails passing
through the space only. This policy is very confusing based on the environmental
reviews on your website which state little to no impact on habitat by leashed dogs.
Further confusing this preferred policy is the fact that trails which allow dogs on
leash are all within 100-200 feet of trails which prohibit dogs even though they
share the same watersheds and natural features.
Mori Point is bordered by the old quarry, Fairway Park neighborhood, Sharp Park
Golf Course and beach promenade making it a multi-use recreational area, not a
wilderness area. Restricting leashed dogs within Mori Point will likely not be well-
accepted, making the regulation a difficult one to enforce. The enforcement plan of
going to even more restrictive policy based on compliance rate of less than 75% is
b
ackward. If a regulation is not acceptable to a large percentage of people using the
space, it is the regulation, not the people who are misguided. If dog policy is seen
as inappropriate by many users, the land and habitat could be further damaged by
people using the space during off hours.
Corr. ID: 3489 Organization: Sierra Club
Comment ID: 203343 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to add my concern about restricting leashed
dogs on Mori Point.
Our daughter lives in Fairway Park and we have taken walks with their dog for
about nine years.
Open space is hard to come by near a city. Many people have dogs and will be
expected to bring them to an open space.
Requiring dogs to be on a leash is certainly reasonable and enforcement can be
expected to be met with good will by most people.
An arbitrary rule restricting leashed dogs to only two paths is just asking for
enforcement problems.
R
esponse: Lessening the dog walking privileges at Mori Point would negatively impact the
enjoyment of visitors and residents at Mori Point, where people are already
respectful of each other and the environment.
Concern ID: 31362
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
At Mori Point visitors are respectful of each other and the environment, and
limitation of the current dog walking privileges would have a negative impact on
the enjoyment of visitors at Mori Point.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3436 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203237 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please continue to allow us to enjoy our home, our trails,
the beauty of the ocean and environment and allow us to take walks with our
children and our dogs, our family. My family enjoys walking the trails in Mori
MP1200MoriPoint:OpposePreferredAlternative
340
Point, we often take our children and our dog. We enjoy the ocean, flowers,
exercise and meeting our friends and strangers alike on the trail. We are respectful
of the space, pick up any trash we see, stay on the trails and encourage others to do
so. Taking away that privilege for our dogs will seriously impact the way we enjoy
the space, exercise and our quality of life here in Pacifica.
MP1300 - Mori Point: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29276
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs should be banned from Mori Point (alternative D) because of the impact they
have on animals and plants in the area. Commenters had seen dogs chasing birds
and digging up plants.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1159 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193463 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mori Point also needs rules banning dogs or requiring dogs
to be on-leash. Dogs routinely chase migrating birds and shore birds on the beach
and along the trails above the newly constructed stairs. On many ocassiosn I'ev
seen dogs digging up the wildflowrs out on the point above the stirs at Mori Point.
Corr. ID: 1238 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194897 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I love dogs, but I support prohibiting them completely
from Mori Point. As someone who witnesses the heart-breaking impact of dog-
owners on the very few areas where wild animals and plants can exist, I beseech the
GGNRA to prohibit dogs from Mori Point.
Corr. ID: 3927 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205768 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Since the leash law is not or cannot be enforced at Milagra
Ridge and Mori Point parks I support an alternative to the leash law that prohibits
dogs from these parks, and designates space within the north San Mateo park
system that allows free-running dogs in an area which will not adversely impact
safe and enjoyable use by all people, and will not cause damage to native
environments. I would think the issues I've experienced are not specific to just the
above mentioned two parks and so think this alternative should apply to other parks
as well, but I can only speak from personal experience at these two.
Concern ID: 29278
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support alternative E and feel that dog walking issues should be
resolved by enforcement.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1131 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192446 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I don't think any additional rules are required, and the
problems perceived could be solved simply by enforcing the current rules. I would
prefer options A or E for Sweeney ridge, Mori Point, and Milagra Ridge.
Concern ID: 29279
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters supported Alternative A as they wanted to retain current on-leash
walking areas at Mori Point. They felt having access to current trails was beneficial
to their experience at the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 821 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186095 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: FOR MORI POINT, Pacifica.I prefer Alternative A (on-
leash walking for all developed trails) to the current preferred alternative. The Park
MP1300MoriPoint:DesireOtherAlternative
341
Service preferred alternative seems to allow dogs in the most sensitive habitat (frog
ponds) while prohibiting them from being walked on some of the less-used hill
trails and also the Pollywog Path which runs along the back fence of Fairway Park
residences, and is used very frequently for access by residents of that
neighborhood.There also does not seem to be any useful purpose served by
preventing leashed dogs from using Upper Mori Trail, Lishumsa Trail, the
Headlands Trail, or the Bluff Grail-- all of which are quite far from the ponds &
protected habitat. and also areas less likely to be used by families with small
children or elderly visitors, as they are comparatively more rugged with a steep
upgrade.
I would note that I see no problem with closing the Bootlegger's Steps to dogs.
Dogs don't need stairs and that particular path is more often frequented by new and
infrequent visitors to the park rather than those who regularly walk their dogs in the
area.
Corr. ID: 1724 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191175 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My main area of concern is Mori Point, because I live in
Fairway Park. The availability of the trails as they are (Alt. A) is my strong choice.
I walk one dog nearly every day, and access via Pollywog Path. My dog is always
leashed.
Corr. ID: 3111 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201517 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I regularly use the trails of Mori Point and find the status
quo quite satisfactory. Dog owners are generally VERY responsible and problems
are rare. There seems to be a synergy in the area between human use (including
people with dogs) and efforts to plan native native plant species and remove
invasives. I see no need for any change, especially to a policy that will not allow
even leashed-dogs on many of the trails.
Corr. ID: 4118 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208516 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MORI POINT - I support Alternative A, No Action (in
harmony with 1979 Pet Policy). I have walked all areas of Mori Point for almost 15
years. Never in that time have I been impacted in my enjoymen
t
of the area by
individuals with on leash dogs. Watching dogs enjoy the area along with their
caretakers has increased my enjoyment of the area. (I do not support off leash dog
walking along the more popular trails, as I have on occasion observed unleashed
dogs running through the brush including areas that are sensitive to other wildlife.)
MP1400 - Mori Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29271
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Mori Point should be open to off-leash dog walking, or should include
areas for off-leash dog walking, such as west of Moose Lodge and an area adjacent
to the beach. If this site was open to off-leash dog walking, residents would not
need to drive elsewhere to walk their dogs. Additionally visitors did not feel their
safety or experience was compromised by off-leash dogs at this site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 698 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182688 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding Mori Point dog walking.
I'd like to suggest using two (2) areas for "off leash" walking.
First site: Approximately 100 yards WEST from the Moose Lodge there is a small
bowl (approx 3 acres) located between the service road/trail and upper hiking trail.
That bowl would allow off leash dog walking away from the main park
MP1400MoriPoint:SuggestChangeinAlternative
342
habitat/trails.
Second site: Far west, adjacent to the beach, at the SOUTH end of the berm there is
a small grove of Cypress trees (approx 1 acre). This site would require some
fencing, but it would serve the off leash dog walking community well.
Corr. ID: 1258 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194956 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would love to ask GGNRA to please consider leave Mori
Point to be the open park for dogs so, they can run free and get good exercise and
besides this park used to be open space for all the dogs and never have any
regulation before. Please re-consider to keep this park to be the open park specially
for the residence that live around Mori Point so we do not have to drive somewhere
else to take our dog for walk.
Corr. ID: 1739 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191195 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mori Point was bought by Pacifica residents through the
Pacifica land trust, at considerable expense, funded by donations - and given to the
Park Service with the expectation of preserving existing use.
The proposed plan takes away what we fought so hard to save.
Keep ALL Mori Point trails open to leashed dogs.
Consider also creating some off-leash areas at teh top of the ridge.
Corr. ID: 3630 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204113 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to strongly urge you to continue to allow off-
leash dogs in the GGNRA properties of Sweeney Ridge and Mori Point in Pacifica,
CA.I understand that the GGNRA typically requires on-leash dogs for the sake of
safety. I can attest that in the 4 years I have lived in Pacifica, and in the two weeks
that I have been running my dog off-leash, I have never encountered a malicious,
out-of-control dog. The high ratio of open space to people ensures that I don't
encounter more than 10 dogs while out running in a 1-hour time period. I feel that
this helps to limit any negative, defensive behavior that one might see at other areas
(such as Fort Funston). Furthermore, I have never seen handlers with packs of large
dogs (Pits, Rotweilers, etc...) using the GGNRA properties in Pacifica to
exercise/parade their dogs. I have never felt like my safety was ever compromised
in Pacifica due to an off-leash dog. PLEASE continue to allow off-leash dogs in
Pacifica GGNRA properties!
Corr. ID: 4640 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227729 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Park Unit: Mori Point
Voice Control: All other trails
On Leash: On the trails surrounding the frog ponds and along city traffic routes
N
o Dogs: No Dogs None
N
earby San Pedro Valley Park does not allow any dogs.
The adjacent Sharp Park and Rockaway Beach trails all have a high concentration
of
voice control dogs and all these areas have traditionally been under voice control.
So it would be difficult for someone to get a no dog experience even if these trails
were designated as no dog.
Concern ID: 29272
CONCERN On-Leash - Commenters expressed a desire to keep Pollywog path, bootlegger's
MP1400MoriPoint:SuggestChangeinAlternative
343
S
TATEMENT: steps, headlands trail, Lishumsha, and other areas open to on-leash dogs. They felt
impacts to the nearby pond habitats were not significant enough to warrant limiting
dogs on the trail, and that safety was improved at the site by maintaining access to
these trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 752 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 185428 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Bootleggers Steps are man made (earth moved, vegetation
removed, wildlife disturbed in the process) and a dog using them would cause no
additional harm. I climb those steps every weekend with my dog and closing those
steps to our use would negatively impact my experience. Please change the plan for
Mori Point to allow use of all trails and Bootleggers Steps to dog walkers
Corr. ID: 1706 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191130 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Mori Point: First thank you for the excellent historical
references done on signage about the Old Mori Inn and the Mori Family. I'm a
member of the Pacifica Historical Society and you did a comendable job.
Mori Trails; I support Mapt 17-E for on leash dog walking, but want access to the
bootleggers Steps as well as Lishumsha trail. Also, I'd like to continue walking my
dog on leash out to the end ofthe Point at Sunset.
Lishumsha Trail in particular is very smooth for wheels. My neighbor uses an
electric cart and occasioanlly comes out with us on walks. Keeping this section of
the trail open to on leash dogs also keeps open a good access for disabled visitors
with pets!
Bootlegger's Steps are easy for me to go up with my dog, but I can't go down them.
Knee problems! Please keep the steps open to on leash too.
Corr. ID: 4688 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210090 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Mori Point:
We suggest that the trails designated on Map 17C as "Tmigtac" and "Polywog"
trails be modified to allow on-leash dog access. We believe the likelihood of either
the red-legged frog or the San Francisco garter snake being harmed or negatively
affected is extremely remote. Furthermore, the "Polywog" trail is an example of
where it is important to maintain neighborhood access from Old Mori Point road to
Fairway Drive. This trail runs parallel to a long fence line and is clearly not a
species migratory corridor.
Concern ID: 29274
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
A loop trail should be created to better serve users of Mori Point
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1751 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191218 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a retired disabled person. It is very important for me
to walk my dog off leash because I use a cane. He is a good dog!
I think dogs are generally better behaved off leash.
Mori Point- can we have a loop trail with leashes?
Ft. Funston - PLEASE leave the trails off leash!
I never saw dogs fighting there.
I feel happy meeting the dogs + their people while off leash
MP1400MoriPoint:SuggestChangeinAlternative
344
Corr. ID: 3157 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202886 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Mori Point, for security reasons, please continue to
allow access on the Pollywag Path. There have been several cars broken into while
parked near the Moose Lodge entrance.
And for a mere scenic reason, please keep the Lishima trail open in order to
accommadate a return loop trail.
Corr. ID: 4143 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208604 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to express my support for the preferred
alternative, with some basic adjustments. I base my support on the following:
The basic adjustments I suggest include a better loop at Mori Point, an internal loop
at Fort Funston, and some modified alternative to the Muir Beach regulation that
also ensures natural resource protection goals are met. At Muir Beach, I fear the
residents and regular users will not abide to a "no dog" rule which could only create
tensions at that site and elsewhere.
MR1100 - Milagra Ridge: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29334
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative is supported for Milagra Ridge. This alternative provided
areas for dog and no-dog experiences, and the continuation of on-leash dog walking
is most beneficial. This alternative would protect Mission blue butterfly habitat.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 755 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 185444 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree with the options chosen for Milo and Milagra
Ridges.Thank you for keeping the areas open for dogs and I believe in these areas
that on leash is best.
Corr. ID: 4265 Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209127 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MILAGRA RIDGE. Dogs should be restricted to leashes
on the fire road, trail to overlook and Woorld War II bunker, and the Milagra
Battery Trail future connector to lower Milagra) to protect the Mission blue
butterfly.
Corr. ID: 4354 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209530 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: MILAGRA RIDGE
This area has wonderful views and its scenery has a wild aspect. Its many different
species of wildflowers contribute to that scene and I understand there is much
wildlife. I was impressed with the protective post¬and-rail (wire) fencing of
sensitive areas; it did not dominate the scene but it would keep dogs and people out
of habitat.
I was shown the transects of the people who do butterfly studies in the area, and
was told of the many volunteers who work to keep out the exotics and help with
restoration of degraded areas.
All the dogs I saw on a sunny Sunday afternoon were leashed. I agree that anyone
walking more than 3 dogs along the proposed trail, even on leashes, could affect the
habitat and wildlife.
I think the Preferred Alternative is the right choice for Milagra Ridge. It has areas
MR1100MilagraRidge:SupportPreferredAlternative
345
both for leashed dogs and for people who do not wish to be with dogs. Although I
noted there previously have been citations for dogs off leash, I think this is a place
where community cooperation and compliance could be fostered.
Concern ID: 29335
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative would help curb use and impacts by off-leash dogs in this
area, which would significantly improve the safety and experience of visitors,
particularly those who do not enjoy dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3138 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203736 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support Alternative B (the preferred alternative)
for the San Mateo County properties.
However, in my 13 years of experience hiking in this area, voice control DOES
N
OT WORK for many dogs and should never be allowed on any of these lands.
Aggressive dogs can cause significant safety hazards and limit the enjoyment of
others who want to use the land without fear of being attacked by a dog. These off
leash dogs also do significant damage to trails and foliage, scare and chase other
natural animals in the habitat (birds, rabbits, etc) and generally create havoc in the
entire natural environment.
MR1200 - Milagra Ridge: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29336
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative is opposed for Milagra Ridge because the trails available
under this alternative are not sufficient. Commenters noted that they had not seen
any impacts to wildlife and vegetation, and felt that the restrictions were not
necessary.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1702 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191121 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Milagra Ridge- proposed plan essentially closes the entire
park to dogs - the single open trail is inadequate
Corr. ID: 3726 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202346 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2.) Milagra Ridge in Pacifica. This is a wonderful space
that is lightly utilized (some of the time I'm there alone with my dogs). The heaviest
users are people with dogs, and everyone I've seen with just a couple of exceptions
respects the on leash requirements here. We like to walk along the dirt trails as well
as the paved ones, for the variety, for the exercise, and for the views. I've never
heard of any negative encounters between dogs and wildlife (the one time we saw a
deer I held my dogs close and there was no interaction). Closing off any of it to
dogs on leash is unfair and unnecessary to protect this park. Dogs have been using
it for many many years with no ill effects to either wildlife, vegetation or other
users, and I strongly urge you to continue the current policies of on leash dog
access.
Corr. ID: 3740 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204277 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Since moving here I find that the GGNRA is proposing to
limit the places I can walk my dog even on an a leash, and is planning on limit
further off leash walking. Sweeney Ridge where I often go with my dog will ban
dogs completely and Milagra ridge will limit the trails available to me with my dog.
As I understand it the area for off leash walking at Fort Funston will also be
decreased. We live in an Urban area one with many dogs. By limiting access to this
degree, becomes collective punishment of all dog owners. Rather than hold those
MR1200MilagraRidge:OpposePreferredAlternative
346
who do not respect others, accountable all of us must pay. We live in a lovely
natural place. All, including dogs have a right to share it. There should be more off
lease areas not less.
Corr. ID: 4126 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208547 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I disagree with the proposed trail usage reductions under
the preferred alternatives for Mori Pt, Milagra and Sweeney Ridge. The trails and
paved areas at Milagra Ridge protect both plant and wildlife, there is no need to
reduce trail access at all. The other areas can continue to support access to people
with dogs without disturbing wildlife
MR1300 - Milagra Ridge: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29337
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative A was requested by commenters, who felt that the existing policy is
working fine, and that other impacts from dogs could be mitigated by other means.
They felt Milagra Ridge is a less spoiled area, and that the current restrictions were
adequate to protect wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1912 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192587 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ban fire arms!! from Parklands next to housing. I generally
oppose removing privliges. Therefore I support Alt. A in Mori Point, Milagra
Ridge + Sweeney Ridge (these are dog-walking areas! In these economic times,
when we are all being asked to "cut back", please allow us to continue the dog
walking trails we currently enjoy. This is important for our physical + emotional
well being. For the record, I can support "on-leash only" on GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3494 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203371 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Second, the rationale for the complete ban on dogs from
trails such as Milagra Ridge seems highly flawed. At the March 9 open house in
Pacifica I was told by the ranger there the GGNRA wanted to completely ban dogs
from Milagra Ridge because it constituted one of the less spoiled natural areas in
the county and hosted a variety of birds. The fact that Milagra Ridge is an island
ecosystem with a wide array of species is undisputed, and is part of what makes the
area special. However, this is true today although dogs are currently permitted there
on leash. Since birds and other wildlife are clearly happy there, why change what is
already working when it is at the expense of people like me who want to use these
trails with my dogs? On Milagra Ridge in particular there is such thick bush and
foliage on each side of the trail that it is almost impossible for dogs, on leash or off,
to leave the trail and disrupt the animals. Furthermore, these trails are sufficiently
steep and remote that very few people (with or without dogs) actually use them
except die-hard hikers and trail runners like myself (again, especially beyond the 2-
3 miles past the parking lot). The decision to ban dogs entirely from them seems
based on an idealistic vision that is not in keeping with the GGNRA's mission. It
does not take into consideration the traditional use of this land or the reality of what
is working there today already with the current leash law in place.
Corr. ID: 4640 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227730 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Milagra
There is no scientific evidence indicating that dog recreation, on-leash or by voice-
control, has any significant impact on visitors or the natural environment. I'm
simply designating this as on-leash to provide for balanced recreation for the few
MR1300MilagraRidge:DesireOtherAlternative
347
people that desire to avoid dog interaction.
-None, except consider a two hour morning and two hour evening time window to
meet the needs of local residents
-All on-leash
-None
N
otch Trail, Sawyer Camp Trail and San Bruno Mountain are all in the nearby area
and do not allow dogs.
The park trail system criss-cross and there is little advantage to designating no dog
trails as dog would still be nearby and crossing a fearful person's path.
Concern ID: 29338
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative E would be preferred at Milagra Ridge, as additional rules were not
necessary, and that problems could be fixed by better enforcement. Commenters
noted that they did not feel the loop to the top of the hill should be closed.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1935 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192603 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Milagra Ridge: Trails/pavement are wide enough to
accomodate on leash walking without trampling habitat. Why close road to top?
There is sufficient passage area to avoid conflict.
Concern ID: 29339
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters felt that since it would be difficult to enforce leash laws at Milagra
Ridge, it would be better to ban dogs from the site.
For representative quote, please see Concern 29276 (MP1300), Comment 205768
MR1400 - Milagra Ridge: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29340
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Commenters questioned why the loop trail was not included in the
plans, as the trail has a barrier on both sides to prevent damage from dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 941 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191459 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Milagra Ridge: why is the Loop trail off limits to leashed
dogs? The trail has barriers on both sides. What is the argument for not allowing on
leash dogs?
Concern ID: 29341
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Having an off-leash area at Milagra Ridge in an area where it will not
cause damage would be beneficial to visitors. Visitor use at this site is low, and the
site could support off-leash dog walking.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 841 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186201 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Milagra Ridge: the parking at Milagra Ridge limits the
amount of use. Generally only 6-8 cars can park there at any one time. I take my
dog there regularly and might occasionally bump into 3-4 people during an entire
hour-long walk. I think that this area should be relaxed to voice-control, but that
didn't seem to be an option.
Corr. ID: 4102 Organization: SFDOG
Comment ID: 208454 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition, the DEIS should add the following off-leash,
MR1400MilagraRidge:SuggestChangeinAlternative
348
voice control areas in San Mateo:
1) a voice control trail from the Bay-side to the Coast-side on Sweeney Ridge (e.g.,
Sneath Lane to Fassler)
2) Mori Point off-leash, voice control everywhere except on-leash around the frog
ponds and traffic areas and no dogs on the the Upper Mori Trail
3) Milagra should be off-leash, voice control everywhere
There is no justification presented in the DEIS to justify the restrictions proposed to
off-leash in San Mateo.
Corr. ID: 4621 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207038 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If off leash recreation is also provided in GGNRA sites in
San Mateo County, a truly preferred alternative would be created.
MT1000 - Miscellaneous Topics: General Comments
Concern ID: 30153
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters share legal advice with GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 202 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180619 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am an attorney, and would like to share a legal principle
that I think applies to the alternatives proposed in the GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan: Equitable estoppel. This legal doctrine serves to "estop"
someone from making a legal argument or taking an action that affects another's
rights when four elements are present. In this situation, I believe that the GGNRA
is estopped from radically restricting off-leash access by residents of the affected
areas and their companion canines because these elements apply, as follows: (1) the
party to be estopped (in this case, the GGNRA) was apprised of the fact that dog
ownership has been growing exponentially in all of the areas affected by this
proposal; (2) the GGNRA intended that the liberal off-leash policy be acted upon,
or acted so that the parties asserting the estoppel (in this case the dog owners) had a
right to believe it was so intended; (3) the dog owners were ignorant of the true
state of facts, that being that the off-leash area could be radically restricted; and (4)
the dog owners relied upon the conduct of the GGNRA to their detriment.
Concern ID: 30156
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have comments concerning Guide/Service/Companion Dogs at
GGNRA
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 277 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180903 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most people with pet dogs are not aware that there are
state and federal laws governing distracting a guide dog. An unleashed dog
charging the guide fits that criteria. Perhaps leash regulations will help prevent the
unleashed dogs owner from paying for that very expensive guide dog.
Corr. ID: 277 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180906 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: An unleashed dog rushing the guide dog team can make
the guide dog skittish and afraid. That puts the guide dog team at risk. If the guide
dog is more worried about being rushed by another dog, that guide is not doing it's
j
ob and injury to both the guide dog and guide dog user could occur.
Corr. ID: 1816 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191806 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
349
Representative Quote: I would also like to see codified guidelines on what extra
privileges "companion dogs" would have, if any. I do not believe they should have
any extra privileges. Several dog owners bring their dogs into restaurants in San
Francisco because their doctors have written them notes say that the dog is a
"companion dog" and as such they get special dog tags. If dog owners only have to
get a note from their doctors to have an untrained dog outside of the purview of
your new rules, the rules themselves will rapidly become feckless.
Corr. ID: 3096 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201487 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Some people need a guide dog or have a service dog and
they need to go places like parks, trails and beaches. And people who are blind or
have a disability sometimes need a dog to help them walk. Service dogs should be
allowed almost any where because they are really needed by their owners.
Corr. ID: 3153 Organization: Guide Dog Users, Inc.
Comment ID: 202873 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to you on behalf of Guide Dog Users, Inc.
(GDUI) an international organization dedicated to advocacy, peer support, public
education and all aspects of training, working and living with dogs specially-trained
to guide blind and visually-impaired people.
GDUI urges you to support the adoption of regulations which would create
physically enclosed spaces as off-leash dog play areas for the safety of guide dog
handlers and their dogs.
In a 2003 GDUI survey, 89% of guide dog handlers reported incidents of
interference from unleashed dogs, placing these visually impaired individuals in
serious danger. Even when an interfering pet dog simply wants to play, the team's
attention to important elements of safe travel is distracted making the blind person
vulnerable to the dangers of traffic and other environmental challenges. 42% of
respondents have been the victims of attacks by unleashed dogs causing physical
and psychological injury to both members of the team and even death or premature
retirement of the guide dog which can cost more than $50,000 to replace.
GDUI supports the enforcement of leash laws in general because such laws provide
important safeguards for people, our pets, wildlife, and parks. Enforcement of the
N
ational Park System's leash law and the creation of off leash play areas for dogs
would insure dogs have reasonable access to the Park without jeopardizing the
safety of disabled individuals partnered with specially trained assistance dogs, pet
dogs, wildlife, or park visitors.
GDUI urges creation of off leash play areas for pet dogs at the Golden Gate
N
ational Recreation Area.
Corr. ID: 3721 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202306 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Since there already is evidence that off-leash dogs DO
attack Guide Dogs, that means it likely the person using a Guide Dog also is
entangled or engulfed in the attacks of off-leash dogs on Guide Dogs. Protection of
that user of a Guide Dog's services also is not addressed.
Since Guide Dogs are attacked, the larger issue of safety for vulnerable populations
also is not addressed. Not only do people using guide dogs have a greater
vulnerability, but so do many people with mobility impairments, toddlers, pre-
schoolers, adults pushing a baby in a stroller, a group of primary grade children out
on a field trip and some seniors.
Members of all those groups have slower speed, reaction time, and mobility options
than those who wrote this document and than those likely to be monitoring and / or
enforcing any off-leash regulations.
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
350
Which also shows how narrow is the experiential thinking that produced this
narrow-focus document that deals only with:
off-leash dogs, and endangered flora and fauna, but not with Guide Dogs, Service
Animals, and the people who rely on them.
By considering a deviation from NPS standards, GGNRA is opening up the entire
system to a crazy-quilt of possible local options, which will be unknown to visitors
from outside that area. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, any deviations from
national NPS standards that GGNRA authorizes will be used by others, elsewhere,
for their "local rules".
Even allowing consideration of off-leash dogs also lessens the importance of native
and entrenched flora and fauna.
This document's neglect of addressing the safety needs of vulnerable populations
ASSUMEs all visitors to / users of GGNRA facilities are all fully able-bodied,
agile, mobile, and possessed of all their cognitive faculties.
Somehow, the writers of this document got stuck somewhere in the early 1960s,
ignoring the passage of the Older Americans Act in 1965 and the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act [ A.D.A. in 1990.
Since the 1965 Older Americans Act was in effect when NEPA was passed in 1969,
there should be no professional excuse for ignoring the impacts of that 1965 law on
a 1969 law.
Further, with passage of the civil right law known as the A.D.A., people with
disabilities are, supposedly, guaranteed a right to all programs and services a
government agency provides.
If GGNRA allows off-leash dogs anywhere, that will effectively block some people
with disabilities from also going into those areas.
Corr. ID: 3721 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202303 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This document is flawed as to scope and to how it avoids
addressing laws and factors passed after NEPA went into effect. SO, this document
at least needs a supplement or revision, if not a substantial re-do.
N
OWHERE is there any mention of or concern for a specific animal grouping--
guide dogs and service dogs.
N
or is there any reference to protecting vulnerable HUMAN populations.
Yet, Guide Dogs for the Blind has been in San Rafael, CA, since the 1942-- LONG
b
efore NEPA was passed and long before the establishment of the GGNRA. Worse,
in the files of GGNRA is a 2005 letter from Guide Dogs for the Blind, wherein
their field service manager cites a 2003 survey indicating that:
89% of their graduates [ EIGHTY-NINE PER CENT ] "have had Guide Dogs
interfered with by off-leash dogs"; and further that
42% of their graduates [ FORTY-TWO PER CENT ]
" have had their Guide Dogs ATTACKED [[ emphasis mine]] by off-leash dogs".
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
351
When a person using A Guide Dog loses those services, it can take up to two years
and cost $50,000, or more, to get a new Guide Dog. During that interim training
period, the mobility of that person whose guide dog was incapacitated is greatly
limited.
If, contrary to existing policy elsewhere within the NPS system GGNRA allows
off-leash dogs, then GGNRA can be viewed as liable for injuries to the Guide Dog,
to the person, and to training and replacement costs.
Corr. ID: 4642 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208825 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A positive attitude toward companion dogs is not
universally held. I attended the NPS open house March 9 in Pacifica, where I had a
discussion with Park Ranger, Daphne, who commented that some park visitors did
not want to even see a dog on the trails. To Daphne this seemed to be a credible
objection. It should be apparent that no policy will satisfy all concerns and that this
level of dog aversion falls outside of any reasonable goal.
Concern ID: 30157
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have questions regarding existing GGNRA regulations or the
signage/fencing at the park, and the requirement to pick up after pets.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 658 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181514 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We could find no mention of requiring dog owners to pick
up their pets' feces.
Corr. ID: 1390 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195294 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that new restrictions placed on dog owners will
not be overwhelmingly obeyed; the present restrictions are either not known or
obeyed by many dog owners.
Corr. ID: 1696 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191109 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I try to keep my dogs behaving properly & were permitted.
However it is very difficult to tell regarding certain area if they are protected or not.
The fencing is inadequate!!
Concern ID: 30159
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have concerns about the plan's impacts on socioeconomics.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3586 Organization: Sierra Club
Comment ID: 203670 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "Future Considerations: ?We are concerned that a loss of
on-leash dog access on lands within Pacifca might have unwanted economic
consequences, as dog walkers will go elsewhere, effectively eliminating the
possibility of patronizing Pacifica's restaurants, hotels, or other retail outlets?."
Unfortunately the City of Pacifica sometimes works against its own best self
interest and has failed to subsume the interest of dog-owners to the wider economic
benefits derived from being adjacent to a National Park. On more then one occasion
the City Council has been presented with studies that demonstrate that economic
growth near national parks outpaces other areas that lack similar natural amenities.
On the other hand increased dog presence in the GGNRA will cause deterioration
in the visitor experience which can generate both social and economic costs. For
this reason dog access should be given little weight as far as it's economic
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
352
importance, must be balanced among more compelling reasons and its potentially
negative effects must be managed.
Concern ID: 30160
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have opinions regarding the number of dogs per person allowed at
GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1344 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195178 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think Dogs should be required to be on leash at ALL
times! And only 2 dogs per person
Corr. ID: 1820 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191915 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do think that it is important to limit the number of dogs
that one person can walk in the GGNRA and agree with your recommendations on
that point.
Concern ID: 30161
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters are concerned that the process of this DEIS is not consistent with the
Crissy Field FONSI or that the DEIS is not consistent/has a discrepancy with the
GGNRA GMP.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4088 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208352 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And one other point that needs to be conveyed is the fact
that according to the GGNRA's PEPC website regarding the GGNRA's new
General Management Plan (GMP) Newsletter #5, dated Summer 2009, states that
"the new plan will not revise decisions made in recent management plans for the
Presidio, Crissy Field, Fort Point or Fort. Baker". Simple logic should prevail that
the Crissy Field Environmental Assessment will stand as is and 70 acres of off
leash dog walking under voice control remains in place as was approved by the
GGNRA/NPS. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the GGNRA's draft Dog
Management Plan/DEIS and the new GGNRA GMP.
Concern ID: 30163
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters urge the NPS to protect the resources at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2615 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195524 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This country needs to do every single thing it can to
protect and preserve our wildlife. It is a symbol of a nations respect for it's heritage.
Corr. ID: 2635 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195469 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: * Natural and cultural resources must be protected.
Recreation should not undermine these main goals.
Corr. ID: 2646 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195531 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We need to preserve our wildlife and their habitats for our
future generations to enjoy.
Corr. ID: 2693 Organization: National Parks Conservation
Association
Comment ID: 195526 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do everything possible to protect the Golden Gate
N
ational Recreation Area. We are stewards of the environment, and need to stop
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
353
causing irreparable damage to the living things around us.
Thank you in advance proving that our trust is not misplaced: do the right thing.
Corr. ID: 2695 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195525 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Owing to the diversity of species that find sanctuary there,
San Francisco's Golden Gate Park is unique among urban parks and should be
protected.
Corr. ID: 2726 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195582 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please protect Golden Gate's imperiled wildlife from
harassment by unregulated recreation.
Concern ID: 30165
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters request that the park publish the public comments in the DEIS or that
an independent review of the comments be completed (specifically, that comments
are not merely reviewed by Park staff since NPS wrote the DEIS which represents a
conflict of interest) or that the cost of the DEIS and the number of hours charged by
employees for this DEIS be made public.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1451 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199728 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned that NPS/GGNRA will ignore public
comment. For this process to be considered valid, you must be transparent. I
strongly request (insist if I may) that you publicly publish all comments received.
Corr. ID: 4235 Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club,
N
ative Plant Society
Comment ID: 208599 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The NPS must have non-GGNRA-staff or GGNRA-
associated researchers to independently analyze and review the public comment
and to independently determine how the Alternatives must be changed (or even if
the DEIS should be thrown out and the whole process started over) as a result of the
public comment.
Corr. ID: 4235 Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club,
N
ative Plant Society
Comment ID: 208597 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We demand an independent review of the comments from
the public. The GGNRA has said they will give the public comments to their own
staff -- the very same people who did the flawed, biased research that the GGNRA
uses to justify restricting off-leash -- to decide if the criticisms of that work is valid.
This is an egregious conflict of interest.
Concern ID: 30166
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters request that the DEIS should address options for changing the
management of GGNRA from the NPS to another agency.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3142 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202645 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please be sure to address the options for changing who
manages the GGNRA. I believe national recreational areas can be managed by
organizations other than NPS. Thus, NPS restrictions should not be imposed upon
GGNRA. If need be, how do we change who manages GGNRA (e.g., Forestry
Service)?
Concern ID: 30167
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
354
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters are concerned the proposed DEIS will cause them to drive longer
commutes to exercise their dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1893 Organization: University of San Francisco
Comment ID: 200618 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Also, it is entirely possible that there would be conflicts
between the dogs themselves in this new, overcrowded environment. Finally, from
a broad environmental perspective, let me point out that if I drive elsewhere (say to
the East Bay which has more dog-friendly parks), I will be increasing my global
carbon footprint and thus degrading the environment in other ways. Think of the
big picture before moving forward.
Corr. ID: 2271 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201055 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please don't make me drive one hour each to enjoy a day's
hike with my dog, just think of the added congestion and pollution!
Corr. ID: 2880 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202899 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am concerned for many reasons, some of which include:
- 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.
Concern ID: 30169
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have specific concerns that will result from the DEIS at particular
GGNRA sites.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3966 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206071 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned that the GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan overly restricts access of dog owners to a unique oasis in an
urban area which provides a healthy outlet for dogs and their owners. I am also
concerned that the new rules will only increase the likelihood of an increasing
tendency in recent years for Fort Funston to be locked to completely restrict and
block access to anyone in the early morning hours.
Concern ID: 30170
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters suggest that if the DEIS will be implemented, that the changes go into
effect after a grace period (14 years, the average life span of a dog).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3996 Organization: Private citizen
Comment ID: 207475 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a responsible, working, tax-paying San Francisco
resident and dog-owner I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan.
In particular, it was the 1979 Pet Policy where the city of San Francisco gave much
of the land to the GGNRA with the express purpose that it would be used as it had
been historically for recreational purposes, which includes dog walking that
ultimately tipped the scale in favor of us getting our dog.
We are positively behind the idea of establishing professional dog walker rules and
fees.
If off-leash areas are taken away we really may have to consider leaving the city of
San Francisco now that we own and are responsible for the well-being of a large,
energetic dog.. At the VERY least, I feel it would only be fair, if restrictions are to
be imposed, that they go into effect after a 14 year grace period, allowing any new
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
355
dog owner the current rules for the lifetime of an average dog. I'm not sure we
would have made the decision to own a dog if it weren't for the current Pet Policy.
Concern ID: 30171
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
A commenter has requested to know who the cooperating agencies are that have
been involved in the EIS process.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4070 Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207682 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4)Who are the cooperating agencies in this process? When
were they involved? Did they sign an MOU identifying their role in the process?
Concern ID: 30172
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There are questions concerning the DEIS/ FEIS distribution, specifically, why
wasn't the DEIS available in other languages or why wasn't a request sent out to the
mailing list asking the public which format they would like to receive the DEIS in
(hard copy vs. electronic) to save resources?
For representative quotes, please see Concern Statements 29516 (PS1000),
Comment 207685 and Concern 29519 (PS1000), Comment 208560.
Concern ID: 30174
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have requested that justification for the dismissal of alternatives be
provided.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4461 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208608 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Provide site-specific need for action justifications and
dismissals of suggested alternatives; use objective standards that would apply to
any recreational activities such as equestrians, boaters, fishermen, surfers,
bicyclists, beach-goers, joggers, walkers, etc.
Concern ID: 30176
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
A commenter has concerns regarding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4704 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209710 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In 2006 Suzanne Valentine filed a Freedom of Information
Act that requested the data, documents, and/or staff report that justified the DEIS.
She got a reply saying that 'the staff reports and other documents you request do not
exist at this time'.
Concern ID: 31663
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters questioned why monitoring was not completed in GGNRA as it is in
other parks, and noted the importance of such monitoring in making such
management decisions.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4677 Organization: Ocean Beach Dog
Comment ID: 227499 Organization Type: Civic Groups
Representative Quote: A subsection of the aforementioned web site (Program
Goals) discusses the goals of park monitoring: "Natural resource monitoring
provides site-specific information needed to understand and identify change in
complex, variable, and imperfectly understood natural systems and to determine
whether observed changes are within natural levels ofvariability or may be
indicators ofunwanted human influences. Thus, monitoring provides a basis for
MT1000MiscellaneousTopics:GeneralComments
356
understanding and identifying meaningful change in natural systems characterized
by complexity, variability, and surprises. Monitoring data help to define the normal
limits of natural variation in park resources and provide a basis for understanding
observed changes; monitoring results may also be used to determine what
constitutes impairment and to identify the need to initiate or change management
practices."
As discussed above, it seems impossible that GGNRA management would
undertake a management change as proposed in this DEIS without any evidence of
monitoring as a means to identify the alleged impairment.
Concern ID: 31921
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Air quality could be significantly impacted under the proposed plan. Although car
trips would be short, a majority of emissions occur during engine warm-up. There
may be implications to air quality, as the local air basin is in nonattainment.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4666 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227792 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS acknowledges that the alternatives could affect
visitation patterns (p. 23). For me it will cause me to drive every morning to walk
my dog on the beach where I could previously walk. If I am unable to walk my dog
on Ocean Beach, I will have to get into my car and drive to the LOLA to the north
unless I have an abundance of time, which is not the case when walking my dog in
the morning before work. This will result in 10 additional car trips per week - albeit
short ones. But while the trips would be short, the majority of vehicle emissions
occur during engine warm-up and represent new emissions under the action
alternatives that would not be in the air under the existing conditions. And this is
j
ust for me - one person. The hundreds of people affected by this plan necessitate
this analysis in the EIS. Some of the restrictions are so severe that it will force
people to drive much further to obtain an comparable nature experience. Sites that
are more remote that will prohibit dogs entirely, such as Muir beach, will result in
even longer vehicle trips. A discussion of potential air quality impacts from the
alternatives should be included.
NL1100 - New Lands: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29384
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Keep New Lands dog free. Commenters have stated that New Lands such as
Rancho Coral are abundant with wildlife and contain newly restored wetlands
which they believe are not compatible with off-leash dog walking. Also due to
safety issue concerns (i.e., conflicts with dogs and visitors who do not prefer dogs)
commenters prefer alternative D.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2790 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201139 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a resident of Montara who lives on the North end near
the Rancho Coral de Tierra (RCT) open space adjacent to Montara. I walk the trails
on a regular basis and have personal experiences that are prompting me to express
this opinion on the dog policy.
First and foremost the area is teeming with wildlife. The area near Highway One
has a newly restored wetlands. I see Blue Herons and other large birds in the open
space on a regular basis. Off leash dogs are not compatible with the wildlife. Two
days ago I came upon a Great Blue Heron on the trail and had about 5 minutes to
quietly observe before off-leash dog walkers came along and spooked it. They
made no attempt to leash their dogs when they saw the Heron. I have also observed
NL1100NewLands:SupportPreferredAlternative
357
dogs chasing terrified deer with no responsible humans in sight.
I have been threatened by growling off-leash dogs numerous times on the trails.
The owners seem to think THEIR dog is not frightening to others. "He doesn't
mean anything by it" is a common response to my concern. Voice/sight control is a
j
oke.
We already have many local dog owners who do not obey the existing leash laws.
They are vocal and seem to think their rights supersede the wildlife and other
residents. This is wrong. To lessen the restrictions would be a big mistake and
invite other park users to join those already threatening wildlife and humans.
Please establish the "Environmentally Preferred" Policy that is most protective of
the resources, neighbors and visitors safety in RCT lands. At minimum dogs should
N
OT be allowed off-leash in Rancho Coral de Tierra at any time.
NL1200 - New Lands: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29385
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative is too restrictive since it does not allow for any dog
walking activities in New Lands. Commenters have stated that no scientific studies
or long-term monitoring of site-specific studies was done on New Lands to justify
banning dogs. Commenters believe that the park did not take into consideration the
needs of the New Lands neighboring communities (i.e., Montara). Community
members state that they will have to drive to areas that allow dogs whereas
currently they can walk to areas in New Lands to walk their dog. Alternative D will
have a negative impact on the visitor experience of visitors who currently enjoy
dog walking in New Lands. Commenters believe that there is enough land currently
at New Lands (i.e., Rancho) to allow opportunities for multiple user groups (i.e.,
dogs, horses, bicycles, and hikers) to enjoy this open space. Commenters are
concerned that dogs were banned from New Lands because the adjacent San
Francisco Water District Lands does not allow dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 444 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181809 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Preferred alternative should be E, not D
I have been a responsible dog owner for 20 years and walking my dog in Rancho de
Tierra lands for many years. There are very few people accessing this land and
most are with their dogs. There is simple no one, on a percentage basis, to bother.
Please do not over regulate land that is suppose to be for the good of us all.
A total ban on dogs is not acceptable (or a complete ban on dogs is extreme).
Use this phrasing as opposed to specifying off leash, or on leash.
N
o scientific studies were done of Rancho lands to justify banning dogs.
Corr. ID: 1438 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199580 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to offer my reaction to the GNRA Dog
Management/EIS plan to exclude all dogs from 'New Land" which would apply to
Rancho Corral de Tierra property near Montara. I am whole-heartedly against this
policy. I live in Montara and part of the charm to this wonderful small town is the
ability to take my dog for long walks in open space. This is where I see my
neighbors and chat with friends. After a long day, my dog and I take our daily walk
to enjoy the scenery and relax a little. What I'm trying to convey is that though this
NL1200NewLands:OpposePreferredAlternative
358
area is a part of the expansive GGNRA, it's not a densely packed urban area. Rather
it is a large part of our small community where bikers, walkers, equestrians and dog
walkers have successfully co-existed without government oversite for many years.
A ban on dogs is plainly unfair and out of touch with the needs of our community.
Corr. ID: 3729 Organization: Montara Dog Group, Sierra Club
Comment ID: 204223 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This letter is asking for your support in allowing continued
access for dogs in the Rancho Corral de Tierra, soon to be part of the GGNRA.The
Montara Dog Group has encouraged responsible dog walking by starting a
volunteer organization of people who remove dog waste from the mountain and by
promoting leash protocols that respect all users in the park.
I encourage you to adopt Alternative E from the GGNRA Draft Dog Management
Plan. This will allow continued on leash dog walking with off leash to be
considered if certain criteria in the plan are met. The proposed Alternative prohibits
dogs from an area where people have been walking them for 50 years.
Dogs do not harm the open space. [The Peninsula Humane Society Wildlife Expert
supports this comment. There is no evidence collected by GGNRA to dispute it.]
GGNRA is a RECREATION area, and walking dogs is a very popular form of
recreation.
There is a lot of room in the Corral--and all users should be considered. Many trails
afford opportunities for dogs, horses, bicycles and hikers to enjoy this open space
area.
As you proceed with revising and modifying the dog plan, please select an option
that includes dogs. 1. Dogs have been walked in this area for 50 years, and there is
no documented evidence of harm. This activity benefits many local users, and it is
vital that we be allowed to continue this activity.
2. I am concerned about the "Compliance Based Management" system and would
like more specific guidelines about dog walking. For example, if a dog is off leash
and not doing harm, would this cause the rules to revert to the next stringent level?
Is there any community input allowed on this? Who would enforce Compliance
Based Management.
I hope you plan to allow dogs based on site specific information for the Rancho. I
would also like to see the rules depend on documentation of actual effects of dogs
on the Rancho.
Corr. ID: 4639 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208786 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The New Lands in San Mateo County (where people have
walked dogs off-leash for decades) need to be considered for off-leash recreation.
The rationale that adjacent San Francisco Water District Lands don't allow dogs is
hardly a reason to forbid off-leash recreation. The San Francisco Zoo is close to
Fort Funston; the Zoo doesn't allow dogs; therefore, dogs shouldn't be at Fort
Funston. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Concern ID: 29386
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Off-leash dog walking should be allowed at New Lands (i.e., Rancho,
Montara) since off-leash dog walking is allowed at sites in Marin and San
Francisco counties. There is no balance between dog walking recreation (on-leash,
off-leash, and no dog areas) and natural resources at New Lands. Commenters have
stated that off-leash dog hiking has been a long standing tradition in the Rancho
lands.
Concern ID: 29387
CONCERN Commenters believe that the purpose of the park is for recreation and the preferred
NL1200NewLands:OpposePreferredAlternative
359
S
TATEMENT: alternative does not allow for the recreation of dog walking at New Lands.
Historical use of New Lands (if the area included dog walking or not) should have
been considered in the analysis of New Lands. There is concern that if the park is
considering opening New Lands (i.e., Rancho property) for horses then they should
also consider opening it for dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1512 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191446 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Your Preferred alternative states that all new land donated
will not be for off leash purposes. This is draconian and simply unfair. Your
p
urposes, for the GGNRA is for RECREATIONAL purposes. These lands are NOT
N
ational Parks ' they are ex army installations and they were given in trust for you
to administer in keeping with the original deed.
Corr. ID: 3714 Organization: Montara Dog Group
Comment ID: 202259 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel that dog walking qualifies as an appropriate use of a
recreation area as defined by the enabling legislation. I feel off-leash dogs should
be allowed in a portion of GGNRA property in proportion to the fraction of users
that are dog walkers. There are three GGNRA properties with which I am familiar,
Crissy Field and the Marin Headlands, where I walk dogs only occasionally; and
Rancho Corral de Tierra (Rancho), where I walk dogs daily. The area defined for
walking dogs off leash is far too small on Crissy Field, and your proposal to ban
dogs entirely on Rancho is absurd. Apparently the current plan for the Rancho
property involves opening it to horses and banning dogs. Although I have no
objection to horses being on the property, dog walkers currently outnumber horse
riders on the property by at least 20:1. Banning dogs entirely is obviously not in
keeping with the wishes of the current users.
I also feel the Rancho property is a poor choice as a refuge for wildlife, although
every effort should be made to preserve wildlife consistent with its use as a
recreational property
Concern ID: 31822
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters were concerned that the restriction of dogs in the Rancho Corral de
Tierra lands would limit access to McNee State Park, and increase parking issues,
and requiring walking along a busy road. The current trailhead in Montara for
Rancho is not well functioning, and the proposed options would result in a loss of
access for homeowners and the fire department.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 484 Organization: Montara Dog Group
Comment ID: 181824 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Montara residents will be forced to drive to small parking
lots at McNee Ranch or Montara Beach, and cross busy Highway 1 with their dogs,
in order to access McNee Ranch, formerly a 10 minute walk through Rancho. Even
more dangerous, Montara residents may elect to walk along Hwy 1 for 1/4 mile (
there is virtually no shoulder on this stretch of highway) to get to McNee Ranch.
Corr. ID: 504 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181894 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Does it make sense, and is it safe, to force dog owners who
want to access McNee State Park to either drive, trying to find parking on the
highway, or walk half a mile on Highway 1, rather than walk across the old railroad
grade or old roadway and trail from Montara?
Corr. ID: 3930 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205796 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The current trailhead in Montara is not workable given it is
NL1200NewLands:OpposePreferredAlternative
360
in the middle of a residential area and next to a school. There has been strong
opposition to the LeConte trailhead already and Second Street is semi-private,
narrow, unimproved dirt road. If individuals parked cars at either of these locations
it would cut off fire department access to the homes and the Rancho.
Corr. ID: 4262 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209148 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am concerned that it will not be safe to force dog owners
who want to
access McNee State Park to walk half a mile on Highway 1 rather than walk
across the old railroad grade or old roadway and trail from Montara.
I have not seen reports that indicate that the pads of dog's feet are more
damaging to the terrain than horse's hoofs, hiker's boots or mountain
bike's tires
NL1300 - New Lands: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29388
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative E is preferred because it allows dogs and is less restrictive. No
scientific studies were done on New Lands to justify banning dogs. Commenters
believe that dogs pose less of a threat to wildlife and wildlife habitat than horses
and that the numbers of dog walkers currently using New Lands (i.e., Rancho) is
low. Dog walking is a historical use at some New Lands (i.e., Montara) and should
b
e allowed to continue. Commenters have stated that there are no other areas on the
San Mateo County Coast that allows dog walking. Alternative E allows for the
benefits of visitors to get exercise with their dogs. ROLAs should be allowed
within New Lands specifically in Rancho Corral. Suggested areas include the beach
from Tamarind St to Farrolone View School, or in the tract of land behind the
Rancho stables. Designation of these areas should be considered based on sensitive
habitat.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 449 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181813 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have read the GGNRA's plan for the Rancho Corral de
Tierra area and feel that the best suited plan is alternative E. I truly feel that dogs
who are under control, whether by voice or by leash, pose less a threat to the
beautiful habitat we all enjoy than the horse riding community. In fact I am
surprised to hear nothing about the impact that the Equestrians have on the trails.
Corr. ID: 477 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181818 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to strongly urge you to set aside an area of the
Ranch Tierra land in Montara for off leash dog walking. Not all of it. Maybe the
area from the beach to Tamarind St., behind Farralone View School.
Corr. ID: 1211 Organization: Montara Dog Group
Comment ID: 194858 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I prefer Alternative E as it relates to Rancho - Most of the
dog walkers use a small area immediately north of Montara and east of Hwy 1,
approx 1 square mile or slightly less, as well as a small area in El Granada to the
east of Coral Reef Ave. Such a small area of Rancho, as well as just a tiny
percentage of the Bay Area GGNRA lands, that has been used for off-leash walking
for decades, by me personally for 20 years. If we could at least keep these small
areas to enjoy, as there are really no other areas on the San Mateo County
Coastside.
Corr. ID: 2906 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202669 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
NL1300NewLands:DesireOtherAlternative
361
Representative Quote: For the past 7 years I have walked all of Montara
Mountain with my dog, on and off leash. I have been a responsible dog owner,
cleaning up after my dog, and having common sense as to when to have my dog on
and off leash. I believe that if the Rancho Corral de Tierra lands are closed to dog
owners then the Coastal residents will lose something very special.
I support Alternative E which states that "New Lands begin as 36 CFR 2.15 (dogs
allowed on 6ft leash) and new lands with exisiting off leash use before acquisition
may also be considered for voice and sight control in the future."
I hope that GGNRA takes into consideration that the Rancho Corral de Tierra lands
have been used by the public for many years with few if any incidents regarding
dogs. Restricting or removing dogs from the Rancho Corral de Tierra lands means
that living here along the California Coast of San Mateo County is less because of
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 3819 Organization: Montara Dog Group
Comment ID: 204903 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I live in montara and have been walking my dog in Rancho
Corral de Tierra for the past ten years. 80% of the people walking in this area have
dogs. In fact, many of the people without dogs are happy to see and pet other
peoples dogs. We do not have a local park or rec center. Rancho is the one place
p
eople in Montara meet up, socialize and form a community. There is nowhere safe
to walk my dog in Montara, other than Rancho. Walking in the neighborhood,
requires walking in the street with cars going by. My 2 1/2 year old son loves to go
on walks with our dog Max. If we had to walk in the street, he would miss out on
that wonderful pastime.
I request that Alternative E (in the dog managment plan) be adopted for Rancho
Corral de Tierra. Anything else, would adversely affect all the residents of
Montara. Bike riders, horse back riders, walkers, runners and dog walkers have co-
existed in harmony for many years. Please do not change what is working.
Corr. ID: 4601 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209947 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Area One is a tract bounded on the north by the Rancho
stables and cultivated fields, on the west by the wetlands mandated as a part of the
Devil's Slide Tunnel Project, and on the south and east by the unincorporated
community of Montara. Area Two is the area accessed through Princeton-by-the-
Sea a development within El Granada) and extending south and north behind that
community.
Areas One and Two of Rancho constitute ideal locations for ROLAs under any
objective criteria. The area is not pristine wilderness. Environmental impacts are
minimal - the dogs have been in these areas for the past forty years. The ecosystem
has adapted. The area is open so that dogwalkers may see and avoid any situations
with the potential for conflict. The use is historical. The majority of users are
dogwalkers.
Concern ID: 29389
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative A is preferred. Current usage of New Lands (i.e., Rancho, Pacifica,
Montara) including dog walking should continue to be allowed until scientific
studies including long-term monitoring of site-specific conditions are done
indicating that dog walking is harmful to park resources. Commenters believe that
listed species have existed at the New Lands (Rancho Corral de Tierra) with dogs
previously and that dog use of this area should be continued.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3129 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202012 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
NL1300NewLands:DesireOtherAlternative
362
Representative Quote: If there are any endangered plants or species in Rancho
Corral de Tierra (Rancho) lands, they have survived half a century with hundreds o
f
dogs using the area off leash. They are hearty enough to continue to survive with
dogs continuing to use the area.
Corr. ID: 3129 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202005 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: GGNRA's preferred alternative for the Rancho is unfair
and not truly multi-use. Marin and San Francisco have off-leash and on-leash areas
for dogs, San Mateo is being given none.
I am requesting that the GGNRA's preferred alternative for New Lands, including
Rancho, be changed from alternative D (No dogs allowed) to a "No Change"
alternative.
Current usage of the land, including dog walking, should continue to be allowed
until scientific studies are done indicating that dog walking is harmful to park
resources.
A total ban on dogs is unacceptable. Creative multi-use solutions have not been
considered. In Washington state, and Santa Cruz, CA, there are off-leash days, or
off-leash hours in park areas. We are asking to continue to use approximately 100
acres with our dogs, out of 4200 acres.
Concern ID: 29390
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative B is preferred.On-leash dog walking should be allowed in New Lands,
specifically Rancho Corral. All dogs should be on-leash for safety concerns, regular
enforcement of the leash law, and stronger restrictions on professional dog
walkers.Off-leash dogs should not be allowed because they are a safety hazard and
reduce some visitor's experience due to fear of off-leash dogs. Commenters also
believe that off-leash dogs cause significant damage to trails, wildlife, and wildlife
habitat.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 508 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181903 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is frustrating and sometimes scary to be put in these
situations where dogs are loose and out of control, but I don't want to exclude dogs
from Rancho Corral de Tierra entirely. It seems to me that the best compromise is
to have all dogs on leashes to make it safer for all of us - other dog walkers,
equestrians, kids, etc. and perhaps stronger restrictions on these "professional dog
walkers" that have packs of dogs with them. 4-7 dogs on that many leashes with
one person is still not safe since the person can easily be overpowered. It may also
be necessary to have someone out there regularly enforcing the use of the leashes
because many of these dog walkers will not comply.
Corr. ID: 1264 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194971 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Now, as I stated in the beginning, I am against the
preferred plan (D) to ban dogs from Rancho Correl de Tierra. Off-leash dog use
should continue to be allowed, as it has for decades. In the alternative, do not ban
dogs, but allow them on-leash and consider off-leash use or an off-leash area.
Corr. ID: 3059 Organization: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Comment ID: 201240 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do not agree with the New Lands prescription, which
precludes dogs entirely from New Lands until opened in the Compendium. This
puts the Park in a very difficult place when dealing with new communities. I
propose that the Park approach the situation in a more realistic way to allow for the
Park to make informed decisions without isolating entire communities. In new park
NL1300NewLands:DesireOtherAlternative
363
lands with unorganized tangles of trail systems, designating "trails" versus "social
trails" takes time--let alone determining which designated trails should allow dogs
and which shouldn't. Perhaps the language could read something like "Polygons
shall be drawn inside new Park lands that designate where dogs are and are not
allowed based on the current understanding of sensitive areas. In polygons allowing
dogs, on-leash dogs shall be allowed on trail features within those trails, but not in
any off trail areas within that polygon." This would be easier to sign and enforce, as
many new sites have large numbers of redundant trails that are not worth signing
independently AND allows for law enforcement officers and park users to
understand which "trails" are allowed and are not.
Corr. ID: 3138 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 220191 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition, specifically for Rancho Corral de Tierra, a new
land soon to be acquired by GGNRA, I strongly support on-leash dog walking
ONLY. I hike regularly in this area and off leash dogs are a public safety hazard.
On numerous occasions, I have nearly been attached by off leash dogs. This is a
very frightening experience and significantly interferes with my enjoyment of this
beautiful land. As many dogs currently roam off leash on this property, the on-leash
law will need to be strictly enforced once GGNRA begins to manage the land. I
would not want to completely ban dogs from this property as many members of the
dog walking community in this area do keep their dogs on leash and pick up after
their dogs. However, in my 13 years of experience hiking in this area, voice control
DOES NOT WORK for many dogs and should never be allowed on any of these
lands. Aggressive dogs can cause significant safety hazards and limit the enjoyment
of others who want to use the land without fear of being attacked by a dog. These
off leash dogs also do significant damage to trails and foliage, scare and chase other
natural animals in the habitat (birds, rabbits, etc) and generally create havoc in the
entire natural environment.
NL1400 - New Lands: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29393
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time Restrictions - Set up dog walking hours: dogs on-leash hours, dogs off-leash
hours, and no dogs hours so that all visitors can share New Lands.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 543 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181970 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Rancho Corral de Tierra - Draft Dog Management
Plan....
...I strongly suggest the GGNRA come up with a shared solution, i.e., dog walking
hours, dogs on leash hours, dogs off leash hours, people only; some creative way to
share the beauty of the space and the opportunity for healthy exercise for those with
dogs, without dogs, and new visitors.
Corr. ID: 1257 Organization: Montara Dogs
Comment ID: 194953 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A complete ban on dogs is obviously extreme and would
cause riots and mass exoduses. But your preferred Option D is also extreme. I
would like to respectfully request that Alternative E be your preferred alternative
for new lands. Alternative E states that "New lands begin as 36 CFR 2.15 (dogs
allowed on 6 ft leash) and new lands with existing off leash use before acquisition
may also be considered for voice and sight control in the future." This alternative is
much less restrictive than your current preferred alternative.
NL1400NewLands:SuggestChangeinAlternative
364
There is so much space (tons of acreage) in Rancho Corral de Tierra. I hope you
will consider that the percentage where we wish to walk our dogs is actually
infinitesimal. Please think about creative multi-use solutions. Areas specified for
off-leash walking. Or morning and evening hours for off-leash walking.
Concern ID: 29395
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Education - The park should work with local animal welfare organizations, dog
groups, and the community to ensure that dogs continue to have access to New
Lands. Also to educate visitors about sensitive habitat areas which would help
visitors to understand why their dogs should not be allowed in these areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3126 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201559 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The acquisition of open space should not automatically
mean those areas are rendered off limits to us. The NPS should tap the commitment
of dog owner groups to educate people about the environment and to be watch dogs
for sensitive areas.
Corr. ID: 4452 Organization: San Francisco SPCA
Comment ID: 208469 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: In addition, not allowing any new lands to be available the
dog owning community is simply unfair and unwarranted. We recommend the
GGNRA work with and involve local animal welfare organizations, dog groups and
the community to ensure that dog guardians continue to have access to these
recreational park lands.
Concern ID: 29396
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Provide clearer rules, more signage, improved vegetative barriers, financial
development, education, and outreach as part of an overall program for New Lands.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4472 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208707 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 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, financial
development, education and outreach as part of the overall program.
Concern ID: 31334
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On new lands and particularly Rancho Corral, dogs should be allowed on currently
available on-leash areas, and some off-leash areas should be provided. If the
preferred alternative is chosen, a compendium should be issued stating that dogs
will be allowed in certain areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4402 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204899 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I spoke with Superintendent Dean at the public forum in
Pacifica, and understood him to say that he plans to issue a compendium allowing
for areas of on-leash dogs soon after GGNRA controls the Rancho. He also stated
that he is open to working with other organizations to establish an off-leash area.
While I appreciate his stated intention, I would prefer that the initial Dog
Management Plan be amended to allow for a more balanced alternative, allowing
on-leash dogs in the areas that are currently frequently used by dogs and their
owners, and allowing for off-leash areas as well. Should the preferred alternative
become part of the final plan, I respectfully request that Mr. Dean immediately
issue a compendium stating that dogs will be allowed in certain areas.
NL1400NewLands:SuggestChangeinAlternative
365
NL1500 - New Lands: Question Definition of New Lands
Concern ID: 29397
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There is a concern that the plan for New Lands is inconsistent with the granting of
new lands to the NPS; specifically to the definition of recreation.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2033 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193265 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: How is this plan consistent or inconsistent with the
granting of lands to the NPS?
What is the definition of "recreation" as it was intended in the land grants to the
N
PS?
Concern ID: 29398
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
ew Lands should be treated as existing lands. Commenters have stated that there
is no support to treat New Lands differently.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4088 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208351 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And I think that all of the sites in San Mateo County have
not been adequately analyzed, as there is no legal basis for what you call "New
Lands". These "New Lands" in San Mateo County (and Marin County too) should
be treated as "existing lands". There is no case law or anything in the GGNRA's
compendiums or the current GGNRA General Management Plan to support your
conclusions about treating these lands differently.
Concern ID: 29399
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have stated that the action to close New Lands to dog walking
conflicts with the park's enabling legislation and with Management Policies (2006)
for determining uses and land protection plans. The "closed until open" proposal
would violate the park's statutory obligation to preserve and maintain recreational
uses, violate sound land planning with the community, and violate NEPA by
prejudging alternatives before site-specific and environmental review.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4089 Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208377 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4. Improper Treatment of New Lands
The proposed action to close new lands to dog walking access conflicts with the
GGNRA Enabling Legislation (PC 92-589) and with National Park Service
Management Policies (2006) for determining uses and land protection plans.
GGNRA is required to consider new lands in the same way that it considers uses
and land protection measures on lands within GGNRA.
The unprecedented "Closed until open" proposal would violate GGNRA's statutory
obligation to preserve and maintain recreational uses, violate sound land planning
with the community, and violate NEPA by prejudging alternatives before site-
specific public and environmental review. There is no basis for treating new lands
differently than existing lands under NPS regulations and policies
Concern ID: 29400
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The New Lands definition confuses the issues by blending areas which have neither
environmental, ecological, historical, or recreational uses in common (i.e., portions
of Marin and coastal San Mateo County).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4601 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209942 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
NL1500NewLands:QuestionDefinitionofNewLands
366
Representative Quote: None of the "data" offered in support of the GGNRA's
position is specifically relevant to the "New Lands", as defined in the DMP/EIS.
The "New Lands" definition itself is designed to obfuscate the issues by
amalgamating areas which have neither environment, ecology, history, or
recreational uses in common - i.e. portions of Marin and coastal San Mateo County.
OB1100 - Ocean Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29342
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred plan at Ocean Beach provides adequate space for both users who
appreciate dogs, and those who are looking for a no dog experience. Commenters
supported the preferred plan.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 265 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180856 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think the park service has shown great sensitivity to the
many competing needs and interests at Ocean Beach. The preferred alternative plan
allowing dogs off leash on the northern end of the park, and then allowing for an
area with no dogs further south appears to strike a good balance. Although it might
mean that people who live further south would have to walk or drive their dogs the
short hop up to the northern parking lot they would retain a great nearby place to
play and enjoy, while allowing for some much needed dog free zones.
Corr. ID: 1962 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200348 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the Dog Management Plan to the extent
that it further restricts off-leash dog use in San Francisco, specifically Ocean
Beach, Crissy Field, and Fort Funston. I agree that the current situation is totally
unsustainable, and more intensive and thoughtful management is necessary to
preserve and maintain the endangered species and recreational benefits of these
parks for all park users
Concern ID: 29343
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative is desirable, as it protects the Snowy Plover and other
wildlife from off-leash dog interactions.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1783 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200261 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Today at Ocean beach in San Francisco (between Pacheco
and Sloat Boulevard in the Sunset Diestric) I sadly watched unleashed dogs chasing
birds. I am glad the GGNRA is working so hard to correct this problem and protect
wildlife from thoughtless dog owners.
Corr. ID: 2042 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200539 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Ocean Beach, I think your preferred option is
reasonable, and balances wildlife protection with recreational opportunities.
Corr. ID: 2331 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201962 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I wholly endorse your plan to strictly limit off-leash dogs
as this seems to be the only viable means to protect the Snowy Plover [at Ocean
Beach] and other birds, meet the needs of many beachwalkers who do not
appreciate a dog knocking them over, and still provide a large area for off leash
use.
Corr. ID: 3585 Organization: Not Specified
OB1100OceanBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
367
Comment ID: 203664 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very supportive of the Draft EIS for the GGNRA Dog
Management Plan, which I think recommends as the preferred alternative a nice
mix of on-leash, off-leash, and no-dog areas and a clear description and
enforcement of dog rules, which is what the National Park Service is proposing. I
have read through the executive summary of the EIS and looked at the maps and
am very supportive of the preferred alternative that the National Park Service
analyzed. As the mom of two young children, I love the idea of having clear dog
regulations that are actually enforced and a mix of off-leash, on-leash, and areas
where dogs are not allowed.
In particular, having areas at Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, Crissy Field, and Baker
Beach where we can picnic, walk, and relax with kids without worrying about off-
leash dogs is very appealing to me. In particular, I am very supportive of having
areas at Ocean Beach (Snowy Plover Protection Area), Baker Beach (North Beach),
and Crissy Field (Wildlife Protection Area and East Beach) where we can recreate
with young children in an area with no dogs. I am also supportive of having areas
where dogs would be on-leash (the trails at Fort Funston, portions of Crissy Field
Air Field and Promenade, Fort Point trails, Coastal Trail at Ocean Beach, and
Baker Beach South Beach and trails). There are still large areas where off-leash
dogs would be allowed, including the northern end of Ocean Beach, a large portion
of the Crissy Air Field and much of Crissy Field Beach, and the beach and a large
area north of the parking lot at Fort Funston. I think the National Park Service has
proposed a very nice compromise between on-leash, off-leash, and no-dog areas
within GGNRA lands in San Francisco.
OB1200 - Ocean Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29344
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It is unfair to implement these restrictions, as there has not been any concrete
evidence or reason to justify the change in policy. Commenters felt that other
activities and user groups were likely to be significantly contributing to problems,
and the impacts of dogs were overblown. Other impacts would include accessibility
and management impacts as a result of the plan.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 822 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186100 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am deeply opposed to the "Preferred Alternative Plan for
Ocean Beach"
The amount of dog walkers walking to the beach from the Sunset and Parkside
neighborhoods is very high. On weekday mornings 25-50% of the beach traffic
comes from these folks. If the preferred plan goes into effect, all of these people
will now get into their cars and drive to the North end of the beach. The plan does
not account for the increased vehicle traffic and parking requirements this will
cause. Not to mention the increase in vehicle related pollution.
The preferred plan limits dogs to the "Coastal Trail". This trail is not maintained
nor is it contiguous. There is nothing in the plan or in the history of GGNRA
management of Ocean Beach that makes me confident that the GGNRA has the
resources to maintain this trail. For this reason I believe that the "Coastal Trail"
should not be a part of the plan, making the Preferred Alternative not feasible.
Other possible stressors to the Snowy Plover have not been addressed. For example
vehicles, motorcycle, horses, heavy sand moving equipment, litter, surface street
runoff, construction spoils from the last century, dune erosion and non-indigenous
species. I say fix all of the above before focusing on the dogs.
Corr. ID: 2884 Organization: Not Specified
OB1200OceanBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
368
Comment ID: 202916 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog owner who has been walking Ocean Beach
from Taraval to the Cliff House every day for the past 15 years. There are very few
problems with dogs on the beach
You have mischaracterized the issue - Ocean Beach is a very harsh environment -
there are only a limited number of people and dogs on the beach when I go out
there around sunset. Interestingly, when the "snowy plover" season has its 6 week
window of not appearing - there are not any more dogs or people on the beach.
Only a few people avail themselves of this wonderful resource - it is by no means
overrun or inundated by dogs, even in this period.
I would likke to add that you have royally given our wonderful pets a reputation
they don't deserve - and they deserve to run this beach in all their glory - and with
very little impactment to the shorebirds - just as its human companions. The
amount of joy and exuberance that you are denying is very hurtful to our
magnificent companions. Please see that major parts of Ocean Beach are still
designated as off leash areas - this is nature conservancy at its best.
Corr. ID: 3477 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203322 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This is a very poorly thought out and unfair plan, that does
not properly balance the allocation of resources to the constituent users. The current
regulations address most of the complaints re dogs and should be enforced; there is
no need to exclude properly supervised dogs off leash on most of Ocean beach,
particularly when most of concerns stem from excessive and inappropriate human
usage, i.e. alcohol, graffiti, drugs, bonfires, trash, etc. There are no convincing peer
reviewed scientific data that these regulations are necessary for protection of habitat
or wildlife and the solutions are draconian.One can be sure that there will be no
accommodation even if, in 5 years,there is no improvement no improvement in any
outcome measures. Cramming all the dogs and handlers into a small area will only
lead to more problems of a different nature.
Concern ID: 29345
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative would negatively impact dog owners who rely on the site.
Many dog walkers would not have another option for dog walking if this alternative
is implemented.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 780 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190026 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach has long been a bastion for dog owners in the
city, many of which have acquired particular species of dogs (that require extensive
exercise) with the availability of Ocean Beach and other areas within the GGNRA
in mind. It is impossible to effectively exercise many species of dogs without
giving them access to large spaces in which they can run off leash. Imposing a
leash requirement is akin to banning dogs outright, insomuch as the reason that
most dog owners take their dogs to the beach is so that they can get exercise (leash
= no exercise). To now restrict access to these places will adversely affect the
health of the a large number of dogs in the region which will in turn also negatively
affect their owners. It does seem unreasonable to make such a drastic change in the
rules at a time when so many residents have come to depend on being able to
exercise their dogs within this area. There are countless options for visitors who
would prefer to not encounter dogs.
Corr. ID: 780 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190025 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In terms of prohibiting off-leash dogs in the GGNRA on
OB1200OceanBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
369
account of wishing to respect the interests of those visitors that do not like dogs and
do not wish to encounter them within the area, I am confused as to why this
minority interest should supersede that of the majority. Ocean Beach stands out as
one of only a few public beaches in the entire state that do allow dogs to roam off-
leash, which means that those not wishing to encounter dogs have numerous
alternatives to visiting Ocean Beach, whereas the same cannot be said for dog
owners, who have no other options for letting their dogs run freely and get the
exercise they need (Note: fenced in off-leash dog park (crap piles), do not provide
either the space or the terrain required).
Corr. ID: 3950 Organization: resident of San Francisco
Comment ID: 206026 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This Dog Management Plan assumes that millions of dogs
are invading/threatening Ocean Beach and therefore must be prohibited. This is
totally false. In reality, there are very few of us on the beach regularly. The weather
and surface conditions are not inviting to most people. Only on exceptionally warm
days (which are rare) is it crowded. GGNRA needs to understand that Ocean Beach
is the western edge of a very dense urban city.
All the GGNRA's inflated concern is invented. There are no more people with dogs
now than there were twenty years ago. Ocean Beach is as wild and wonderful as it
always has been and I want to maintain that. This draconian GGNRA plan is so
suspect and potentially so damaging to those of us who live here.
Corr. ID: 4585 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210015 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Safety
As a woman who often walks alone with her dog, I find Ocean Beach invaluable.
To me, it is a singular location in the city of San Francisco not only due to its
beauty, but because the 3.5 mile round trip between Sloat and Judah is flat, free of
traffic, and where, with my dog, I feel safe to walk alone. Losing the ability to walk
on Ocean Beach with my dog would be an immeasurable loss to me. Without my
dog, I would not feel free to walk Ocean Beach.
N
ot only does my own dog make me feel safer, but other people walking dogs
makes me feel safer. The stretch of Ocean Beach between Sloat and Judah is little
used, and without the people with dogs, there would hardly be anyone left. I would
feel too removed from civilization to feel safe walking alone.
Many who use this part of Ocean Beach are dog owners, and I've noticed that many
are women walking alone with their dogs, like me. I did not see anything in the EIS
that considered who the current users are and who would be affected by the ban of
dogs from Ocean Beach, so I wanted to provide this data point.
Restriction to the Coastal Trail, as proposed in Alternative C, is not a comparable
experience. The trail's proximity to 35 mph traffic, the occasional camper in the
dunes, and its distance from shore and shorebirds, makes it less safe, beautiful, and
peaceful.
Concern ID: 29346
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters opposed the plan because they did not support banning dogs on Ocean
Beach south of Sloat Boulevard and/or in the SPPA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 354 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181130 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I object to any effort to restrict off-leash access to any part
OB1200OceanBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
370
of Ocean Beach from the Cliff House south as far as Ulloa Street, at least, unless a
specific area has been identified as sensitive wildlife habitat. As far as I am aware,
no such area exists. I can conceive of no rational reason to limit access along this
stretch of beach solely to on-leash dogs. There appear to be no environmental bases
for such a limitation, and there certainly are no fragile resources of any cultural
significance in this area.
Corr. ID: 557 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182030 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: So, I must request, that you NOT CHANGE any of the dog
policies regarding Ocean Beach or what you call the Snowy Plover Protection area.
This is an urban area of your park. As such dog owners have the right and the
obligation to exercise their dogs in such an area. Your efforts to further restrict dog
managemment policies to disallow dogs, or disallow off leash areas would
challenge that basic right and be harmful to both individuals and our animals.
Please dont do it.
There are plenty of places where the plovers can go to do whatever it is they do, or
where individuals who have problems with on leash dogs can go
Corr. ID: 986 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191696 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'll start by saying that I strongly protest banning dogs
from the SPPA at Ocean Beach. I spend 2007-2010 working as an ecological risk
assessor for a Bay Area environmental consulting firm... I am very familiar with the
process required to create an EIS, and I am disappointed with the negligence the
N
PS has exhibited with this particular effort. ...and I feel like the shorebird
"situation" on the beach has been grossly misrepresented by the NPS. There's at
least 50 people that use Ocean Beach to every dog out there...yet you choose to
blame the dogs. Again, I will say this is negligent and disappointing coming from
the NPS.
For those of us who have well-behaved canines and moved out to the beach to join
a outdoor-loving community of like-minded people, I again want to reiterate that I
strongly protest banning dogs from the SPPA.
Corr. ID: 1186 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193564 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Banning dogs from Ocean Beach is unrealistic and will
only cause more problems. You will be punishing the people who use the beach the
most.
Corr. ID: 2900 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201195 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In our experience, Ocean Beach has always been about
dogs and people. It's a recreation area and to ban dogs on the beach between
Stairwell 21 and Sloat Boulevard feels particularly draconian. Instead of making
significant changes to the current regulations it would be more appropriate to
enforce those that do exist
Concern ID: 29347
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The restrictions of dogs in the SPPA and creation of a ROLA north of stairwell 21
would crowd user groups into one area, which would cause more interactions and
incidents between dog walkers, children, tourists, and those who did not like dogs.
The ROLA location is also problematic as it is too close to the SPPA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1608 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190848 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
OB1200OceanBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
371
Representative Quote: By closing off the majority of Ocean Beach to all dogs,
you are crowding every dog into the section of Ocean Beach used by families and
children Tourist see this one section of beach, which will be overrun with dogs,
while the rest of the beach is empty. This does not make sense.
Corr. ID: 1774 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191570 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed Reglated Off-Leash Dog Area at Ocean
Beach is problematic due to its adjacency to a western snowy plover area.
Concern ID: 29348
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters were opposed to attempts to fence in off-leash dogs, remove the off-
leash areas, or require them to be on-leash everywhere at the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1140 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192485 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not stop the off leash area at Fort Funston and
Ocean. Dogs need to run.
Keep off leash.
Corr. ID: 2828 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201132 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I disagree with attempts to require off leash dog areas to be
fenced in. I think its unfeasible and really does not take into account the needs of
dogs and dog owners in the Bay Area.
I also disagree with requiring dogs to be on leash at Ocean Beach, Crissy Field,
Fort Funston, etc.
Yes, we should protect the GGNRA, but we also need to protect the ability of San
Francisco dog owners to have ample open spaces to let our dogs exercise off leash.
Corr. ID: 3327 Organization: NPCA
Comment ID: 202941 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: After looking into the argument about dogs on Ocean
Beach in respect to the
effect it has on the snowy plover. I found that the mass movement of sand in the
middle section of ocean beach(near Pacheco),by use of tractors allowed by the Park
offices I presume has been more detrimental to the snowy plovers environment than
any unleash dog activity.
Obviously human traffic, unleashed dogs do still have an effect on this bird that
nests in these dunes and low lying banks of sand, but to hold them solely
responsible
is and seems very irresponsible by people who should know better. Such people
should focus on the greater threats to the snowy plover.
Having dogs on leash on Ocean Beach near the areas of plovers nesting is a sound
idea, but to have to leash a dog at all parts of the beach is unacceptable to me as a
dog owner. After all this is parks and recreation.
Concern ID: 31825
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having only one ROLA at Ocean Beach would make it difficult for visitors who
live at the southern end of the beach and sunset to visit these areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1661 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191060 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
OB1200OceanBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
372
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach- Why not 2 areas for off leash!! If I live by
the 200 it would be a hardship to come all the way to the cliff house area without a
car!
Corr. ID: 1692 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191096 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel that the Ocean Beach issue is unrealisti - there is no
evidence that the birds are undully disturbed by people or dogs - the vehicles may
tho- it is denying the residents that live in the Sunset the ability to use the beach - if
the birds were nesting there it would be different.
OB1300 - Ocean Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29349
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative E provides good protection to visitors and the environment at Ocean
Beach, and should be the alternative chosen for this site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 408 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181574 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To protect the environment and pedestrians like me, please
enforce leash requirements on Ocean Beach as described in the Preferred
Alternative or Alternative E. Thank you.
Corr. ID: 1521 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190685 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach
Plan E is the only reasonable compromise. Then enforce it -- and fine people who
break the law.
However, it seems to me that the current plan is resctrictive enough + requires no
additional restrictions.
Corr. ID: 4585 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210009 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We are very disappointed that the GGNRA prefers
Alternative C, which would prohibit dogs from Ocean Beach south of Stairwell 21.
We support the year-round leash law proposed in Alternative E, which would
protect the habitat and migrating shorebirds, and allow responsible dog owners to
continue to use Ocean Beach.
Concern ID: 29350
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative D would be the most beneficial alternative, as commenters did not
support any voice control, and felt that this option would provide snowy plovers
more opportunity for successful nesting seasons.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1544 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190728 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach
N
o dogs on walkways, on beaches with possible exception for northern end at
strwell 21
Voice control anywehre is a NO-NO
Prefer 15D but can live w/15C
OB1300OceanBeach:DesireOtherAlternative
373
Corr. ID: 3701 Organization: Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapte
r
Comment ID: 202229 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Impacts to Listed Species
We were disappointed that you did not more fully emphasize the Lafferty studies at
Sands Beach, Coal Oil Point Reserve in Santa Barbara, California. This study
demonstrated that human recreation on beaches and particularly off-leash dogs pose
a significant problem for the viability of nesting snowy plovers. In fact, no snowy
plovers had successful fledged on this beach for 30 years. A management regime
that included a physical boundary around a proposed nesting area and the
prohibition of off-leash dogs resulted in the success of snowy plover nesting after
initiation of that regime.
Thus, in determining appropriate levels of dog use in GGNRA particular attention
must be paid to those areas that provide listed species habitat. Ocean Beach and
Crissy Field are two areas that support the listed Western snowy plover. The
Lafferty research demonstrates that with a significant reduction in disturbance,
especially from off-leash dogs, snowy plovers can successfully nest on these
beaches and thus increase the total snowy plover population. We believe that it is
incumbent upon the NPS to implement such management regimes at these two
sites, and any others that support listed species, in order to comply with the federal
ESA obligations cited above.
This would entail the prohibition of off-leash dogs on Ocean beach and Crissy
Field. Alternative C does provide for some of this protection but we believe it is
inadequate. Alternative D would provide the greatest opportunity for the Western
snowy plover to have successful nesting seasons at these beaches, and others in the
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4315 Organization: State of California Department of Fish
and Game
Comment ID: 209392 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach
The NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) differs from the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative in the designation of a ROLA on the beach north of Stairwell
21. Under Alternative D, dogs would be required to be leashed 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 beach vegetation, long-term moderate adverse effects on
shorebirds, gulls, and terns and marine mammals, and potentially limit use of
preferred habitat by the federally threatened western snowy plover. DFG
recommends that Alternative D be selected as the adopted alternative, as it, by
requiring dogs to be leashed north of Stairwell 21, would avoid 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.
Concern ID: 29351
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The chosen alternative should have dogs off the beach during the nesting season for
b
irds, but allow them on the rest of the year, as is consistent with alternative A. The
current restrictions should be continued.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 907 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191279 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to maintain Fort Funston and Ocean Beach as
off-leash dog parks. They have been used as such for many years and have come to
be relied upon by dog owners, such as myself for our use and enjoyment. There are
OB1300OceanBeach:DesireOtherAlternative
374
already plenty of parks where off-leash is not allowed and not an option and
personally, I am fine with this. Please leave things status quo.
Corr. ID: 1565 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190768 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach: NO CHANGE to current laws
This exemplifies compromise, as there are clear barriers for on leash and off-leash
activity. People who do not want to be near dogs that are off leash can visit other
areas that are restricted. People with dogs can enjoy off leash activity in a very
small area.
Focus on enforcement fo current law rather than changing it. I am on the beach
every day, 2x a day, and I rarely see park rangers.
Corr. ID: 2230 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200846 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am requesting that the GGNRA adopt the 1979 Pet
Policy to control off-leash dog walking on Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and Crissy
Field because it is more balanced, longstanding, supports recreation, collaboration
and shared use.
Corr. ID: 2255 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201014 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A good comparison is the part of the plan that keeps dogs
off of Ocean Beach when birds need it for nesting and not the rest of the year---
sharing fairly.
Concern ID: 31803
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support alternative B for Ocean Beach. Dogs should be kept on-leash
as off-leash dogs can be dangerous and casue safety issues.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2087 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200519 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to require all dogs on Ocean Beach be kept on
leash at all times. Voice control has proven not to be effective.
I have run and walked on Ocean Beach for over 40 years. In recent years there have
been an increased number of unleashed dogs on the beach. I have been bitten by an
unleashed dog while running on Ocean Beach. When running with friends who
have a dog on leash, their dogs have been attacked by unleashed dogs. Each of
these behaviors is natural of dogs. By their very nature and breeding, they attack
running prey, in this case me. A leashed dog appears to be in a weakened position
and is fair game for an unrestrained dog.
Often the owners of unleashed dogs are hostile when I ask them to control their
dog. When I ask them to restrain their dog, they are often openly hostile. I have
been called crazy, cursed at, and given the "finger".
I should not have to take a subservient position to dogs. They should all be required
to be on leash, not just voice control, while on Ocean Beach
Corr. ID: 2468 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200800 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please, don't allow dogs to run free on Ocean Beach!
OB1400 - Ocean Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
OB1400OceanBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
375
Concern ID: 29352
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Fencing - The use of fencing around ROLAs should be implemented at Ocean
Beach to ensure that dogs remain inside the ROLA. Suggestions included placing a
fence along the south border of the ROLA from the sea wall to the plover sculpture.
Fences or barriers should also be placed around Snowy Plover Protection Area,
specifically around plover nests in the dunes and also along the cliff.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2905 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202642 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach - I support the Preferred Alternative for
Ocean Beach. To improve upon the Preferred Alternative, I suggest using symbolic
fencing and adequate signage to delineate the south border of the ROLA. A simple
post and cable fence could be placed along the border from the sea wall to the
plover sculpture. A well defined border will help to reduce compliance problems
and visitor conflict. Additionally, I suggest changing the name "Snowy Plover
Protection Area" to "Wildlife Protection Area". A designation of Wildlife
Protection Area would be inclusive of all wildlife species that use the beach habitat
area.
Corr. ID: 3112 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201520 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have reviewed the proposed restrictions for Ocean Beach,
and find them draconian. It is an enormous beach that is largely unused most days
of the year, and it seems to me to be an overreach to shut practically the entire
beach down to off leash dogs. I am in favor of protecting the plover, but as I
understand it, the real issue is protecting their nests in the dunes. If that is indeed
the case, why don't you just cordon off the dunes, or restrict access to that part of
the beach? I think most people who want to have their dogs off leash mostly want
to do so along the tideline so that their dogs can swim.
Corr. ID: 3701 Organization: Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapte
r
Comment ID: 220539 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Barriers around ROLAs.
The Lafferty study was quite clear that signage alone was inadequate to instill
public compliance with a prohibited access area. On the other hand, a minimal
fence in combination with a docent program was quite successful. The minimal
fence alone was also inadequate, although better than the signage alone. This
demonstrates that the management regime for ROLAs proposed in all alternatives
is doomed to failure. Without a physical barrier and some human presence, be it
educational docents or enforcement staff, the boundaries of a signed-only ROLA
will be ignored. (We argue that since a barrier and docent were necessary to keep
off-leash dogs out of an area, it is likewise necessary to have barriers and docents to
keep off-leash dogs in a ROLA.)
Corr. ID: 4432 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208587 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe the cliff and Snowy Plover areas should be
fenced off and feature prominent and highly visible signage to keep people and
dogs out of there.
Concern ID: 29353
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Enforcement - An alternative for Ocean Beach must include high levels of
enforcement if it is to be successful. Better enforcement would help to prevent
confusion about the current rules, and would improve the situation under all of the
alternatives.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1680 Organization: member of public
OB1400OceanBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
376
Comment ID: 200272 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My main point is this: Dog owners have alternatives as to
where to walk their dogs. The local wildlife does not have alternatives-the beach is
their home.
This is a simple but powerful argument because it is true. Most dog owners can
choose where to walk their pets. Snowy plowers, common mures and other
endangered birds do not have a choice. The beach is their home. Sea mammals also
live there and are also affected by the waste dogs produce. Our enjoyment of the
area is not necessary; our best efforts in preserving their home is.
The entire eco-system on Ocean Beach is already under pressure from the
phenomenal amount of oil that can be found on the beach on most days. The
amount of plastic on the beach is also heart-breaking. I walked there today and in
five minutes had more plastic waste with me than I could carry. It does not make
sense to deliberately create an environment which makes sustaining wildlife more
difficult than it already is.
The birds are continuously being harrassed by unleashed dogs at Ocean Beach in
the protected areas. I would contend that increased limitations on access is needed
but THEY MUST BE ENFORCED diligently. Please step up enforcement of all
regulations throughout the beach, not just in the parking lots. I see empty alcohol
bottles regularly and under-aged drinking often. An un-enforced law or regulation
promotes disdain for law in general and is counterproductive.
I saw today alone in 15 minutes over 10 different dogs off leash in the protected
area. I remind folks that dogs should be on leash; this is not always well received. It
seems like fining first or repeat offenders could easily generate enough revenue to
pay for further law enforcement.
Corr. ID: 2924 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203398 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I can only speak to the part of the plan that relates to
Ocean Beach as that is my neighborhood. I would have no problem with the current
seasonal restrictions if they were enforced and people followed them, but they are
not. It is rare to see dogs on leash in the designated area during snowy plover
nesting season and most of the dogs running around are not voice controlled and
many chase after the birds, I have even witnessed dogs catching snowy plovers and
killing them a couple times.
Most dog owners either do not see the poor signage and are not aware of the
seasonal leash law or intentionally ignore it, and are rude and entitled in their
response if you nicely mention the law to them and the reasons for it.
I have only twice seen people patrolling the beach informing dog owners they need
to have dogs on leash in the year and a half I've lived there, this is obviously not
sufficient and dog owners should be fined if they do not comply, otherwise what's
the point of having the law at all. Making the on leash area a permanent rather than
seasonal law will not help this issue if it is not stringently enforced and better
marked. Therefore I would recommend leaving the current seasonal law in place
with more active enforcement and signage, including signage posted at all the
beach access points along great highway as well as posted along the beach at
regular intervals. That is what is needed.
Restrictions on dog walking and off leash areas are not going to be effective if they
are not being enforced and there is no incentive for dog walkers/owners to follow
OB1400OceanBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
377
them (or deterrent against breaking them,) this is as true of the current restrictions
as it is of potentially more stringent ones. I suspect you will find that increasing
many of these restrictions in the GGNRA is not what is needed, what is necessary
is enforcement of the existing ones.
Concern ID: 29354
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - There should be a large area left for off-leash dog walking at Ocean
Beach, and/or the entire beach should be off-leash as it is currently. Suggestions for
off-leash areas included the Great Highway dune and beach area, area south of
Sloat Boulevard, north of stairwell 21, and through parts of the area that is currently
the SPPA between Lincoln and Sloat Boulevard.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 663 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182589 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like the Great Hwy dunes area open for off leash
walking. The May-July off leash allowance seems unnecessary (what are the
statistics of the snowy plover recovery??- I have never seen one)
. What I do wonder is why the Ocean Beach area by the Cliff House is an off leash
area. That is the area where people park and enjoy the beach. The area between
Lincoln & Sloat is not as populated with people w/o dogs. Why not make that area
off leash? That way the open beach can be used by folks w/o dogs. If you allow
voice control along the Great Hwy, that would be a good thing.
Corr. ID: 949 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191532 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I live along the Great Hwy and feel dogs should be on a
leash along the path - but truly feel there is no need for leashes on the dunes or on
the beach.
Corr. ID: 1585 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190810 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Ocean Beach - preferred alternative: Dogs and their
owners should be allowed off-leash south of Sloat Blvd to Ft. Funston. This area is
sparsely used by beach-goers and the bluffs are crumbling away & subject to much
man-made intervention (rip rap-concrete, etc) to shore up the cliff. Further south
the cliff swallows are up on the cliffs, not on the beach, so dogs do not disturb
them. I believe this area is not populated by snowy plovers, and I doubt dogs could
cause more destruction of the species than man has.
Corr. ID: 1682 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191080 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please allow Ocean Beach to be the recreational
playground for "our best friends" - at the very minimum - allow the stretch from
Lincoln to the Cliff House to be off leash friendly.
Corr. ID: 2005 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193208 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Area available for off leash dogs at Ocean Beach should be
more than just north of stairwell 21. This area is too small.
Concern ID: 29355
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time Restrictions - Time-of-day use restrictions and seasonal restrictions would be
a beneficial system for accommodating different user groups at Ocean Beach.
Suggestions included restricting dog walking on Ocean Beach during the summer
months and allowing off-leash dog walking on the beach in the morning hours.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1663 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191062 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
OB1400OceanBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
378
Representative Quote: What about -->
- Making one of the sites like Ft Funston be a destination "center of excellence" ot
dog mgmt. Bring in corporate america to help run in like curry village with 41
Billion spent on pets we can find someone.
-Create time restrictions in densely populated areas like Chrissy Field - weekends
before 9 after 4.
restrict Ocean Beach during the summer time - have it people only like dog beach
in San Diego.
With signs and clear rules "enforcement" will be just as difficult or easy as the
current proposals.
Corr. ID: 3115 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201524 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think that for Ocean Beach and Crissy Field a great
compromise could be the time of day. I know there are a lot of children and/or
p
eople who are afraid of dogs. They deserve to enjoy the parks too. But if you have
a dog at the beach at 7am who cares? The dogs actually help keep the area safe. I
have been there at 6:30 in the morning when it is so beautiful and quite, along side
other caring dog owners and the joggers, only to find a few partiers or homeless on
the beach. Maybe having the beaches off leash before 11am would be a solution?
Corr. ID: 3921 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205718 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Make Ocean Beach seasonal or timed access. Either open
to off leash Nov - May or before 10am. The weather is what dictates visitors at this
beach.
Concern ID: 29356
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Commenters suggested having on-leash dog walking available on North
Ocean Beach from the Cliff House to the dunes, all along the dunes, south of Sloat
Blvd, and north of Stairwell 21 due to visitor congestion and wildlife protection.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181590 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach (proposed Alternative C): The current
proposal requires dogs on leash throughout all of Ocean Beach, except south of
Sloat where they're banned. Instead, I'd suggest North Ocean Beach (from the Cliff
House to the dunes) require dogs be on leash, as this is the highest traffic area of
the beach, and the most likley destination for tourists. The area along the dunes,
which is less traveled, should be designated as off-leash. Again, if would
effectively encourage dog owners to use that portion instead. South of Sloat should
require dogs be leashed, perhaps banned during mating season (but only during
mating season).
Corr. ID: 781 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 185830 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please restrict dogs to on-leash only North of Stairwell 21
at Ocean Beach.
Concern ID: 29357
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The Park Service should try to find a way to work with aggressive dogs, rather than
limiting all off-leash dog activity in beach areas, including Ocean Beach.
OB1400OceanBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
379
For representative quotes pleas refer to Concern Statement 29302 (FB1200),
Comment 191699
Concern ID: 29358
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o Dogs - Commenters suggested that dogs should not be allowed to run off-leash,
or alternately that they should not be allowed at Ocean Beach at all. Suggestions for
no dog areas included south of the Cliff House, north of the beach chalet (Stairwell
19), or the entire beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 650 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181458 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I see them frequently chasing the birds, including the
Snowy Plover. I sometimes ask owners whose dogs I see chasing the Plover if they
are aware of the restriction and they always answer "yes". These owners knowingly
disregard this restriction. I believe this occurs so frequently because this law is not
adequately enforced.
I feel that protecting the Snowy Plover is more important than allowing dog owners
to run their dogs unleashed. I hope that the GGNRA will give dog owners notice
that if they continue to disregard the law, dogs will be entirely prohibited on Ocean
Beach.
Corr. ID: 1626 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190934 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you wish to have an area for access by people without
any presence of dogs at all, I recommend the area just south of the Cliff house and
north of the beach Chalet (@ Stairwell 19) as such area is clearly seperable and
more frequently visited by tourists.
In no case should the GGNRA block off the ability of the park users with dogs to
take a long beach walk from the stairwell 21 anex south to the around Sloat.
Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209321 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DMP is also inadequate for protecting snowy plover
habitat because it does not include the entire portion of Crissy Field and Ocean
Beach. It draws imaginary boundaries that do not comport with typical visitor's
understanding of GGNRA, and the plovers are not, to the best of my knowledge,
able to discern where these boundaries are either. A typical visitor with a dog will
not always know if he or she is entering an area where pets are restricted, especially
if the regulatory signs are vandalized or torn down by individuals who disagree
with the rules, as too frequently occurs. This, again, will invite violations of pet
regulations as people claim ignorance or confusion over the exact boundary. A
closure prohibiting pets--on- or off-leash--should apply to all of Ocean Beach and
Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 4269 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209095 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I completely support placing tighter restrictions on dogs
using Golden Gate National Recreation Areas. I believe they are needed to protect
the snowy plover and all wildlife in these areas. Dogs should be kept out of parts of
San Francisco's Crissy Field, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston, and I agree with
Michael Lynes that the proposed rules don't go far enough.
Corr. ID: 4659 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209067 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As to Ocean Beach, I have long thought that it would be
OB1400OceanBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
380
appropriate to have some small area where there are no dogs at all to accommodate
park visitors who want a beach experience but are fearful of dogs. I think the far
north most part of Ocean Beach near the Cliff House would be the logical place to
have an off limits area of around 100 yards. That would accommodate the interest
without breaking up the continuity of the cherished experience of taking a long hike
or run on the remainder of the beach.
Concern ID: 29360
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Signage - The areas designated as off-leash or on-leash need better signage. Many
commenters expressed experiences of being confused at what areas are currently
open to off-leash dogs, and felt this would be a problem in the future without
adequate signage.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 972 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191659 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There has to be some beach for dogs to run free. I purpose
part of Ocean Beach,and have it CLEARLY marked. Same with Stinson Beach and
Crissy Field.
Corr. ID: 2022 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193235 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach should have some sign or marker along
beach (not just at stairwell) indicating boundary between on-leash & off-leash areas
Corr. ID: 3157 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202885 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Ocean Beach, please mark Stairway 21 more clearly.
We have no idea at all where it's located.
Concern ID: 31866
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Ocean Beach should not be closed year-round to dogs on- and off-leash for
p
rotection of the snowy plover. The beach should be open to dogs when the plovers
are not present, and should be on-leash only during the times when they are.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 115 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181990 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I for one am confused on the rational for suggesting all of
Ocean Beach should be closed to dogs on and off leash. If the rational is to protect
the snowy plover, why then is the beach not open in the summer months when the
snowy plover is gone? Also, why not just keep it as is as an on leash only area
during the months the bird is around?
OV1100 - Oakwood Valley: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29233
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the leash restrictions for Alternative C at Oakwood Valley
which includes the construction of double gates enclosing the ROLA on Oakwood
Trail Fire Road. Commenters also support leash restrictions on Oakwood Valley
Trail because dog walkers will still have use of the parallel Oakwood Valley Fire
Road.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1811 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191793 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I hope that people will be able to continue walking their
dogs, off leash, on the Oakwood Trail Fire Road, on Tennessee Valley Road in Mill
Valley.
OV1100OakwoodValley:SupportPreferredAlternative
381
It is one of the few places left for me to take our dogs. I am 79 years old, with
arthritic hips, which cause me to have poor balance. - Leash dog walking is difficult
for me.
Corr. ID: 4111 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208487 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to enthusiastically support leash restrictions
on Alta Trail from Marin City to Oakwood Valley Trail.
As someone who lives near the entrance to Alta, my family and I are always
surrounded by dogs off-leash as we try to walk or jog along the trail.
The trail is often used by 'professional' dog-walkers, who take many off-leash dogs
of various sizes on the trail, without any voice control. Many of these dogs are
intimidating types of dogs.
Corr. ID: 4215 Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208893 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Oakwood Valley Trail and Fire Road, Alta Trail, Orchard
Fire Road and Pacheco Fire Road - We support the Preferred Alternative treatment
of Oakwood Valley Trail and Oakwood Valley Fire Road, with the construction of
double gates enclosing the ROLA. We prefer the Alternative D treatment of the
Alta Trail, Orchard Fire Road and Pacheco Fire Road because of habitat concerns.
If sufficient means can be found to protect the Mission Blue butterfly habitat along
these trails, we would find the Preferred Alternative acceptable.
OV1200 - Oakwood Valley: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29234
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose the preferred alternative which includes closing parts of
Oakwood Valley to dogs and losing off-leash areas at this site. Commenters feel
that the visitor experience would be degraded since the current dog walking loop at
the site would be taken away. Visitors feel that this action is unnecessary since
dogs have not been an issue on these trails/roads
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1072 Organization: Dog-Loving Human Being, Planet
Earth
Comment ID: 192199 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I STRONGLY OBJECT to Map 4 Oakwood Valley and
Alta Trail's "Preferred Alternative." It's almost worse than closing the entire area to
dogs (which you seem to want to do on Map 4-D). In your "Preferred Alternative"
dogs are on-leash for the whole of the Alta Trail from Donahue to the new gate!
This is a horrible idea! There is no reason whatsoever to require a leash on the Alta!
N
one!
The second part of this plan is even worse. The Oakwood Valley Fire Road and
Valley Trail form a perfect leafy, shade-and-sun, peaceful forty minute loop walk
for my dog and myself, yet you want to ban dogs completely from the best part of
this walk--the Valley Trail. Once again, why?
Corr. ID: 1339 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195135 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Oakwood Valley
The preferred alternative is far too restrictive. This has recently been a daily walk
for us. To limit this trail to on-leash or eliminate dogs entirely would eliminate 80%
of the current use of this space since there are so few areas to bring dogs to begin
with.
OV1200OakwoodValley:OpposePreferredAlternative
382
Corr. ID: 3215 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202564 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My specific knowledge is with the Oakwood Valley area
in Marin. I have been walking my dogs there for 25 years. In that time, I have only
seen one negative dog/human interaction and it was with a young owner and a
pitbull mix that was out of control. While this was an unnecessary and unfortunate
occurance, it was also a rare one. We should not punish everyone for the very rare,
but poor choices occasionally made be a few individuals. While some people may
wish to walk in areas without dogs, the overwhelming majority of trails and areas
in the GGNRA are, and still will be, off limits to dogs. Tennessee Valley, for
instance, just up the road from Oakwood Valley, encompasses a very large tract of
land with many trails, all but one of which is off limits to dogs.
One thing i would like to add here is that creating dog walking loops of trails is
generally better for both the humans and dogs than a short out and back trail. In
Oakwood Valley we have enjoyed several loops from the Crest Marin
neighborhood (Birdland) access points. In the main body of Oakwood Valley itself,
we have a good loop that goes up the fire road from Tennessee Valley Road, and
then loops back via a single track trail that may get cut off in the current plan. I
disagree with the logic for cutting off that single track as it adds variety and good
dog training elements to the loop. The majority of people I meet on this trail are
more than happy to share it with dogs. Where is the science that says otherwise?
There has been no negative impact from dogs on this trail in the past. The biggest
problem with dogs here is with the owners bagging the poop, but not picking it up.
I for one, am one of the neighbors who does pick it up, and other people's as well.
Corr. ID: 4382 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209547 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs should be mostly restricted to the fire roads and
trails, and should not roam the chapparal at will and unleashed. There are dangers
to them in the brush, and the wild animals should be free from predation by pets.
Oakwood Valley Trail has delighted me weekly for years with deer, coyotes,
bobcats, raccoons, rabbits, skunks, snakes and all manner of birds. My dogs are not
allowed to pursue any of them. The proposal to close the "trail" side of Oakwood
Valley Trail will dramatically degrade the experience; and, the suggestion of a
double fence seems to be harassment of wildlife by interdicting free passage to
drinking water.
Concern ID: 29235
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Fencing - Commenters oppose the preferred alternative including the fenced ROLA
because it would diminish the natural environment and impede the movement of
wildlife; the fenced ROLA will also cut off wildlife access to the creek. The
preferred alternative would also impact more vegetation when compared to
alternative D.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2118 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193389 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Continuous fencing on Oakwood Valley trail will
siginificantly diminish enjoyment of the natural environment for all users including
non-dog accompanied humans and horse back riders using this trail. Huge negative
aesthetic impact.
Corr. ID: 2801 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201098 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a Marin City homeowner who lives just one block
from the Pacheco fire road that connects to the Alta Trail and the GGNRA. I
oppose the draft plan submitted by the Park Service that will change dog access to
OV1200OakwoodValley:OpposePreferredAlternative
383
this trail and the the Oakwood Valley/Tennessee Valley areas. I have two border
collies that I take up on Alta Trail nearly every day, under my strict voice control.
In my experience, the dog owners and walkers who use the trail are very
responsible and respectful of both the environment and the wildlife in this habitat.
The erosion on Alta Trail is not due to dogs, or any animals for that matter, but
hard rains combined with vehicular and bike traffic . The draft map makes a
hodgepodge of local trails- Oakwood Valley is off leash and fenced, while Alta is
not. This makes no sense at all. I believe that Alta Trail should remain off leash as
it stands now on existing maps. Furthermore, the Park Service is incorrectly
marking the stretch of trail from the Donahue parking lot to the GGNRA border as
federal property. This is private property with a county and NPS easement- NPS
will not be able to enforce any dog code on this stretch, and the draft maps should
be corrected accordingly to show the proper boundaries. The proposed fence along
Oakwood Valley will limit access of native wildlife to their main water source- the
creek that runs the length of the valley ( and trail). The EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
FENCING WILL BE FAR MORE DAMAGING TO WILDFIRE THAN DOG
USE. I cannot believe that this made it into a draft proposal that should have
contained an EIA that looked at this potential impact, as well as the parallel impacts
of mountain bikers and hikers on this same area.
To restate, I am opposed to the NPS draft plan, and would like dog access to remain
unchanged from the current conditions.
Corr. ID: 4096 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208435 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fencing and double gates seem a disruption to the rough
natural beauty, the sense of open wilderness, and rhythm of the place. Any fence
that allows the bobcat, coyote, and deer to pass uninhibited will not stop a dog. We
dog-handlers are quite aware of where the trail is and can keep our dogs on the
trail. If a dog goes off-trail, I can assure you it doesn't go anywhere but on paths
established already by the animals who live there because the blackberry bushes,
poison oak, and other bushes form a thick undergrowth. I am also concerned about
even constructing the fencing. The building process would destroy current habitat
for small critters (birds, chipmunks, mice, rats, snakes, slugs).
Concern ID: 29236
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative would cause parking and safety to be an issue at this site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3912 Organization: Alto Bowl Horseowners Association
Comment ID: 205590 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The proposed Oakwood Valley ROLA has several
practical deficiencies beyond denying access to other users. These problems
include: a very narrow confined space with no options for dogs and handlers to
move about the ROLA with adequate separation from others; a lack of spaciousness
and sightlines that will obscure illegal or inappropriate activities; a lengthy fenced
area that is a major barrier to passage of native animals across meadows; lack of
safe parking on Tennessee Valley Road for the numbers of dog walkers likely to be
attracted to the site; and excessive implementation, maintenance and enforcement
costs. We understand that the ROLA proposed under alternative "C" for Oakwood
Valley was a result of Negotiated Rulemaking Committee discussions; we believe
that the unintended consequences of placing a ROLA at this location were not fully
considered.
Corr. ID: 3959 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206059 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly object to the proposed establishment of a ROLA
OV1200OakwoodValley:OpposePreferredAlternative
384
in Oakwood Valley for several reasons. First, its construction and use will destroy
the existing habitat. Second, it will increase the number of cars in an area where
there is inadequate parking, which will cause further destruction as car owners will
undoubtedly create their own parking spaces. Third, it is my experience, as a runner
and dog walker in both Oakwood and Tennessee Valleys for the past 26 years, that
an increasing number of dog owners do not obey the rules, and I would discourage
an increase in the number of dogs and dog owners in the area for this reason. Mill
Valley already has an excellent dog park near the Middle School. It is a large space
with water access. Rather than create another dog park, I suggest we encourage use
of this park, and protect the precious habitat of Oakwood Valley.
OV1300 - Oakwood Valley: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29237
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative A at Oakwood Valley because there is no
j
ustification for the changes proposed, it is a prime recreational area used by park
visitors, and because of the off-leash areas it provides to dog walkers and/or
because few non-dog walking people use the area
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 476 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181777 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The places that are available offer wonderful opportunities
for personal health and wellbeing for both dog owners and non-dog owners.
I urge you to not change the rules and regulations in Marin County and keep the
access as outlined in Alternative A (the current situation) in this area.
Corr. ID: 1573 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190785 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The dog use on Alta and Oakwood Valley is the PRIME
recreational use of these trails, no question about it - 75% of persons using it have
dogs (off leash mostly, not including commercial walkers). Despite all of my time
spent off trail (in Mission Blue habitat) only once have I ever encountered a dog
that shouldn't have been there. 99.99999% stick to the trail/road.
On the basis of my experience (I am a wildlife ecologist, by profession) it appears
to me that the decision to change the current dog policy on Oakwood Valley and
Alta Ave trails/fire roads is based on abstractions and no real data. It is a
recreational area and people recreate on those trails walking with their dogs (off
leash) - my survey 75% (not including commercial walkers) of users. There is also
plenty of wildlife.
I do not support allowing dogs (on leash) between Oakwood Valley pond and Alta.
This would be consistent policty for use of Alta and Oakwood Valley. Therefore,
Alternative A
Corr. ID: 2116 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193382 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk my dogs on Oakwood Trail daily. Most of the
people on this trail have dogs and most unleashed. There are very few no leash
trails, pls do not take this away from all of us responsible dog owners. Dogs need
off leash exercise and so do their owners!
Corr. ID: 2119 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193393 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Oakwood Valley loop needs to remain the way it is - free
for dogs to run off-leash. Very few non-dog people use it.
OV1300OakwoodValley:DesireOtherAlternative
385
Concern ID: 29238
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative D; it would have the least impact of all
alternatives on vegetation.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4315 Organization: State of California Department of Fish
and Game
Comment ID: 209388 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Oakwood Valley
The NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) differs from the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative in the designation of a regulated off-leash area (ROLA) on
the Oakwood Valley Fire Road. Under Alternative D, dogs would be required to be
leashed. As stated in the draft EIS, the adoption of Alternative C at this site is likely
to result in minor adverse impacts to vegetation. DFG recommends that Alternative
D be selected as the adopted alternative as it, by requiring dogs to be leashed on the
fire road, would largely avoid impacts to vegetation which may result from
trampling, digging, and waste.
Concern ID: 29239
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Commenters desire more off-leash dog walking areas at Oakwood Valley.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2239 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200878 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This is to request that you please consider expanding the
areas in the proposed plan where dogs are allowed off leash under voice control. In
particular Muir Beach, Oakwood Valley and Cronkite Beach.
Concern ID: 29240
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative B because of the absence of the fenced ROLA at
Oakwood Valley which would not create adverse impacts to wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4265 Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209118 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: OAKWOOD VALLEY FIRE ROAD AND TRAIL.
Alternative B would be better for wildlife than Alternative C because of the
absence of fencing proposed along both sides of Oakwood Valley Trail. A fence
would prevent wildlife from crossing from one side of the trail to the other side
thereby providing a barrier to the movement of wildlife. Especially for small areas
of habitat, such as the Oakwood Valley area, it is important that wildlife have
access to as large an area as possible and no area should be precluded from use by
fencing. Dogs should be on leash along the Oakwood Valley Fire Road and Trail.
Concern ID: 30642
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Commenters desire more on-leash dog walking areas at Oakwood
Valley.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4005 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206273 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the proposal for on-leash access on these fire
roads, and the 2 trails that provide access to them:
The fire roads:
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;
OV1300OakwoodValley:DesireOtherAlternative
386
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.
OV1400 - Oakwood Valley: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29241
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
PS should allow dogs on Alta Trail to connect with the Oakwood Valley Fire
Road, there is a preference for dog walking loops rather than short out and back
trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1308 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195046 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also noticed that in some of the alternatives, you allow no
dogs on the link to Alta trail portion where dogs are allowed. Please dont do this - it
is great to able to be take a nice loop hike, and when you eliminate linkages
between dog allowed areas, it takes a lot of fun out of it.
Corr. ID: 3934 Organization: 3rd Supervisorial District of the County
of Marin
Comment ID: 205852 Organization Type: County Government
Representative Quote: We would request that the Oakwood Valley Fire Road and
the Oakwood Valley Trail be a continuous loop with 'dogs on leash' at a minimum
(off leash would be preferable) and that the connector to the Alta Trail and up to
Donahue be designated as 'dog-friendly', as well. It would be preferable to leave
this trail available for dogs along its entirety, creating a loop that can be accessed
from several different points (Tennessee Valley Rd, Donahue St. and the Orchard
Fire Rd). Please note that there is the appearance of an equity issue here, as the trail
is primarily accessed at the top of Donahue in Marin City. This is a community
with some of the highest rates of heart disease, diabetes and childhood obesity in
Marin. Having this loop accessible to all ages in this community, and especially
children, is seen as a critical component to creating a healthy community.
Concern ID: 29242
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Fencing - Commenters suggest removing the fenced ROLA at Oakwood Valley (or
allowing it to open while on horseback) because it precludes use of the trail by
other users such as cyclists and horseback riders and because there was no
consensus regarding its inclusion as part of the dog plan.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3912 Organization: Alto Bowl Horseowners Association
Comment ID: 205588 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The NPS preferred alternative "C" for Oakwood Valley is
of particular concern to the ABHA. It proposes the conversion of the Oakwood
Valley Fire Road to a fenced and gated Regulated Off Leash Area (ROLA) of very
narrow configuration. This would essentially eliminate use of the fireroad by
b
icycles and horses, such use being currently permitted. The Oakwood Valley Trail
on the west side of Oakwood Valley is presently designated hiker-only, so under
alternative "C" equestrian access to the pond at the upper end of the valley would
be eliminated. While this dead-end trail might seem insignificant on its own, it
represents a popular destination for horseback rides from Horse Hill via the Mill
Valley Multiple Use Path and Tennessee Valley Trail through Tam Junction. Any
OV1400OakwoodValley:SuggestChangeinAlternative
387
dog management plan that reduces or eliminates trail access for other users is not
acceptable.
Corr. ID: 3934 Organization: 3rd Supervisorial District of the County
of Marin
Comment ID: 205851 Organization Type: County Government
Representative Quote: Oakwood Valley Fire Road and Oakwood Valley Trail to
Alta Trail: The most striking concern here is the gated and fenced dog run concept.
We have heard anecdotally from several members of the "Dog Tech" subcommittee
(Roger Roberts, Capt. Cindy Machado, Jane Woodman and Sonya Hanson, among
others) that there was in fact not consensus regarding this - and the 'assent' that was
heard at the meeting was meant to be ironic. The gated and fenced idea seems to
run contrary to the hoped for experience that being out in nature would provide.
Corr. ID: 4377 Organization: Marin Horse Council
Comment ID: 209167 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The ROLA proposed for the Oakwood Valley Fire Road
will be fenced along the sides, as well as gated at both ends. As equestrians, we
would like to see the type of gate that could be opened from horseback. It has been
noted that, aesthetically, a fence along both sides of the fire road will detract from
the "wilderness" feeling of the trail. The fence would also block wildlife from
crossing the trail. That said, alternative C remains most favorable. As for the single-
track trail (across the creek and roughly parallel to the fire road), it would be
desirable to see the trail improved so that it could be enjoyed by both hikers and
equestrians.
Corr. ID: 4685 Organization: Marin Conservation League
Comment ID: 209983 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The ROLA proposed for the Oakwood Valley Fire Road
will be fenced along the sides,
as well as gated at both ends. Hikers will share the fire road with off-leash dogs.
We have several concerns about this proposal. First, it is not clear where the
fencing would be located ' adjacent to the fire road or at some distance? In either
case, if fencing is effective to contain dogs it will also interfere with free passage of
wildlife across the valley. Second. it is not clear how the proposed ROLA will
affect other users ' hikers, equestrians, and bikers. Oakwood Valley Fire Road is
currently used by all three, and the almost parallel Trail is used by hikers and dog
walkers only. It is closed to bikes and not usable by equestrians because of a
narrow and unsafe bridge and steps at one end. If the proposed ROLA on Oakwood
Valley Fire Road is closed to horses, equestrians will lose access to Oakwood
Valley. While this road is not heavily used by horses, it is used by riders from
Horse Hill. Also, if the ROLA is closed to bikes, this would force mountain bikers
onto Oakwood Trail, making that trail unsafe for hikers. Resolution of these
potential problems will require more study.
Corr. ID: 4687 Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
Open Space
Comment ID: 227455 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: There is much confusion about what the public supports in
Oakwood Valley, especially in regard to the ROLA area, i.e., the enclosure. The
county urges reexamination of this alternative and the concept of this enclosed area.
We urge that some off leash trail use be allowed to continue in the area.
Concern ID: 29243
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Professional dog walkers should be required to have dogs on leash at all times, or
otherwise be banned.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4119 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208520 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
OV1400OakwoodValley:SuggestChangeinAlternative
388
Representative Quote: I would like to see ALL "professional" dog walkers with
more than three (3) dogs per person be REQUIRED to have the dogs ON LEASH
AT ALL TIMES when using the Alta Trail, Oakwood Valley Trail, connected fire
roads, etc in this area; or BANNED COMPLETELY!
Concern ID: 29244
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Commenters suggest adding more off-leash areas to Oakwood Valley
including Oakwood Valley Fire Road and the Oakwood Valley Trail/Alta Fire
Road loop. In addition the park should consider electronic leash as an alternative to
physical leashes.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2142 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200572 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep the Oakwood Valley F.R. and Oakwood
Valley Trail/Alta Fire Road/loop open to dog walking - off- leash. But use a plan
similar to the East Bay Parks which allows dogs off-leash under voice control.
Also, consider electronic leashes as an alternative to physical leashes. E-leashes are
an excellent control and help train dogs to behave properly off-leash. We have such
limited access to off-leash areas in Southern Marin, don't take more away. Please
consider adding more off-leash aresa, where appropriate.
PN4000 - Purpose And Need: Park Legislation/Authority
Concern ID: 29696
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The enabling legislation for the GGNRA mandates that the park is for urban
recreation. It is not in an isolated place, but in the middle of a large urban center,
and must meet the recreational needs of Bay Area residents and visitors.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 324 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181086 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Although dogs are not allowed off-leash in most national
p
arks, I feel that the GGNRA is unusual in that it is within a large metropolitan area
and so its use should be balanced to accomodate the needs of local residents and
visitors. It will never be a real wilderness area on the scale of other national parks.
Corr. ID: 578 Organization: San Francisco Professional Dog
Walkers Association
Comment ID: 182095 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: 617 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181199 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding the proposed dog rules, please keep in mind that
the GGNRA serves an urban area populated by people and dogs, both of whom like
to access the beaches and parks. The GGNRA is different than other national parks
in this way. Please do not impose undue limits on dogs and their people.
Corr. ID: 2208 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200722 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA has for decades provided open space for all
to enjoy.
And the "all" includes dogs because they are a part of families.
PN4000PurposeandNeed:ParkLegislation/Authority
389
The small percentage of open space that allows dogs should be
left unchanged because it provides for those of us who may not be able to otherwise
use the area.
Corr. ID: 2880 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202900 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am concerned for many reasons, some of
- 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.
Corr. ID: 4026 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207088 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In stating that additional ROLAs (Regulated Off-Leash
Areas) will not be considered", the GGNRA violates the court ordered procedures
in US v. Barton. The GGNRA again seeks to ban historical recreational uses
without public input. "Regulated Off-Leash Areas" should be considered like any
other recreational pursuit, and decisions based on the merits of a given area based
upon objective criteria - including historical uses.
Concern ID: 29697
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
GGNRA is not consistent with the mission and legislation of the Park Service.
Allowing off-leash dogs within NPS land is contrary to NPS policy and regulations.
The DEIS should be corrected to adhere to these regulations.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 626 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181302 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The National Parks are "Parks for All Forever," and
allowing a use that significantly degrades the landscapes, prevents use by a
majority of visitors, and causes irreparable harm to the flora and fauna is
inconsistent with this vision and should not be allowed.
Corr. ID: 2188 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200582 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are antithetical to preservation of natural and cultural
resources which is the National Park's stated mission. So this plan is a failure to
fulfill that mission in any meaningful way. No dogs should be allowed on national
park lands except picnic areas and paved roads. To allow otherwise undermines the
federal regulations on these lands and other national park lands.
Corr. ID: 2565 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195645 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Allowing unleashed dogs within the park runs contrary to
the parks mission and is inconsistent with the notion of making the park a place for
wildlife. And it is not just about wildlife: Unleashed dogs are also sometimes a
threat to people and other dogs, and they interfere with many visitors' enjoyment of
the shoreline.
Concern ID: 29698
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
If this plan is approved, the GGNRA it would no longer be meeting the recreational
mandate it was created under. The enabling legislation included dog walking as a
recreational activity, and thus the Park Service does not have the authority to
remove this activity. Some commenters felt the City of San Francisco should take
back the land originally deeded to GGNRA if the changes in the EIS are
undertaken.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 505 Organization: Not Specified
PN4000PurposeandNeed:ParkLegislation/Authority
390
Comment ID: 181896 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to vehemently oppose any of the proposed
restrictions to off-leash dog walking areas in the GGNRA. I have read a good
portion of the DEIS and feel it is an anti-dog manifesto disguised as an
environmental issue. This is a National RECREATION Area, not a National Park.
Specifically Fort Funston and Crissy Field are not pristine natural areas... heck,
they're former sites of military encampments in a densely populated city
environment. The current dog walking area was promised to us in the 1979 Pet
Policy when the park was transferred from the City to the the GGNRA, and there is
no legitimate reason to renege on this agreement
Corr. ID: 613 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181195 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA is an urban park, where off-leash dog
walking by responsible pet owners has always been allowed. To change a long-
established past practice is unfair.
If the GGNRA cannot abide by the terms under which San Francisco ceded its
lands, then the GGNRA should turn the lands back over to San Francisco.
I strongly object to your new dog management plan.
Corr. ID: 1497 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191341 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Judge made his decision on the basic language of the
formation of the GGNRA by Rep. Burton and signed by President Carter that the
encompassing area be left as is for perpetuity. And thus we have what is commonly
known as the Grandfather Clause, and specifically interpreted that dog walkers
would enjoy the privileges they historically had. It would logically follow that any
and all further acquisitions to be included in the GGNRA would also meet that
mandate. This is addressed in this report that any new areas would fall under the
national park service 36 code. This certainly violates the basic language and more
specifically the spirit and intent of the law that formed the GGNRA
Corr. ID: 4010 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206738 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There has long been dog owner recreation on the lands
comprising the GGNRA. These lands were transferred to the NPS with the
understanding that this historical use would continue. Moreover, Congress clearly
intended that the GGNRA serve a "parks to the people" function. The DEIS
p
roposed alternative is inconsistent both with historical use and with Congressional
intent.
Corr. ID: 4010 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206736 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It appears that the NPS has changed Congressional intent,
and I do not see any rationale or legal foundation for doing so in the discussion of
the enabling legislation (DEIS page 36). I request that the NPS provide a rationale
for this change.
The DEIS preferred alternative may be consistent with the NPS' modification of
Congressional intent, but it is not consistent with the enabling legislation.
Concern ID: 29699
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters questioned the NPS authority to dictate use on the lower portion of
Alta Trail on the Donahue as on-leash dog walking, as this area was an NPS
easement, but not within GGNRA boundaries.
PN4000PurposeandNeed:ParkLegislation/Authority
391
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4312 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209369 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Using the excuse that this is endangered blue butterfly
habitat to impose a leash requirement is a red herring. The dogs do not trample the
lupine (blue butterfly food source) growing in the area, and the humans generally
stay on the road, where the lupine does not grow. You have also included the lower
part of Alta Avenue (starting at the Donahue cul-de-sac) as a leash required zone,
which surprises me since this stretch, although having an NPS easement, is not
even within the Park boundaries. I would not think you would legally have the
authority to impose a Dog Management Plan on this portion of Alta Avenue, which
lies outside the park
PN7000 - Purpose and Need: Adequacy of EIS Purpose and Need
Concern ID: 29700
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters questioned the need for this project to occur given the reasons
provided for action, and the current situation. They noted that many of the
j
ustifications given for the new restrictions were not based in data or other means,
and therefore were not adequately proven, and were against other policies in the
park. The need for the project should be more clearly defined.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 127 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182221 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) to briefly provide a statement of
purpose and need for the action the agency is proposing."
Stated purpose for taking action, and why the proposals do nothing to address these
"needs".
? Preserve and protect natural and cultural resources and natural processes
In all of the documents listed on this site, I couldn't find any scientific studies or
facts stating definitively that dogs negatively impact the natural and cultural
resources more than humans alone. As coyotes (wild dogs) are native to much of
areas of concerns, dogs are simply an extension of nature.
? Provide a variety of visitor experiences
99% of the areas of concern are free of dogs under the current rules and regulations.
If variety of visitor experiences are a priority, dogs should be allowed in a greater
percentage of the available land.
? Improve visitor and employee safety
I did not see any documentation regarding decrease in visitor and employee safety
due to off-leash dogs. In my opinion, an off-leash dog is much safer than an on-
leash dog as the majority of dogs will attempt "flight" before "fight". However, on
a
leash the ability to flee is removed, and only the fight remains. In the absence of
clear evidence that displacing off-leash areas with on-leash improves safety, how
can this blanket statement regarding improved safety be considered?
? Reduce user conflicts
The documents cite confusing rules and regulations regarding off-leash and on-
PN7000PurposeandNeed:AdequacyofEISPurposeandNeed
392
leash and resultant user conflicts. I have reviewed proposals B-E and find them as
equally confusing and convoluted as the status quo (proposal A) if not more so.
There is no chance yet another confusing set of changes on top of the current rules
will improve comprehension of the policies and thus reduce user conflicts.
? Maintain park resources and values for future generations
The use of the term "maintain" her is out of place as only proposal A (status quo)
maintains the current rules and values. As for resources, that was addressed in the
first bullet.
Corr. ID: 464 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181747 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If it's for employee safety, then how many employees have
been injured? If it's for environmental reasons, then explain how dogs are the
culprit, but surfers, tour buses full of tourists, horse riders, bikers and hikers aren't.
If it's to reduce conflicts, then how many and how severe have those conflicts been?
(I've been taking my dog to all of these places for a greater part of the last ten years
and have rarely, if ever seen any major conflict.)
Corr. ID: 1850 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192042 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS in the Need for Action also fails to characterize
accurately the urgency for action in the following sentence. The DEIS should be
revised to delete this sentence. "The conflicts will likely escalate if not addressed in
a comprehensive plan/EIS."
- Statistics provided in table 9 on dog management issues reflect a significant
decline in all forms of incident from 2007 to 2008. During that period, the number
of all incidents declined by 42%. The most serious categories of incidents declined
by 61% while leash law violations declined by 39%, suggesting that dog
bites/attacks and disturbance of wildlife showed a declining trend.
Corr. ID: 1905 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200479 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With regard to the EIS itself, the P&N, or specifically the
N
eed Statement, is incomplete and does not include the detail and cla
r
ity that
N
EPA requires. Stating that there "could be" a problem and then describing an
element of what may be the problem is all too theoretical. Other than a
conceptually 'good idea', as defined by a likely non-dog owner at some point in
time, there is no real Need that is clearly defined. The Purpose however states that a
clear, enforeable policy is needed. Well that makes sense. I don't disagree that in
fact there 'could be' a problem in the future and we should, as with many issues
related to the environment, do everything we can to be good stewards. But it is just
lazy to state that the appropriate 'clear, enforceable policy' is just to overly restrict
use of these parks. The fact is that the EIS did not look at a reasonable range of
alternatives. There is not enough consideration of limited restrictions or, perhaps
better, new opportunities, trails, resources for the dogs and owners. There is not
consideration of maintaining the GGNRA as they are today, perhaps some minor
fixes on specific parks based on local problems, BUT with better enforcement of
current laws. Enforcement is largely limited (and would be still if any of the action
alternatives were chosen) because there are very limited Park rangers and
enforcement officers. This is a problem, I agree. The cost of this EIS could have
been better put to the hiring or better pay for Park rangers. Ultimately, if
enforcement officers are included in the plan, add those to a new alternative
looking at fewer restrictions allowing dog owners to use these resources in a
positive way.
PN7000PurposeandNeed:AdequacyofEISPurposeandNeed
393
Corr. ID: 4451 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208398 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Need for Action, however, is never scientifically or
p
roperly established. The DEIS makes many assumptions about the negative effects
of dogs on the parks in determining its need for action, yet almost never backs up
these assumptions with site-specific proof.
PN8000 - Purpose And Need: Objectives In Taking Action
Concern ID: 29701
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The validations provided for the proposed EIS are not based in fact, and thus
cannot be used to show the need for the proposed actions. These objectives do not
align with the recreational mandate included in the enabling legislation of the park.
The DEIS does not meet the objectives for visitor experience. An objective to
provide sufficient off-leash dog walking areas should be added.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 85 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181884 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The objectives listed in the executive summary all relate to
controlling, reducing and restricting dog access. Given the park's charter to provide
'public use and enjoyment' and 'needed recreation open space' an important
objective should be to preserve sufficient space for off-leash dog access.
Corr. ID: 600 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182162 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Currently, there exist no reasons (pertaining to safety,
ecology, or otherwise) which should merit revision to the long standing policies
concerning dogs, leashes, their owners, and the Golden Gate National
RECREATION Area.
Corr. ID: 1850 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192043 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With no information on the actual number of dogs,
visitors, activities and source of visitors, the DEIS has no foundation for designing
an appropriate Plan. (It is ironic that as part of the Compliance Management Plan
the DEIS foresees counting the number of dogs at each site. )The DEIS thus fails to
meet the above Objective on Visitor Experience and Safety. The DEIS should be
revised to address the following concerns regarding lack of information on
visitation as support for DEIS.
PO2010 - Park Operations: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 29489
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters expressed a lack of park ranger enforcement under current conditions.
Many said the presence of park officials was sparse in all areas of the park, and
ticketing educating the public on regulations was uncommon, leading to more non-
compliance by dog owners.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2307 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200624 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've never seen a ranger, or any other authority figure, call
these scofflaws to task. As long as there is little or no enforcement, they will
continue to impudently flaunt the rules.
Corr. ID: 2727 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195583 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I live on Ocean Beach and visit the beach on a daily basis.
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
394
I am not a dog owner, but I genuinely love and respect all animals. The issue
involves, of course, the owner and not the owned.
Right now the vast majority of dogs run free on all sections of the beach. Dogs are
not under control by their owners either by voice or leash. I've seen the signs posted
to protect endangered species of birds on the beach, and the big metal bird, but
these prohibitions are ignored by most owners. Further, I have never seen any
attempt by a GGNRA officer to enforce the existing codes. Indeed, how can anyone
stop a running dog not on a leash from violating the protected space in season? Or
attacking another animal? Or worse, attacking children and others who want to
enjoy the beach?
Corr. ID: 3937 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205881 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: However, I see little reference to enforcement in the
DDMP. While education is preferable to enforcement, that is only true if education
results in compliance. My own efforts to inform visitors to the SPWPA that their
dogs are supposed to be on leash has not always resulted in compliance.
The education and enforcement efforts will require considerable manpower. For
example, at the SPWPA, personnel will need to be regularly present on weekends
during the Snowy Plover season to, at first, inform dog owners that dogs are
prohibited, and thereafter cite dog owners who do not comply with the prohibition.
In my many visits to the SPWPA, I have never seen any NPS personnel, or
volunteers who are authorized to engage in outreach to dog owners
Corr. ID: 4108 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208482 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) It does not address the GGNRA's failure to enforce
existing dog rules. There are no off-leash trails in these lands in Pacifica, but there
are some who choose to ignore this. They are a minority of the dog hikers to be
sure, but I do see them from time to time. And why is this? I can give a least 2
reasons. First, there are no legal alternatives for off-leash dog walking in Pacifica.
N
one. The closest place is Fort Funston. Second, there is almost zero chance that
they will be caught by a ranger. In my 6 years of dog hiking I have seen a ranger on
only 3 occasions.
Corr. ID: 4181 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208765 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The exisiting laws and regulations need to be regularly
enforced and then the resulting environment studied prior to determining the goals
and scope of the dog managment plan. I visit the GGNRA parks nearly 3-4 times a
week and never see rangers providing education to the pulic about current park
rules and regulations (providing this education is required in the document that
gives the land to the GGNRA), enforcing dangerous dog laws, voice control or
poop pickup. We have these rules for a reason and those of us that have well
behaving off leash dogs should not be punished for the failiings of a few. Why has
the GGNRA neglected to supervise these parklands and then assume to be able to
write a report that creates more restrictions and require more enforcement without
doing any studies to try and understand the community that uses the facility and
cares for it?
Corr. ID: 4214 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208877 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Yesterday I went to the beach and saw one shorebird left.
The beach was nearly empty of people, too. A man with a dog threw the ball almost
directly at the bird, flushing it. When I suggested that he had the rest of the beach to
throw the ball; it didn't have to be at the one remaining shorebird, his response was
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
395
two-fold. The bird wasn't a plover, and his dog is allowed to be off-leash now.
There were Park Service patrolling but they can't be everywhere and they're very
visible. It's too easy to carry a leash and put it on the dog when you see them
coming, and watch your dog chase birds the rest of the time.
That incident yesterday wasn't about the dog getting exercise. The dog had the
whole beach. It was about the owner wanting complete personal freedom no matter
what the consequences to others.
Concern ID: 29490
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Relations with rangers have not been positive for many visitors to the park, and
have created doubts for some park users about the effectiveness and responsiveness
of rangers at GGNRA. The use of horses for park rangers at Crissy Field also is an
unnecessary risk.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4248 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209213 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the
proposed GGNRA "Dog Management" plan and hope you will do what you can to
stop it. The plan is extreme. I hope you can help stop this proposed plan. It
infringes and picks away and the lifestyle we enjoy as San Franciscans. I witnessed
today a National Park Police Officer scare off families enjoying themselves in the
Great Meadow of Fort Mason, in the shadow of Phillip Burton. They were playing
with their dogs and enjoying the Memorial Day holiday. When the National Park
patrol car came into site the entire park empited. Families with children ran the
other direction with their dogs. The Great Meadow was left empty. This is not the
kind of place that I want San Francisco and California to be. Please oppose the
GGNRA "Dog Management" plan.
Corr. ID: 4270 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209094 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing as I am very concerned about a GGNRA (or
N
at'l Park) park ranger patrol using horses at the Crissy Field beach area. This area
has allowable off-leash dog use and the practice of patrol on horseback seems like
an unnecessarily risky practice with potential for injury to dogs and/or their owners.
Many dogs (especially "city dogs") have not seen a horse before. Seeing a very
large, unfamiliar animal in their midst is bound to create some interest or alarm,
may cause the dog to run over to the horse to see it better and may include warning
barking. Park rangers have warned dog owners whose dogs start approaching to
keep dogs away to avoid getting kicked. In one incidence, a friend's dog was
PEPPER-SPRAYED by a park ranger because the dog was approaching and
barking. The ranger did not wait for the owner to come over and get the dog. I
know this dog (a sweet, mellow Lab)'he is not aggressive in the least'he was just
alarmed. The owner subsequently got the pepper spray on herself as well as her two
young children (in trying to clean off the dog at home). Completely inappropriate
response by the park ranger.
Because of this, I am very alarmed when I see a mounted park ranger at the beach. I
go to the beach about 5 times a week. I always grab my dog until the horse passes
by to avoid anything happening to him. However, I can't always see the horse
approach so sometimes the horse is close by the time I see him. My dog is a well-
behaved, non-aggressive dog (a Lab) and also not familiar with horses.
Concern ID: 29491
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
396
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Signs and fences that indicate areas where dogs are not allowed have fallen into
disrepair or are not present, making it difficult for park visitors to know when they
have entered into sensitive or restricted areas. In addition, clear signage between
city and park boundaries is not present or clear. These both increase non-
compliance issues.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4047 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207338 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Fort Funston, you'll sometimes see people and/or dogs
exploring beyond fences and beyond the areas once delineated by now-broken or
missing fences.
The consensus among dog people at Fort Funston is that they'd be happy to respect
any and all currently off-limits areas, whether they are for safety or for the
restoration of native habitat. But the consensus also says that it's unclear where you
are currently prohibited to walk at Fort Funston. With a few fence repairs and well-
placed signs, the GGNRA could clarify which areas are currently off-limits. Dog
people at Fort Funston agree: this would virtually eliminate the encroachment of
dogs and dog walkers on these areas.
Corr. ID: 4420 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207299 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: GGNRA-controlled conditions on the ground influence
compliance with regulations. I visited Fort Funston May 14, 2011. There has been
no apparent maintenance there for the last ten years: Fences are down or covered by
sand; cables are missing; signs are missing, out-of-date, or illegible from
weathering, etc. The breeding bank swallows are there, but the presence of the
swallows is not indicated in any way; the bank swallow protection area shown on
DEIS Maps 16 and 16A-E is not marked. A new visitor could easily be out of
compliance and not know it, because GGNRA has not taken normal managerial
actions.
GGNRA simply abdicates managerial responsibility when its only solution to
perceived non-compliance is to further restrict recreational activity. GGNRA
actually proposes to forbid itself to take any reasonable management action that
would increase off leash area by even a small amount.
Corr. ID: 4533 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209687 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the headlands above Rodeo Beach, the signs do not
include any indication that dogs are permitted, although there is signage relating to
b
icycles and horses. As a result, conflict occurs, people may unwittingly violate the
policies, and people who may not want to deal with dogs don't have any
information as to where they may go without dealing with off leash dogs (such as
the West Beach area of Crissy Field). With respect to education and enforcement,
people (including those without dogs) often don't understand the impact they may
have by not staying on trails or by entering protected areas of vegetation, but once
they understand the consequences (both to the natural resources and to themselves
if they could receive a fine), they often will change their behavior. The GGRNA
should be doing things now to make the current status work and the Plan/DEIS
should include action plans relating to improved signage, education and
enforcement.
Corr. ID: 4533 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209686 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For instance, at Crissy Field there are no signs in the
eastern parking lot area or along the beach or promenade that indicate that dogs
may be off leash under voice control or what specific areas are included in that
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
397
policy. Instead, the signs indicate that one must "obey all posted rules", but posted
rules relating to dogs are few and far between and don't delineate where dog
walking ' on or off leash ' may take place, other than prohibitions at the West Beach
boundaries. Near the West Beach Wildlife Protection Area, one sign says that dogs
must be on leash in the "Snowy Plover Protection Area", without specifying that
there is currently a 45 day period of time when dogs are allowed off leash under
voice control. (That sign also states that one "MUST...recreate on the wet sand
away from the upper parts of the beach...", but my understanding is that was a
suggestion that was made (by Crissy Field Dog Group), but it is not part of the
regulations in effect.) Further, a sign along the bridge over the lagoon indicates that
Crissy Field is a resting area for the protected Western Snowy Plover, without
specifying that the West Beach is preserved for that purpose (the sign makes it
sound as though the threatened birds are trying to rest everywhere in the Crissy
area.)
Corr. ID: 4598 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210055 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Fort Funston, considerable areas have been replanted,
and there the newly planted and developing areas are clearly indicated with
environmental barriers. I find this very attractive, easy to see and respect. I applaud
the work of those who have done this planting. As a concerned environmentalist of
many years, I am delighted to see this work. It enhances the area and allows visitors
to see sections of native planting take hold.
I might mention that at other areas of Fort Funston a number of years ago, fenced
off areas (with dunes and ice-plant) were fairly clearly marked, but currently the
fences and signs are in poor enough shape as to be quite unnoticeable. Removal of
the ice-
p
lant ground cover, which was put in by the Aimy prior to World War II has
resulted in wind-blown sand drifts that are constantly shifting, covering trails and
fencing. Newcomers to the area may be excused for not noticing which areas to
keep out of. I consider these folks to be uneducated rather than irresponsible. Better
fencing and signage indicating the current off-leash areas is clearly called for to
maintain and protect the environment.
Corr. ID: 4688 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210088 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Clear Signage at Enforcement Transition Zones:
There are a number of locations where there is a transition between GGNRA and
City- managed lands. Without clear and prominent signage a person walking a dog
may suddenly find they are no longer on City property but GGNRA land and in
violation of the new regulations. An example of such a transition zone is at the
south end of the berm (owned by the City of San Francisco but managed and used
by Pacificans) which transitions seamlessly into GGNRA Mori Point land.
Therefore we encourage GGNRA to clearly post these transition zones.
Corr. ID: 4705 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209743 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I walk my dog at Fort Funston and it could hardly be
compared to other parks such as Yosemite. I have never seen a ranger patrolling the
area. I only see maintenance workers clearing out the trashcans. The pathways have
potholes and fences are falling down. The National Park Service has never tried to
police the area. There is very little signage put out. Fewer residents use the park
during the week. It is during the weekend that more people use the park when there
could be more problems with dogs. Rangers should be present to cite any
violations.I really get the feeling that with the National Deficit as it is, the leaders
of the National Park Service would prefer to leave Fort Funston abandoned with
very little use than to have it be a robust recreational area for the residents of San
Francisco and San Mateo counties.
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
398
Concern ID: 29492
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Signage is currently good at the parks, but people still choose not to regard posted
rules and regulations for dog walking. This results in impacts to other visitors,
wildlife, and habitat due to non-compliant users. Regulations need to be enforced.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1500 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200069 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a multi-year resident of the great highway (I live in
between Judah and Sloat), I can personally say that I witness dog owners walking
their dogs off leash all the time during the snowy plover protection period. There is
AMPLE education about this - signs posted everywhere - and yet dog owners
continue to break the law.
Just this morning I witnessed two boxers off leash in front of moraga street,
running up and down the beach chasing about 100 snowy plovers across the
intertidal zone. The birds would land again, and the dogs would continue to chase.
A couple of weeks ago, I watched a lady's off leash dog chase a group of plovers
into the sea; and a red-tailed hawk swooped down out of nowhere and attacked a
plover, breaking its neck.
I hope that existing leash laws are more strongly enforced, that education around
these leash laws is stronger, and that the ENTIRE OCEAN BEACH AREA from
the cliff house to fort funston be made a leashed area.
Corr. ID: 2252 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201006 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. The tolerance for non-compliance of off-leash activities
is FAR too low. Every single time I go out in our parks, I see them overrun with
off-leash dogs, running directly under signs that say dogs should be on-leash. In
general, I think the signage is good. It's just that no one enforces it. When one
person lets his dog off-leash, other people want to, also. It's a spiral. The plan
should strive for 95% compliance. There should be friendly tickets, and perhaps
even warnings, or people around to verbally re-inforce the signage.
Corr. ID: 2370 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201192 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There were clear signs right now in the various beaches
that are being violated. I would like stricter measures to be taken to enforce the new
regulations. I am all for certain areas for pet recreation. But please enforce the
rules, appearing lax only makes things worse
Concern ID: 29493
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Many commenters expressed that their attempts to contact enforcement have not
been successful, and that their own attempts to address non-compliance have often
been met with hostility.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1476 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199986 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We strongly support either on leash only or prohibited
areas for dogs. Our experience has been that owners feel they have the right to run
their animals off leash irrespective of existing law or ordinance. Off leash dogs
threaten humans and other dogs and adversely affect wildlife and habitat.
Almost without exception they respond in an adversarial and occasionally
combative manner when asked to leash their animal(s). Even in those areas where
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
399
signage of the on leash rule is clearly posted, non compliance is the rule rather than
the exception. We would support an aggressive ticketing policy.
Corr. ID: 2179 Organization: Equestrian
Comment ID: 200635 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My efforts in the way of phone calls to the rangers and
letters to the GGNRA to do something about the growing off leash dog situation
never seems to make a difference as enforcement stays minimal, phone calls to
rangers ignored, and people and animals are still getting hurt.
I often feel a tragedy will have to occur before this problem gets resolved and the
simple solution to keep dogs on leash finally gets implemented.
Concern ID: 29518
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitor experiences with the rangers in the park have been safe and positive.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4080 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207799 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Our considerable experiences at Ocean Beach have proven
contrary to the DEIS and that the current situation is safe for all (humans, dogs,
snowy plovers, etc.) and that the recreational areas provide an invaluable resource
for us and our lifestyle. During all of our time visiting Ocean Beach these past
couple of years, we have only had safe and positive experiences with park rangers,
most of whom engage us in small talk about our dogs, whether on or off leash. Our
dogs pose no danger to the wildlife or public, in fact most day's people and children
want to pet or play with our dogs. And with our frequent visits to the beach, our
dogs have learned "no birds" means no disturbing the wildlife.
Concern ID: 31544
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The park service replacement of signage (from maps to signs that said no dogs) is
indicative the current issues with NPS managment and enforcement. Such measures
increased public distrust of park service management, and noncompliance with
leash restrictions.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4697 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227450 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Certain areas of Ocean Beach had been designated as off
leash areas, and other portions designated as on leash where the Park Service had
identified a need to avoid the possibility of interaction with Snowy Plovers. There
were clear signs at the beach with maps showing exactly where the off leash and on
leash areas began and ended. By and large the public obeyed the restrictions. One
could watch beach walkers routinely running and playing freely with their dogs off
leash while carrying leashes and then stopping to clip on the leashes when getting
into the restricted Snowy Plover area.
However, that cooperative compliance ended when the Park Service tore out those
clear signs with the maps and replaced them with signs that instructed that dogs
must be on leash at all times. As a result we had a situation where the public
distrusted and ignored the signs completely and there is no information regarding
the special area. I saw off leash dogs in the area where previously they would be
leashed due to the identified special protection need.
Hence, by adopting a nominal universal policy that is unenforceable and unpopular
PO2010ParkOperations:AffectedEnvironment
400
the Park Service actually had the opposite effect ' increasing the likelihood of off
leash dogs in the identified natural resource risk area. If the Park Service cannot
possibly achieve enforcement of an overall ban, it should not attempt a partial
enforcement that will merely cause migration of park users from areas previously
identified as appropriate due to their lower protection need into other areas that
have a higher protection need.
PO4000 - Park Operations: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Concern ID: 29494
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters stated that the proposed rule would cause people to walk dogs off leash illegally, and
questioned how enforcement would be possible if current rules could not even be enforced. The
new rules must be adequately enforced, but would be very difficult to enforce. Additional staff
would be necessary to enforce rules and ticket offenders.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID: 239 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180789 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If there is no avenue for walkers to be responsible and legally walk dogs
off leash, that increases the likelihood of dog walkers using GGNRA areas illegally. Walkers who
violate on-leash regulations are also more likely to ignore common courtesy guidelines such as
cleaning up after their dogs and keeping dogs under voice control.
Corr. ID: 658 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181515 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If GGNRA is going to have dog policies, they must be enforced, which
will require adequate staff and a willingness to levy fines, high enough to get the owners' attention.
Corr. ID: 3700 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202222 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is imperative, whatever agreed policy is implemented, that leash and
voice control requirements be strictly enforced in all areas at all times. We have already seen that
lack of enforcement under the existing rules has led to erosion of the rules such that many areas
have become de facto off-leash areas. This cannot continue if the NPS is to ensure the safety of all
visitors and protection of natural resources. In particular, the stated aim of 75% compliance with
leash and voice control requirements is far too low. History has shown (and I have too frequently
observed when hiking or bird-watching in multiple areas) that a lack of continuous enforcement has
led to wide disregard of the regulations, even in designated habitat conservation sites (such as the
Snowy Plover Wildlife Protection Area at Crissy Field). The NPS should expect full compliance
with all rules, and set a goal of 95% compliance with leash and voice control rules for dog use as a
trigger for more restrictive policy.
Corr. ID: 4013 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206810 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I appreciate that fiscal/budget constraints will affect that actual number of
N
PS officers available for enforcement - and the answer I received must be taken at face value as a
spot estimate. But the simple fact that imposing more restrictive regulations across a wide area of
GGNRA lands will results in many such areas falling into non-compliance. As per the DDMP
designed strategy, non-compliance will cause even more restrictions to implemented. With every
new level of restrictions - enforcement efforts must be taken & enforcement resources must be
allocated.
If the DDMP compliance based policy is moved forward as stated, and the amount of enforcement
resources are not greatly expanded, how is this strategy deemed feasible?
Corr. ID: 4642 Organization: Not Specified
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
401
Comment ID: 208835 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All of the GGNRA "preferred alternatives" would significantly reduce
access by dogs, both on and off leash. Reducing access in this way is a simplistic approach to
complex problem. If there are not enough personnel to enforce the current areas where leashes are
required, enforcing areas where dogs are not allowed will be equally difficult. Restricting the number
of accessible areas will only increase the pressure and negative consequences on the areas where
access is allowed. This may result in a future justification for banning dogs from the parks altogether.
In particular, the Compliance Based Management Strategy allowing further (and arbitrary) restriction
without additional public comment is in contradiction to the spirit and intention of the outdoor areas
maintained by the GGNRA. The proposal that all new GGNRA lands will have no off-leash access is
another blanket approach to the problem. At a minimum, these portions of the proposed plan must be
eliminated.
Concern ID: 29495
CONCERN
S
TATEME
N
T:
The increased enforcement required by the dog management plan will alienate park visitors, and
create a police-state atmosphere, where there will be friction between visitors and park rangers. This
would be bad for park relations and the park's image.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1470 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 199981 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: NO NO NO Do NOT prohibit dogs from our National Seashore. They
belong here as much as do coyotes and foxes and children and hawks and eagles and osprey. Birds
adapt to dogs as they do to humans and other predators and become stronger for it. I have witnessed
this happen. (OVER) protecting the bird populations does NOT serve the birds nor does it serve we,
the taxpayers and dog owners, who live near our parks and utilize these parks.
Prohibiting dogs from our parks will also create undue stress on park personnel who will have to
devote all together too much time to enforcing these proposed dog restriction policies. Do Park
personnel really want to become viewed more as police people than stewards for the Parks? Is
delegating more time to law enforcement really they way park personnel want to spend their time?
Don't let these people drive the park system into adopting over restrictive and unfair policies which
will further make the Park system an unfriendly to people environment.
Corr. ID: 1804 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191670 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Furthermore I question the victimizing of dog owners and their dogs as an
effective and realistic solution to preserving endangered areas, providing a variety of visitor
experiences, improving visitor and employee safety, reducing user conflicts, nor maintaining park
resources and values for future generations. The level of enforcement required by Alternatives B-E
would be much more excessive and create a resentful and antagonist atmosphere. Alternatives B-E
blatantly lack many other possible solutions that would not require such extreme restrictions to
people and their dogs.
Corr. ID: 1834 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191974 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My overall impression of the voluminous Dog Management Plan is that it
represents yet another example of a Federal Agency burdening its citizens with overregulation that is
neither needed nor wanted and will be costly to enforce. Furthermore, it will require a US Park
Police or Ranger presence that would be oppressive. A return to the aggressive US Park Police or
Ranger tactics of ticketing dog walkers would certainly further tarnish the image of the Park Service
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
402
among dog walkers; we simply don't want the feeling of a police state in our parks. Surely the U.S.
Park Police or the Rangers have higher life and safety priorities to attend to rather than committing
their resources to ticketing responsible dog walkers.
Corr. ID: 4385 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209557 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am further concerned that the closure of GGNRA park lands to dog-
walking recreation will lead to unpleasant and unnecessary friction with Park Rangers and personnel
leading to bad feelings and bad press about the GGNRA parks and will lead to overcrowding in our
city parks.
Corr. ID: 4681 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210119 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Consequently, if you limit the dog walking, I think you will end up
changing the atmosphere of the beaches and Fort Funston to such an extent that you will end up
spending increased money on park police patrols to handle the resulting danger that will move in
when the dog walkers are removed. The DEIS does not adequately consider such probable collateral
consequences
Concern ID: 29496
CONCERN
S
TATEME
N
T:
There are concerns about where the increased monetary funds and labor needed to enforce the new
dog management plan would be coming from, and if these funds would be sufficient to adequately
enforce the plan. Additionally, these funds and labor could be used for other purposes if not allocated
to the new plan. Commenters feel the park does not have resources or support to implement the new
plan.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 503 Organization: Protector of the Environment
Comment ID: 181882 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fact, the NPS and GGNRA do not have the resources or public support to
enforce new regulations.
Corr. ID: 1770 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191535 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In this time of budgetary deficits, where will the money come from to
implement any plan? As a taxpayer I object to my tax dollars being used to fund futile efforts. The
enforcement costs of getting people to leash their dogs in certain areas would exceed any revenue
collected from fines. A budget analysis of the proposed dog management plan would show the folly
of trying to enforce restrictions on a waste land
Corr. ID: 2867 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202770 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan is short-signed, targeting responsible dog owners who present
threats to the public's enjoyment of these areas. If implemented, this will divert significant amounts
of very limited public safety officer time to what is at best a nusance; distracting them from actually
providing for public safety.
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203356 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: In that regard, we note that the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS)
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
403
Volume 2, Table 12, page 1568 estimates the cost for a program planned to run 5% years (Per page
1725) to be about $1.5 Million under any action alternative. Given that DEIS Volume 1, page 66
notes that the proposed monitoring plan will be peer reviewed to insure statistical rigor and accuracy
and training of monitoring staff to insure uniform measurement and interpretation of data," then in
our opinion, that $1.5M would appear to be a material under-estimate.
Corr. ID: 2976 Organization: Preserve recreation for dogs and people at GGNRA
Comment ID: 203640 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.Justify any changes with objective, reasonable
scientific studies and findings and remove the many exaggerations, speculations, and misleading
statements.
In my experience, there are regulations in place to protect the wildlife at both Crissy Beach/ Field
and Ocean Beach, restricting dogs during key seasons. These regulations seem to be sufficient and
seem to be respected by dog owners
Finally, given the current budget crisis both at a federal and state level, this amount of regulation and
enforcement seems to me to be a misplaced use of our resources. There are already many beautiful
areas within the GGNRA that are off limit to dogs (point reyes, muir woods).
Corr. ID: 4312 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209378 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And finally I want to point out the impact that construction of the fence and
gates and the requirement for ongoing surveillance by park police to enforce the policy will have on
the GGNRA budget. I am under the impression that almost all national parks have a long list of
projects and maintenance that require attention but end up being neglected for lack of funds. I am
sure that must also be the case in the GGNRA. By imposing the Dog Mantigemeni Plan proposed for
the Oakwood Valley Fire Roat/Alta Avenue routes, you will be diverting funds from other projects
that would be much more worthwhile to the park and its users than theoverly and unnecessarily
restrictive dog management plan as currently formulated.
Concern ID: 29497
CONCERN
S
TATEME
N
T:
Some elements of the plan are confusing or poorly designed, for example having off-leash areas
connected by on-leash areas, and will result in an enforcement headache for the park, due to
confusion and active non-compliance. Park rangers should be used for other law enforcement needs.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 78 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181838 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have walked my dogs in Oakwood Valley 3-5 times a week for the past 5
years.Not only is restricting them on parts of the trail loop a disaster for responsible dog owners, but
I question whether enforcing such a law is anywhere near a sane expenditure of funds
Corr. ID: 705 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182706 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: it seems to me that the options provided are going to be quite difficult to
enforce. But don't make it harder on the people who actually have to enforce these laws by making
each place a complicated series of laws per area.
Corr. ID: 1904 Organization: Government
Comment ID: 200341 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
404
Representative Quote: Park Rangers are not animal control officers. They should be on patrol to
stop speeders, thieves, and drunken visitors who have the greatest potential to harm the GGNRA and
its visitors. I support law enforcement when its applied appropriately, and where its needed the most.
Do the proper research and you will see that pets are not a threat compared to people who speed,
steal, fight, and become a nuisance to others in the Park.
Concern ID: 29498
CONCERN
S
TATEME
N
T:
Commenters felt that the new rules would not change the compliance by those dog walkers who
already do not follow the rules. Additionally, many dog walkers feel that they would not comply
with the rules if they are instated, increasing non-compliance.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 405 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181569 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm a dog owner and walker upset about the changes in rules that have been
in place for many years and have resulted in very few problems compared to the number of dogs in
these areas.
Having small off leash areas connected by on-leash areas that used to be off leash is going to cause
an enforcement headache for you because many people are just going to risk a ticket.
Corr. ID: 2865 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202761 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: To prohibit so much
recreation area from dogs would only prohibit responsible people from taking their dogs to those
areas. The problem people (dog walkers, etc) would still continue as it is obvious this plan could not
be adequately enforced. It is going from one end of a spectrum to the extreme other. How about
making some areas off leash, but leaving the ones that already see great use as they are. "Recreation"
is NOT defined as an activity excluding dogs
Corr. ID: 2977 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203680 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would be willing to pay at least 5 dollars per visit to keep dog access to the
current on-leash dog areas. I recommend you start charging.
Or, you will have to at least quadruple your enforcement budget because if you implement the
suggested plans most people will ignore them because the plans are punitive to the point of insulting.
Corr. ID: 3030 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201031 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you take away the places that make san francisco dog friendly and a
desirable place to live therefore eliminating the amount of exercise for dogs - it will be more likely
that dogs will be unhappy and act out.
It's an outrage and frankly completely financially irresponsible and dumb for the city to enforce this
new legislation There are 100's of people who dog walk as a job or a business and you will be
helping to raise unemployment in the state of california and making a stand against loving dog
owners who frankly are the ones who support and contribute to the park funds. It is not right and I
guarantee noone will ever abide by the legislation - you will have to be able to ticket thousands of
dog owners in one day b/c the owners will never give in.
Corr. ID: 4035 Organization: Not Specified
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
405
Comment ID: 227705 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Families with small children, seniors, and other individuals that are
normally law abiding citizens find themselves as law breakers when they get a family dog.
Responsible people will break the current suppressive leash laws if they are committed to their dog
and their own mental and physical health. The high number of regular people violating leash laws is
an indication that public need is not being met. Providing a better balance of off-leash versus on-
leash access, particularly in San Mateo County, would reduce people's stress and encourage
responsibly exercising themselves and their dog.
Corr. ID: 4075 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207768 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Further, by my observation and in my experience, there are quite a number
of restrictions on off-leash use of GGNRA land already in place, but enforcement seems to be the
real issue. I fear that if these more restrictive regulations are enacted, it will only be the law-abiding
dog owners who will suffer; the scoflaws won't care about the new restrictions--just as they don't
follow existing laws now.
Concern ID: 29499
CONCERN
S
TATEME
N
T:
Enforcement of the rules could be a good opportunity for the GGNRA to bring in revenue from
citation of dog owners who are not following the rules.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 575 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182081 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Moreover, I'd love for you to figure out some way to police the dog rules. I
know budgets are tight, but rangers issuing citations strikes me as a revenue opportunity! Let's have a
great big fee for getting caught with an off-leash dog.
Corr. ID: 2425 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200665 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Couldn't you make some money off enforcement, enough to pay for the
enforcement, at least for a while, at least until the dog owners get the hint and take their activities
where they belong?
Corr. ID: 3812 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208449 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Finally, I believe that many dog owners see citation fines as "the cost of
doing business," and encourage the park to increase citation costs, especially for repeat offenders.
Concern ID: 31911
CONCERN
S
TATEME
N
T:
Various components of monitoring need to be reassessed. Some suggestions for improving
monitoring of compliance include weighted costs for violations, measuring violations in relation to
the numbers of dogs, dog walkers, and the duration of issues.
R
epresentati
v
e Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203367 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
406
Representative Quote: Measurement by Duration (Not Equal Weight)
The DEIS also does not acknowledge that violations that are not remedied "immediately" have more
impact and thus should be weighted more than those that are remedied "immediately"...see:
htto://kron4.net/News/ArtioleViewitabid/298/smid/1126/ArtioleiD/7904/reftab/215/t/Dogs%2ORun
%20Free
%20in%20Areas%20that%20Require%20Leashes%20in%20San%20Francisco/Defaultaspx). We
believe that violations not corrected immediately and continue for a duration should have a double
weight (See Example B) For example, a wildlife disturbance that is stopped immediately would have
a weight (per adapted Table 4 above) of 2, but when allowed to continue unabated as in the
referenced Channel 4 video would have its weight doubled to 4.
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203361 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Page 66 states that "the number of incidents of non-compliance at any zone
must be measured against the total number of dogs in the area during monitoring." For example, as
written, an area with 76 dog walkers each with one well-behaved dog in an on-leash zone and 24 dog
walkers each with one dog with one incident of harming wildlife in an off-leash zone would achieve
a minimum 75% compliance ratio for the combined area (on-leash zone plus off-leash zone). instead,
we believe that the compliance ratio should be measured by the number of non-compliance incidents
at any zone against the total number of dog-walkers in that zone during monitoring." In this example,
the off-leash zone should have a compliance ratio of 0% while the on-leash zone's compliance ratio
should be 100%.
Furthermore, in measuring areas, there is a logical flaw if no-dog zones are included. It is certainly
possible to measure violation incidents in a no-dog zone, but that number cannot be compared to the
uncountable number of dogs that are not present in that no-dog zone. instead, we propose that dogs
observed in an area's no-dog zone be allocated as a violation to the on-leash zone in the same area if
the observed violation is on-leash and if the no-dog violation is off-leash, then allocated as a
violation to the off-leash zone in the same area
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203366 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Measurement by Dog Walkers (Not Dogs) as Denominator
Page 66 states that "the number of incidents of non-compliance at any zone must be measured
against the total number of dogs in the area during monitoring, We believe page 66 should use the
number of dog-walkers (not the number of dogs) as the denominator in the compliance ratio. Dogs
do not commit violations; the dog-walker commits the violation by not properly supervising their
dog. (See Example A).
Measurement by Dog Walkers Monitored (Not Total Dog walkers) as Denominator
There is a problem if the total dog walkers observed are not fully observed through the visit to assess
violations, for example, if there is a careful count of dog-walkers entering a ROLA, but then half of
them walk out of sight of the monitors and thus only the visible half are monitored for violation, then
the compliance ratio will have its dominator incorrectly inflated by 100%. Similarly if the
Monitoring Team counts 100% of the dog-walkers but then is able to carefully monitor only half for
possible violations, with the other half monitored for only a few minutes...then the denominator will
be again be incorrectly inflated. The correct denominator should be the total number of dog walkers
whose actions were monitored for violations over a reasonable period of time.
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203363 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
PO4000ParkOperations:ImpactofProposalAndAlternatives
407
Representative Quote: Measurement by Incident (Not Dogs or Dog Walkers) as Numerator
Page 64 states that the program measures "the percentage of total dogs / dog walkers observed during
the previous 12 months not in compliance with the regulations. Page 64's definition does not specify
dogs vs. dog walker and thus results could vary by 600% when "total dogs" are uses as the numerator
vs. "total dog walkers" (each with 6 dogs). In contrast, page 66 states that "the number of incidents o
f
non-compliance at any zone must be measured against the total number of dogs in the area during
monitoring. We believe page 66 is correct in using incidents as the numerator (see Example A)
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 203358 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: The 75% over-all compliance threshold is justified when "the benefits in
allowing the use is outweighed by the NPS administrative burden required to manage the use."
(DEIS Vol 1, pg 67). However, this overall 75% threshold ignores the every-day reality that limited
administrative costs are necessarily prioritized as appropriate to the nature of the violation. The
potential for more serious violations will necessarily received more administrative attention and thus
should mandate a higher compliance threshold threshold to balance the higher administrative cost.
We do not believe, for example, that it is reasonable to assume that an equal amount of
administrative cost should be assigned to educating and enforcing a 75% compliance with 36 CFR
2.15 (a) (5) (Pet Excrement) as would be assigned to attaining a 75% compliance with 36 CFR 2.2
(a) (2) (Disturbance of Threatened and Endangered Species). We thus propose weighted violations
that defacto prioritize compliance thresholds that average 75% but range from low to high, with
Disturbance to Threatened and Endangered Species as the highest priority, and Disturbance and
Damage to Wildlife and Vegetation as next highest priority.
PO5000 - Park Operations: Impacts
There are no comments for PO5000
PP1100 - Pedro Point: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29280
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters supported the preferred alternative at Pedro Point. The on-leash
restrictions would limit off-leash dog activity on the beach, and prevent owners
from failing to notice and remove dog waste at the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3858 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208906 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Pedro Point, Pacifica CA
I support the Preferred Alternative. This year, I saw more than one pet owner come
to the beach, let the dog run and relieve itself. One person picked up after the dog,
the other did not. This should not be permitted.
PP1200 - Pedro Point: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29282
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Off-leash dog walking should be preserved on Pedro Point trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2286 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201163 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 3. Pedro Point. Should be off leash. Great trail for dogs -
you don't even have a trail for leashed dogs in your proposal.
PP1200PedroPoint:OpposePreferredAlternative
408
Concern ID: 31834
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose the preferred alternative becasue it will restrict dog walking to
a trail along a highway wih no parking, It will also limit trail access from visitors in
the adjacent neighborhood.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4641 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208817 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I live in Pedro Point in Pacifica, and my husband and I
currently use the Pedro Point Headlands to walk our dog almost every day. ' We
have a neighborhood trail that connects with our property, so we can access the
headlands from our front door. Ifthe new plan is adopted, there willbe only a short
b,t of trail where dogs can be walked (not long enough for a good dog "walk).This
trailis right along the highway and has no parking area associated with it. The main
attraction of our headlands is the spectacular view, but this trail comes nowhere
near the view-all you can see from it is the highway! If dogs are banned from the
rest of the headlands, Pedro Point residents will likely be forced to use their cars to
take their dogs somewhere else to walk them, not a good development for the earth.
The Pedro Point Headlands have been severely damaged through years of heavy
motorcycle use and are now undergoing habitat restoration. We consider ourselves
stewards in this on-going important project and help to keep on eye on it through
our daily walks. Motorcyclists are still invading the area, and we try to talk to them
to let them know that they are no longer allowed on the headlands. We also report
them to the people in charge of the restoration, as they have requested, so they can
have a record of what is occurring on the headlands. If dogs are severely restricted
on the headlands, we will no longer be able to provide this service, as we will have
to take our dog elsewhere to get her a decent walk.
PP1300 - Pedro Point: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29281
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support alternative A, the no-action alternative because the site is well
suited for on-leash and off-leash dog recreation.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1918 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192600 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sweeney Ridge + Pedro Point Headlands and Fort Funston
are ideal for on leash + off leash dogs. Don't change the current land use plan.
Corr. ID: 4385 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209561 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Recognizing that improving Crissy Field and other
GGNRA lands is a continuous and collaborative process, I do support some of the
modifications presented in the proposals provided that these modifications are
made to the Existing Alternative. For example, I am in favor of an on-leash policy
for dogs in all parking areas. However, after much consideration and review of the
very large amount of material, and with the addition of on-leash rules for parking
areas, I support Alternative A, the No Action alternative for Crissy Field, Fort
Funston and Baker Beach. Additionally, I also include the "New Lands" areas (such
as Cattle Hill, Sweeny Ridge, Mori Point, Pedro Point and Milagra Ridge and
Rancho Corral de Tierra) in San Mateo county in my comments and support that
these areas be open to generous on-leash (parking areas and other truly
environmentally sensitive areas where people, horses and bikers are also restricted)
and off leash dog walking as well.
PP1300PedroPoint:DesireOtherAlternative
409
Concern ID: 29284
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Pedro Point should be considered under new lands, since the park is unfamiliar with
the site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3059 Organization: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Comment ID: 201239 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think that the Pedro Point prescriptions were based on
very little information, as the park is currently relatively unfamiliar with the trail
systems and resource issues at this site. I propose that the park revoke this
prescription and consider the site a "New Land" and follow the prescription
provided for such areas.
PP1400 - Pedro Point: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29287
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Site Access - Many of the trails at Pedro Point are good for both on- and off-leash
dog walking. The maps from the Pacifica Land Trust should be analyzed in the
creation of trails in Pedro Point. The new plan is not satisfactory because it would
restrict visitors from enjoying many of the trails in Pedro Point with their dogs, and
removes access points to many of their nearby neighborhoods. This means residents
of the area would need to drive to the trail access, and would have to go elsewhere
if they wanted to bring dogs. The addition of certain trails such as South Ridge
Trail, Bluff Trail, North Ridge Trail, Middle Ridge, and Arroyo Trail would allow
access to the site from the surrounding neighborhoods, and other access points.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4511 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209502 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Thus, we were dismayed when we saw the proposed
preferred alternative for the Pedro Point Headlands that would allow on-leash dog-
walking on only a small portion of the PPH trail system located next to Highway 1.
There are several neighborhood trail access points to the PPH lands, one at the top
of Grand Avenue where we live and another on Olympian Way. Those access
points do not connect to the PPH anywhere near the GGNRA-designated dog-
walking trail, however. To access the GGNRA-designated trail, almost all residents
of the Pedro Point district of Pacifica would need to get in their cars and drive to
the designated trail to walk their dogs or drive elsewhere to walk their dogs, which
would contribute further to traffic congestion (already a problem on Highway 1)
and cause harm to the environment through pollution. Also, there is no parking area
near the GGNRA's designated dog walking trail. One wonders if trail users would
park illegally and/or dangerously near the trail entrance. Finally, because the
GGNRA-designated trail for dog-walking in the PPH is so close to the highway as
to be unpleasant and because no nearby parks are dog walker-friendly, I expect that
most Pedro Point residents with dogs, including us, would drive down the coast
(e.g. Montara or beyond) to find a place to walk our dogs.
Corr. ID: 4511 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209503 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Consequently, I would like to recommend that the
GGNRA recast its dog-walking plan for the PPH to permit dog walking on the
South Ridge Trail, Bluff Trail, North Ridge Trail, Middle Ridge, and the Arroyo
Trail. This change would enable Pedro Point neighborhood residents who walk
dogs to access the PPH lands on foot, without having to drive to a single trail head
near Highway 1. Moreover, this change would also allow dog walkers to make a
loop within the PPH trail system (as a general policy, I recommend that all
GGNRA parks have loop trails where dog walkers are able to make a loop).
Corr. ID: 4641 Organization: Not Specified
PP1400PedroPoint:SuggestChangeinAlternative
410
Comment ID: 208811 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The new plan is especially restrictive for the trails on Mori
Point, Sweeney Ridge, and Pedro Point, all where I live, in Pacifica. They are so
restrictive as to keep people from enjoying the best parts of these three parks. You
could not reach Mori Point itself with your dog, nor could you enjoy the views
from Sweeney Ridge dr Pedro Point. In fact, for the latter two parks, it would not
b
e worth visiting' with your dog, since you could not access the best parts.. This is a
shame, since they are all beautiful parks, with very nice trails on which to take a
dog for a walk.
Corr. ID: 4688 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210093 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Pedro Point:
Map 20C was lacking detailed trail maps making it difficult to evaluate these
options. The GGNRA has access to the publically vetted trails map that was created
through a cooperative effort of the Pacifica Land Trust and the National Park
Service. We suggest incorporating the trails map from that effort as a starting place
for discussion of possible on-leash dog access on Pedro Point. It seems reasonable
to assume that as soon as the Devils Slide tunnel is open and the segment of
Highway 1 between the two portals is abandoned and turned over to public foot and
bicycle access, Pedro Point will become a popular destination. If that is a valid
assumption, the public will seek access to the site with their dogs. We suggest
adding the proposed trail network from the Pacifica Land Trust grant effort to more
definitively establish what forms of dog access might be possible in advance of the
actual transfer to the GGNRA (which has been pending for many years). It seems
reasonable to consider on-leash access from the old parking area up the south ridge,
north to the middle ridge, and then back to the east via the ridge or the valley trail
between those two ridges.
PS1000 - Comment Regarding Public Scoping Process
Concern ID: 29511
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters were disappointed that public hearings were not held on the plan/EIS.
Some commenters assumed that a public hearing is required under NEPA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1105 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192289 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am disappointed that the open house format was used
instead of an open forum. I feel that without vocalizing in public, my concerns will
not be heard.
I support keeping the rules as they are now.Do not impose new rules or laws.
Leave GGNRA dogs alone!
Corr. ID: 1652 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191047 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Under NEPA, you need to hold a public hearing, which
this meeting (3/7 - Ft. Maston) is not!
Dogs are already limited to les than 1% of GGNRA lands. To restrict them more is
an outrage. The Preferred Alternative in the EIS should not be adopted. If anything
off-leash areas should be expanded.
Concern ID: 29512
CONCERN Some commenters were not aware of the public meetings. Other commenters stated
PS1000CommentRegardingPublicScopingProcess
411
S
TATEMENT: that further meetings never occurred in Montara. The Montara Dog Group was not
contacted about providing comment on the plan. Marin County felt like it was left
out of the process. The Crissy Field Dog Group stated that they wanted more
response from the Superintendent on their comments. Decisions regarding New
Lands (i.e., Rancho Lands) was made without input from local dog walkers
violating U.S. vs. Barton. Some stated that the DEIS was not well publicized. The
meetings were only held during work hours. There was lack of signage announcing
the comment period.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 696 Organization: Montara Dog Group
Comment ID: 182686 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Park service representatives replied that no official
responses could be made until the Dog Management Plan was released. Further
meetings were promised; yet, no meetings have occurred. Apparently the official
N
PS response has been to lump the Rancho in the New Lands category and ban dog
access with Alternative D, essentially ignoring the input of a large percentage of the
local community that regularly uses the Rancho.
Corr. ID: 1257 Organization: Montara Dogs
Comment ID: 194954 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And as for public involvement, our community has been
purposely ignored in this process. There was one public meeting, which I attended,
a year ago in Montara. MANY dog owners attended -- it was amazing the large
turn-out -- to voice community concerns and desires. But Park Service
representatives refused to address the concerns of dog owners, referring us to the
dog management plan and draft EIS under development .
Further meetings were promised; yet, no further public meetings have been held in
our area. And the Montara Dog Group has never been contacted for input to the
plan.
Corr. ID: 1812 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191795 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposal to change the off leash regulations at various
sites throughout the GGNRA has not been well-publicized. I take my dog to Crissy
Field once a week when I work in San Francisco and there are no notices posted
about this proposal. I have no idea if it has been posted at any of the other sites
affected by the proposal, but I have asked friends who use Rodeo Beach, and they
knew nothing about the proposed changes.
Corr. ID: 4601 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209944 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Two specific areas of the Rancho tract have historically
been used as off-leash dogwalking areas. Area One is a tract bounded on the north
by the Rancho stables and cultivated fields, on the west by the wetlands mandated
as a part of the Devil's Slide Tunnel Project, and on the south and east by the
unincorporated community of Montara. Area Two is the area accessed through
Princeton-by-the-Sea a development within El Granada) and extending south and
north behind that community. Maps of these areas have been submitted by other
persons making comments.
These areas represent less than 5% of the Rancho lands.
The GGNRA "preferred alternative" is to ban dogs from Areas One and Two, along
with the remaining areas of Rancho. This decision was reached without any input
whatsoever from local dogwalkers. This decision was also reached without any
supporting data as to current uses or environmental evaluations whatsoever. This is
an abuse of GGNRA's rule-making powers.
PS1000CommentRegardingPublicScopingProcess
412
The lack of consultation with local dogwalkers contrasts starkly with the deference
accorded horseback riders using the same areas. Horseback riders were consulted
early in the transfer process, and their comments acted upon before any decisions
were made as to the stable areas and riding trails. The contrast strongly suggests a
decision to avoid consultation with area dogwalkers. This is an intentional violation
of the law as interpreted by US v. Barton.
Corr. ID: 4712 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209788 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Under NEPA, any persons, groups or organizations are
encouraged to "consult" with the lead agency (GGNRA) regarding their concerns
and suggestions about the DEIS. Crissy Field Dog Group (CFDG) did speak with
Frank Dean about having people/groups come and meet with him and GGNRA
staff after the May 30th deadline and have an opportunity to explain their written
comments. To date, Mr. Dean has not responded to this constructive suggestion to
CFDG.
Concern ID: 29513
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Input from the local communities should have been incorporated before the DEIS
was released. If the public was involved sooner in the process, then there would be
less controversy on the DEIS.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 504 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181893 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I was very 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 (targeting for exclusion
j
ust one group), but is not founded on research or analysis.
Corr. ID: 4144 Organization: citizen of these here united states
Comment ID: 208616 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The public has not had the opportunity to participate in the
development of the Dog Management Plan. If it had and the wishes of the public
had been taken into account we would not be dealing with a plan at this late date so
out of touch with the wants and desires of the GGNRA main constituency: the
residents of Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
Concern ID: 29514
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some commenters were not able to get access to PEPC. Some commenters did not
know that the comment period ended on 12:00 PM.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1485 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191267 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. By the way, I
could never get the internet response site to work for me.
Corr. ID: 1805 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191673 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have tried on several days to access the plan online and to
make comments there and have not been able to read the site. Any plan
consideration should be deferred until the public has reliable access.
Concern ID: 29515
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Changing the status of off-leash areas to on-leash or no dogs via the compliance-
based management strategy should go through public review. There is concern that
once the DEIS goes final that further decisions will be made without public input,
PS1000CommentRegardingPublicScopingProcess
413
especially since it will be significant and very controversial.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 578 Organization: San Francisco Professional Dog
Walkers Association
Comment ID: 182096 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. The change would be
permanent. A management plan should not come with a built-in nuclear option,
which is what this is. It allows a relatively few bad players to undermine and
destroy a traditional recreational use of the area. No number of responsible dog
owners will stop what will become the inexorable removal of all off-leash access in
the GGNRA if this strategy remains part of the plan. Tens or hundreds of thousands
of hours of incident-free dog walking will not matter. 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: 1803 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191644 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 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-
b
ased
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
Corr. ID: 2327 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201926 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What concerns us is that after these hearings are over and
agreements have been made about leash laws and areas, the proposed option gives
the GGNRA the opportunity to change these agreements without a further hearing.
How is this fair? If this is the case, what is the purpose of the comment period?
This Compliance-Based Management Strategy makes the whole process seem like
a mere formality to keep us dog people in line and to gain the control that will
eventually mean more and more restrictions. How can we enter into this process in
good faith with this kind of strategy in place?
We believe this strategy should be removed from any option that is finally adopted.
Concern ID: 29516
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There is a concern about the cost of the DEIS and how many employee hours were
spent on the document. There is also a concern about printing copies of this large
document; use CD/DVDs instead.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 173 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182391 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like the exact cost of the 2400 page document
made public and the number of employee hours involved'
PS1000CommentRegardingPublicScopingProcess
414
Corr. ID: 4070 Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207685 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 6)DEIS/ FEIS distribution-Why wasn't a request sent out
to the mailing list asking them which format they would like to receive the DEIS
in? Printing thousands of hard copies of a thousand plus page EIS seems like a
complete waste of park service budget and resources. This request is recommended
for the FEIS
Concern ID: 29517
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The format for the public meetings was excellent; commenters felt safe, well
briefed, and very able to express their opinions in many ways. The open house
meetings were preferred over the public hearing style. However, there were
concerns that some commenters choose not go to the public meetings and did not
comment because in the past public meetings have been a hostile environment
dominated by pro-dog individuals.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1691 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191094 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I want to congratulate the Park Service for creating a
meeting format that feels safe, secure, and gives a wonderful series of opportunities
to express my opinion, both personally, in writing, on the easel boards, and on-line.
I felt well briefed, given much personal time, and all questions were answered.
Corr. ID: 4669 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209180 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am concerned that you and other officials have heard
only from those opposed to the Plan. I also understand why this may be the case.
Public hearings on this issue have been uncivil, with advocates for unrestricted
offleash dogs in the GGNRA shouting down or ridiculing those with opposing
views. The result is a hostile environment in which many thoughtful individuals
may choose not to publicly participate in the process. Should the Plan not be
adopted, they will express their views by not visiting or otherwise supporting the
GGNRA.
This is not how government should work. Those who shout the loudest should not
inevitably get their way. I understand that emotions run high in this vocal minority
of individuals. However, that does not excuse the embarrassing denial of
democracy.
Concern ID: 29519
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
A simple summary of the DEIS would have been helpful to commenters. Expand
the parks outreach to minorities by providing copies of the DEIS in different
languages.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1044 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192122 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It would make it easier if you had a simple summary that
the public could read. And a simple way to email you instead of this form. The
process you have favors the dog coalition in the City that is organized, and not
individuals like myself.
Corr. ID: 4130 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208560 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: GGNRA can also expand the outreach to residents of a
minority-majority city such as providing copies of the Draft Plan in different
languages other than English.
PS1000CommentRegardingPublicScopingProcess
415
Concern ID: 29522
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There should be oversight and transparency of the public comment process from an
independent or third party. There is concern that the public will not be informed
that all legal requirements have been followed. There is a conflict of interest if
GGNRA staff evaluate the public comments.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3970 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206092 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Finally, I ask that you hire an independent and neutral thir
d
party to receive, count, organize and analyze the comments sent to the GGNRA
regarding the Dog Management Plan. Otherwise, there will be no oversight, no
watchdog, and no credibility for any results which the GGNRA might announce or
purport to use as a basis for future action.
Corr. ID: 4102 Organization: SFDOG
Comment ID: 208462 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The NPS must arrange for an independent entity to
evaluate the public comment on the DEIS. Assigning the comments to GGNRA
staff, the very people whose research is being attacked by these comments, is a
conflict of interest of the most egregious kind. There must be independent analysis
of the public comments and an independent determination of how the analysis of
any Alternatives must be changed to accommodate the comments.
Concern ID: 29524
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Consider all public comments on the Fort Funston rulemaking including the 2001
public hearings, the ANPR, and the prior correspondence generally received on the
issue. Reopen the 2001 public hearing so that commenters can present their views.
All public testimony provided on this issue preceding the release of the DEIS
should be considered.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2001 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193201 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -Please consider all public comment given on this issue in
the Fort Funston rulemaking, the 2001 public hearings the ANPR and the prior
correspondencec generally received on the issue of limitation of the 1979 pet
policy.
-Please contact and reopen the 2001 hearing comment by person who attended the
hearing but were not allowed to present their comments. The hearing was
postponed/continued based on a vote to take no action and anticipated further
hearing before any action was taken. The people who came to speak at that hearing
should be given an opportunity to present their views as they left the hearing based
on the assurance that they would have another opportunity if action was to be
taken.
Corr. ID: 4551 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209840 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition to public comments provided after the release
of the DEIS, all public testimony provided on this issue during the ten to twelve
years prior to the release of the DEIS should be considered in developing
alternatives.
Concern ID: 29525
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There is a concern that many of the comments were from people who are not from
the Bay area. Comments from stakeholders located outside the bay area should not
be equally weighted.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3956 Organization: Not Specified
PS1000CommentRegardingPublicScopingProcess
416
Comment ID: 207063 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I understand that the GGNRA is a national
recreation area, I must express my belief that
comments from stakeholders many miles distant should not be equally weighted.
Concern ID: 29526
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Any changes to the DEIS should go through public review.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4118 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208515 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Changes to any plans determined as part of the current
process should also include public review and comment session, versus becoming
park rule as a result of park restriction enforcement mandates
Concern ID: 31902
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some commenters expressed the suggestion that meetings be held with various
interest groups after the comment process had been closed, to allow for a kind of
"working session".
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4462 Organization: K&L Gates LLP for Crissy Field Dog
Group
Comment ID: 209719 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: 1. Understanding comments. We note our suggestion made
at the public meetings that you, along with staff most involved in developing the
alternatives and mitigation measures, meet with interested groups not long after the
end of the draft document comment period. The purpose of the meeting would be a
real working session for GGNRA to understand the comments made, particularly
on the draft Plan, where you can ask questions and understand what a written
comment intended. It would not "extend" the public comment deadline or provide
commenters with "another bite at the apple." A few sessions could be held with
different perceived interests, such as dog walkers, environmental groups,
neighborhood groups, and local government. The sessions could be public; we are
not afraid of access by other stakeholders to you or others hearing what we intend
by our comments on the draft Plan.
RB1100 - Rodeo Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29322
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it allows off-leash dogs to
continue to use the beach area as well as some dog-free areas
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3703 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202234 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a veterinarian working at The Marine Mammal Center
in the GGNRA, and as a tenant living within the GGNRA, I really appreciate the
difficulty of balancing the needs of different constituents, wildlife and the delicate
coastal habitat. I have lived in the Marin Headlands for over 10 years, and regularly
walk along Rodeo Beach, although I am not currently a dog owner, where I observe
dogs and their owners enjoying running in the surf. I will always remember
meeting a father of a special-needs young boy who was playing in the intertidal
area with his dog, and hearing that it was the one place locally they could come a
feel free and one with nature. Throughout these years, I have not observed dogs
disturbing marine mammals there, and in fact, The Marine Mammal Center
occasionally releases rehabilitated animals off Rodeo Beach due to its proximity to
the Center and it suitability as an access point to coastal waters for sea lions.
RB1100RodeoBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
417
I thus support the DEIS preferred alternative C for Rodeo Beach, and hope that this
area can remain an off-leash area for dogs under the guidelines in the DEIS. I could
not find specifics on whether dogs would be allowed on leash between the housing
in the Headlands and the trailheads on which dogs will be allowed on leash. I hope
that on-leash dog walking from housing to trailheads will be allowed, so the
residents and their visitors who have dogs will not be compelled to drive short
distances to comply with new regulations.
Corr. ID: 4354 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209532 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: RODEO BEACH
There were relatively few people with dogs on the beach on a weekday morning.
Several classes of elementary school children were there, probably from the
Headlands Institute (NatureBridge). There was plenty room for everyone who was
there, and if there were a lot more people there, I think there would still be a lot of
room. I favor the Preferred Alternative, which gives plenty of room for dogs off
leash, but also allows some beach that is dog-free for picnickers and beach games.
Corr. ID: 4687 Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
Open Space
Comment ID: 227452 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The county supports the preferred alternative for Rodeo
Beach. It allows dogs off leash on most beach areas, and requires leashes while
crossing through the sensitive lagoon area. This area will receive displaced use
from Muir Beach. Restricting access on the southernmost portion of beach may be
difficult to enforce, and the area may not environmentally distinct. However it will
provide a dog free zone for beach users who want an experience free from dogs.
RB1200 - Rodeo Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29323
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative because it does not allow off-leash
dog areas in the southern portion of the beach; some commenters believe there is no
science-based information to support the negative impacts from dogs
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1508 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191412 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not change the current policy at Rodeo Beach or
in other areas governed by the GGNRA, for that matter. There has to be more space
available for off-leash recreation, not less, given the huge demand for it in the Bay
Area.
Corr. ID: 1568 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190776 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: With a friend's help, I remove about half a ton of trash
every year from Rodeo Beach. Making half the beach off limits to dogs would deter
me from going there.
The south part of the beach is almost entirely visited by dog owners in the morning.
Putting it off limits makes no sense.
Corr. ID: 1784 Organization: Self
Comment ID: 200235 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to SUPPORT walking dogs off-leash in
GGNRA. I treasure the parks where I walk my dog off-leash (primarily Crissey
Field and Rodeo Beach) and I don't think the areas where off-leash dog walking is
RB1200RodeoBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
418
allowed should be further restricted.
I have a few thoughts on what regulations could be added that might be a workable
compromise for dog owners and help non-dog owners not feel intruded upon in the
parks:
1. MOST IMPORTANTLY, create an online, off-leash dog behavior guide and
then issue special tags to dogs that meet pre-determined good canine citizenship.
Dogs WEARING these tags would then be able to be walked off-leash in GGNRA.
This program would be on the honor system, require a fee, and more importantly a
commitment on the owner's behalf to properly train their dogs. A program like this
was implemented successfully in Boulder Colorado Mountain Parks and so I know
it can be done. Dogs must come when called, not approach other people or dogs
without permission, not leave the trail without permission, and not chase wildlife.
This is all easily accomplished with well-trained dogs. Dogs not wearing these "off-
leash" tags would be fined. Yes, a part of the success of this type of program is
creating a barrier to entry to off-leash dog walking - much like any other type of
license or fee.
2. Restrict off-leash dog walking in high-traffic parts of GGNRA to certain hours o
f
the day and / or days of the week. Perhaps certain parts of the these most-congested
areas could be off-leash until 9:00 am and then again after 5:00 pm? I wouldn't
impose even my well-behaved off-leash dog to families having a picnic on a hot
sunny day on Crissey Field.
3. Restrict off-leash dog walking to three dogs maximum. This limit should include
ALL owners AND professional do-walkers.
4. License all professional dog walkers.
5. Increase enforcement and write tickets for owners that do not follow the rules.
Use this money to increase awareness of responsible dog management in the parks.
Concern ID: 29324
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose the Preferred Alternative because it allows too much of an off-
leash dog area on the beach; these visitors would rather the beach be an on-leash
dog area or a dog-free area due to dog impacts to wildlife they have observed
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 842 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186214 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to express disagreement with the preferred
alternative (alternative C) as it pertains to Rodeo Beach. I strongly advocate for the
continuation of an on-leash policy not only on the surrounding trails of the Marin
Headlands and South Rodeo Beach, but also on Rodeo Beach itself. I hope NPS
will continue with their on-leash dog policies so the GGNRA can be enjoyed by all
visitors.
Corr. ID: 925 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191377 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a surfer at Rodeo Beach for at least 30 years and a
previous dog owner and probably future dog owner. I think this is the wrong place
for dogs to be allowed free or leashed. I have observed dogs chasing birds.
Bothering marine mammals. I have also been in the ocean and observed dogs
relieving themselves in the surf line. It is impossible to pick-up after a dog in the
surf line. This is a health hazard we should not promote. I think it would be fair to
allow them on some fireroads leashed.
Corr. ID: 2974 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203674 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I work with environmental education in the Marin
Headlands and hope that the impact on groups of students visiting Rodeo Beach has
RB1200RodeoBeach:OpposePreferredAlternative
419
been considered. We often have dogs (friendly or not) run up to and in the middle
of student groups. This can be very distracting as well as upsetting for students who
are afraid of dogs (which happens fairly often). It can be scary when a group is
seated at the beach and a dog comes running up at the students' eye level. At times
we have even had some aggressive dogs approach our groups.
Additionally, it is challenging to teach students' to respect their parks when dogs
are running into and along the edges of the lagoon, after birds or surfers or chasing
other wildlife. Additionally, several of our staff witnessed a dog run a deer into the
lagoon where the deer then drown.
It would be nice if perhaps from the lagoon bridge to the right dogs could be off
leash- that way student groups could head left from the bridge to access trails and
enjoy the beach.
Concern ID: 29325
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters ask that Rodeo Beach be kept as an off-leash dog area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 973 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191666 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My concern is with the restrictions proposed for Muir
Beach, Rodeo Beach, and Oakwood Valley.
Oakwood Valley: It sounds as if the major problems associated with providing
access to dogs are caused by dog walkers. Would it be possible to keep the access
the way it currently is, which is my STRONG preference, if dog walkers were
regulated? To limit dogs to on leash only for any part of Oakwood trail, the only
one in the entire Marin Headlands that is a dirt trail through the woods on which
dogs can run free - under voice control, seems overly restrictive. To do so because
some special species might be discovered and impacted some day, seems unduly
forward thinking. Muir Beach:
It would be so easy to fence off the riparian areas, which would give dogs full
access to the beach. If people want a dog-free beach, they can drive a couple more
miles down the road to Stinson any of the other beaches up the coast. Rodeo Beach:
Again, I see no reason to restrict dogs to on-leash only.
Corr. ID: 1021 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191792 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep dogs off-leash status for responsible dog
owners at our favorite spots: Rodeo Beach, Muir Beach, Crissy Field
Corr. ID: 4386 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209564 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We've been frequenting Rodeo Beach all the years we've
lived in Marin, I've rescued seals and sea lions there, released them there, and taken
my breaks there in the years I worked for Marine Mammal Center. To have Rodeo
taken away from my family and our pets is a huge blow. Given it is the Golden
Gate RECREATION Area, I can't understand why there is a move to take these
areas away from us.
RB1300 - Rodeo Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29326
CONCERN Commenters support Alternative A because it allows the most off-leash dog areas,
RB1300RodeoBeach:DesireOtherAlternative
420
S
TATEMENT: including the southern beach area almost exclusively used by dog walkers or also
adding more dog friendly beaches in the area
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 439 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181685 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Homestead Valley: Alternative A
Stinson Beach: Where's the beach? - I got nothing!
Muir Beach: Alternative A - I will stay out of the creek; I like salmon too!
Rodeo Beach: Alternative A, or the preferred alternative would be OK, but better if
I could walk the entire beach.
Chrissy Field: Alternative A
Baker Beach: Alternative A
Marin Headlands : Alternative A
Ocean Beach: ALternative A
Corr. ID: 494 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181850 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I realize that the main part of Rodeo Beach is not on the
list for closure to dogs, but closing the south part of the beach makes no sense.
Especially in the early morning, the south beach is almost solely used by dog
owners.
Corr. ID: 2012 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193221 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Rodeo Beach - It's too ambiguous "crest" of beach. Keep
Alt. A as ROLA. Even without dogs on this beach stats show low shorebird use due
to high #'s of people, kites, footbal games, etc. Beaches with more than 20
people/km and no dogs still have low shorebird use. DO ADD fence at lagoon
keeps adults, children & dogs out of lagoon. Increase enforcement if necessary.
Corr. ID: 3788 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205326 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think the least the change , Alternative A, should also be
applied at Rodeo Beach. It's a nice big place with plenty of room on the beach for
all.
Concern ID: 29328
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative D because it is the most protective of natural
resources and visitor safety.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4315 Organization: State of California Department of Fish
and Game
Comment ID: 209389 Organization Type: State Government
Representative Quote: Rodeo Beach/South Rodeo Beach
The NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) differs from Alternative D in the
designation of an extensive ROLA on Rodeo Beach which under the Alternative D
would be split between areas designated for on-leash recreation and areas closed to
dogs. Within the ROLA, permit holders would be allowed to have up to six dogs
off leash. As stated in the draft EIS, the adoption of the Alternative C at this site is
likely to result in moderate adverse impacts to coastal foredune vegetation due to
the large size and location of the ROLA, resulting in long-term adverse impacts to
RB1300RodeoBeach:DesireOtherAlternative
421
marine mammals and birds. DFG recommends that Alternative D be selected as the
adopted alternative as it, by a combination requiring dogs to be leashed and
prohibiting dogs from portions of the beach, would avoid impacts to vegetation
which may result from trampling, digging, and waste and avoid impacts to marine
mammals and birds which may result from repeated flushing, barking, biting, or
other pursuit or contact.
Concern ID: 29329
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters ask that Rodeo Beach be kept as an off-leash or on-leash dog area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1074 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192206 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please let us continue to exercise our dogs off leash at
Muir, Rodeo and Stinson Beaches. Dogs and their owners really enjoy the freedom
of off-leash play in the sand and water. We have far too few places where a dog can
play off leash as it is. Most dog parks are small and confined spaces without
adequate shade trees and access to water (e.g. Larkspur and San Anselmo).
Corr. ID: 1161 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193473 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Currently we walk our dog on leash at ocean beach and
muir beach and rodeo beach.
To have all these places removed is intolerable.
Funston is already overcrowded and smells of dog poop because so many dogs go
there.
This plan will force many dogs into the City parks which are already over-used.
RB1400 - Rodeo Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29330
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLAs - Commenters suggested changing the location of the ROLA at Rodeo
Beach. Suggestions included placing a ROLA on the central and southern end of the
beach, moving the northern boundary of the current ROLA 50 meters, or placing
the ROLA north of the bridge.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 678 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182640 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Rodeo Beach:
I think that the planners got this beach plan backwards. It makes more sense to me
to have a small section of beach near the parking lot that only allows leashed dogs
and then allow unleashed dogs on the central and southern ends of the beach.
Corr. ID: 1691 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191095 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Because the "surfer" parking lot is being removed above
Rodeo Beach by Fort Cronkite, it would be better for the future bird populations at
that wetlands-to-be if the ROLA on Rodeo Beach were constrained from a further
50 meters on the north side. Preferrably, no dogs on the beach, but the preferred
alternative could be improved if the northern boundary of that ROLA were moved
south 50 meters.
Corr. ID: 2920 Organization: Save Our Seashore
Comment ID: 224052 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: The Rodeo Beach Preferred Alternative shows a ROLA on
virtually of the beach. We do not agree with requiring families with kids and picnic
baskets who don't want to deal with dogs to have to trudge to the far end of the
beach. We suggest the ROLA should be limited to the half of the beach north of the
RB1400RodeoBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
422
Bridge as shown as an off-leash zone in Alternative D, using the bridge as a visual
"fence" extended with post 'and-cable or post-without-cable to more extensively
demarcate the off-leash area.
Corr. ID: 4215 Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208894 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Rodeo Beach - we feel that many visitors who may desire a
no-dog experience at Rodeo Beach would be unlikely to make their way to Muir
Beach. This is especially true of park visitors taking advantage of bus transit from
San Francisco that only brings people as far as the Marin Headlands and Rodeo
Beach. Therefore, we would propose a compromise version of Alternative D: make
the beach area north of the bridge a ROLA, and make the area south of the bridge a
no dog area. We realize the "line of separation" on the beach would not be able to
be clearly marked; however, since the primary beach access is over the bridge,
signage can indicate which area is which very clearly, and would be relatively easy
to monitor. We support the construction of the proposed fence around the west end
of the lagoon in any case.
Concern ID: 29331
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Time of Day Restrictions - Commenters suggested allowing off-leash dogs on the
beach at designated hours of the day. Suggestions included allowing off-leash dogs
in the morning hours and during the afternoon hours splitting the beach for off-
leash dogs and no dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1713 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191151 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: have been walking on Rodeo Beach since I was 10 yeas
old (1957) and since I was 20 I have been walking dogs there: Hottie, Reicher, Jet,
Coco, Willies, Blue, Colby and Lola. I have never seen a dog fight that resulted in
anything but a growl. I have never seen a person bitten. Any trace of these dogs is
non-existent, and their impact is negligible.
Give the entire beach to dogs in the AM + divide the beach between dogs and
humans during the middle of the day - again because by 5p everyone else is gone.
At the times of year when one is able to walk the entire beach (both north and
south) let dogs walk it. The entire beach is only open a few weeks during the whole
year - usually winter.
Corr. ID: 2119 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193392 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Rodeo Beach -
-Off leash 6am-10am Rodeo + S. Rodeo then S. Rodeo no dogs the rest of the day +
Rodeo beach on-leash/off-leash split the rest of the day.
Concern ID: 29332
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Commenters suggested adding more on-leash areas at the site including
an on-leash loop around Rodeo Lagoon.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 957 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191588 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs are all over the Marin Headlands, often off leash on
trails that are non-dog. It is too confusing, not posted, and there is no monitoring.
Let there be dogs on Rodeo Beach and one trail loop, and that's all.
Concern ID: 29333
CONCERN
N
o Dogs - Commenters suggested that dogs not be allowed at this site at all due to
RB1400RodeoBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
423
S
TATEMENT: wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1263 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194967 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In certain areas, where specific threats to wildlife or the
environment exist, such as Rodeo Beach or Muir Beach, dogs should not be
allowed at all.
Concern ID: 31123
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Fencing - A fence should be placed around Rodeo Lagoon for resource protection.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29326 (RB1300), Comment 193221.
RF1000 - References: General Comments
There were no comments for RF1000
SA1100 - Site Accessibility
Concern ID: 29658
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed plan at Fort Funston will limit access for elderly and disabled visitors,
as well as those families with young children and dogs. The ROLA located on the
beach is not large enough, and the sand ladder access is difficult for many elderly
people. Commenters felt it would be impossible to access with a dog on leash, as is
called for in the proposed plan. The smaller proposed off-leash area is not sufficient
for those who cannot reach the beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1076 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
192207
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The suggested plan for Funston would not be accesible to
disabled people on wheelchairs and canes and for families who bring their kids in
strollers. In order to get to the trail where dogs will be only allowed on leash,
everyone would have to go through the sandy area or the Chip Trail because the
Funston suggested alternative map that was presented at the meeting shows that the
paved area that leads to the rest of the trail (Sunset Trail) is off limits to ALL dogs,
whether on or off leash. How is someone with a cane or wheelchair who is there with
a dog supposed to get to the trail where dogs are allowed on leash? How are people in
wheelchairs going to be able to utilize the proposed off leash sandy area when they
can't even maneuver in it?
Beach access for off leash dog walking will be extremely difficult for those with
canes and inaccesible all together to those who are wheelchair bound. The only
access to the beach is down the flight of stairs near the parking lot and down the
VERY STEEP sandy beach access trail. That is not practical or safe to anyone who is
disabled. So in reality, someone wheelchair bound with a dog really has NO place in
Funston to be with an off leash dog. GGNRA should do a review of their plans for
Funston to consider disabled people.
Corr. ID:
1379 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
SA1000SiteAccessibility
424
ID:
195256
Representative Quote: As far as I know, Ft. Funston is the only legal off leash
recreation area this side of Carmel, with the exception of Esplanade Beach in Pacifica,
which is below the crumbling cliffs, with 70 steep stairs that wash away often, and a
b
each that all but disappears at high tide. We're in our 60's, so access is a big deal to us.
The proposed off leash area on the beach below the sand ladder will not be of any use
to us. Once you reach the bottom of the sand ladder, you have to climb down to the
beach or slide down on your butt, and forget about trying to climb back up!
Corr. ID:
3827 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209291
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Specifically, the preferred alternative [at Fort Funston] does
not provide adequate ROLA in the areas above the beach and does not provide an
option to have a dog on voice control in a loop from one's car to the beach and back.
The preferred alternative requires park visitors to leash their dog for long stretches in
order to access the ROLA on the beach. This is very problematic because it is FAR
safer , and less conflict inducing, for a dog to be under voice control instead of on leash
while traversing narrow trails and walking down the steep grade to the beach.
Unnecessarily leashing unaggressive dogs can impede the experience and safety of
park visitors because it is far safer for the dog and visitor to travel across these areas
untethered to one another. I fear that older people, or people with disabilities, will be
forced to tether themselves to their dog while walking across difficult terrain and will
injure themselves as a result or simply not be able to spend time in nature.
Corr. ID:
3845 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
208770
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston is an extremely important place for my family. I
use a wheelchair and have a service dog. Fort Funston is one of the few places with a
significant distance of accessible paths and an off-leash area; it is one of the few areas I
let my dog off-leash because I am able to travel parallel to him along the paths as he
romps. With the proposed changes to off-leash areas at Fort Funston, I will only be
able to travel along the perimeter of the area where my dog plays, which will restrict
our interaction and enjoyment of the park.
Concern ID: 29659
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Keeping dogs in the wet sand only at the proposed Fort Funston ROLA would present
a danger to smaller dogs from proximity to the surf. Having sand ROLAs would
preclude use by those who have trouble walking, and often the tide blocks access to a
large portion of the beach ROLA. In addition the outfall pipe will block portions of the
loop trail proposed.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
843 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
186218
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston: The beach will be available to us, but the walk
down to it, no matter how you go will be on leash. That will not only be difficult, it will
be dangerous. Once we are on the beach, they want us to walk only on the wet sand. I
want to keep my dogs safe, and with smaller dogs especially, I want to keep them away
from the surf most of the time. Also, the beach is not available to us at all times
SA1000SiteAccessibility
425
because of the tides.
Corr. ID:
1076 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
192208
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Also, the section of the beach [at Fort Funston] that is
suggested for off leash dog walking is only from the staircase of the parking lot to the
beach access trail. This stretch of the beach includes the outflow pipe. More often than
not, the tide is high at that area and there is no way to get around that outflow pipe. So
when tide is high, there's more space that is lost for off leash walking. Sometimes the
tide is so high that you can't even access the beach safely in the proposed designated
off leash section of the beach.
Corr. ID:
4249 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209209
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I particularly object to the proposed changes at Fort Funston.
The restrictions here are drastic and reduce the amount of off-leash area by
almost 90%. The small off leash area near the main parking lot is not
nearly enough space for all the dogs and owners that utilize this part of the park. This
reduction in space - and forcing too many dogs in a smaller area, could result in
conflicts that this plan attempts to reduce. Dog walking at Fort Funston is a long
standing recreational use, and it is perfect for it. It has wide expanses of sand, with
little important vegetation or habitat (even prior to dog use) which provide open spaces
large enough for everyone to enjoy.
The plan discusses a loop trail from the parking lot down the Beach Access trail, along
the beach, and up the Sand Ladder. However, the majority of time, the outflow pipe
blocks passage down the beach, making a loop impossible. This results in reducing the
off leash area even further.
One of my favorite places in the city to walk with my dog is south of the sand ladder.
The proposed new rule banning dogs on this section of beach is unfair and
unnecessary. This section of beach is not overly used and I have never encountered any
conflicts
Concern ID: 29660
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having only limited parking adjacent to the proposed ROLA at Crissy Field, and the
distance from the parking to Central Beach will make it difficult for elderly, disabled
visitors, and families with small children to access these areas, unlike the East Beach,
which is close to parking. Additionally, the facilities and beach at East Beach were
more beneficial to those with children than the central beach.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1800 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
191583
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Middle Beach ' the area between both East and West beaches,
paralleling the lagoon where the few big trees grow and the GGNRA plantings have
been devastated by the tides. This is a difficult area to reach for families and the old
people who are out for their exercise since the only parking and entrance is at East
Beach. Leashes required on lagoon bridge (part of on-leash path) and then off- leash on
the beach at all times, possibly as far as the old Coast Guard pier
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
SA1000SiteAccessibility
426
2813
Comment
ID:
201116
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Alternative does not address needs of two user
groups: seniors and families with children and dogs.
Elderly people with dogs, and families with both children and dogs do not have a
viable alternative in this plan. The distance to the Central Beach makes it difficult for
frail seniors and impossible for families with kids and dogs to manage to move
themselves and their gear (strollers, beach stuff) from the parking lot over the bridge to
the beach. Solution: same as above: full weekday use and timed use on the weekends.
Corr. ID:
4038 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
207206
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am also a senior citizen, 67 years old. I need to have parking
close to the East Beach available for me and my dogs, because it is too far for me to
walk to Crissy Field or to walk blocks from far away parking. One of the major reasons
I walk my dogs at Crissy Field is the availability of nearby parking. (One of the major
defects of the preferred alternative for Crissy Field is the lack of adequate parking near
the area where dogs would be permitted off leash.)
Corr. ID:
4441 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209381
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. 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.
Corr. ID:
4563 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209783
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Further, my husband is disabled and cannot walk far. Your
proposed alternative allows dogs in areas that are far away from the parking and
restrooms. If you adopt this alternative we will not be able to go to Crissy Field any
longer when we are walking our friend's dogs.
Concern ID: 29662
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The substrates found at the ROLAs on Crissy Field are not suitable for use by those
with disabilities; sand is difficult to navigate for unsteady walkers and those in
wheelchairs, and the grass on the airfield is uneven.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
4037 Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment
ID:
207193
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed off leash beach area is not easily accessible as is
the main beach. For the past couple of years I've had difficulty walking on the sand on
SA1000SiteAccessibility
427
several occasions due to physical limitations, and having to walk out to the proposed
off-leash area is simply not possible for me in many instances. I can't help but to
wonder what legally disabled people are supposed to do to get down to that part of the
beach. I realize dogs can go off leash on the grass, which is more accessible. However,
my dog has a bad shoulder that does not bother him when he runs on the sand, but
becomes a problem on the grass area.
Corr. ID:
4038 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
207212
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Moreover, the GGNRA's preferred alternative for Crissy Field
would severely and unfairly penalize senior citizens and those who rely on using the
East Beach because of its abundant nearby parking and its ideal environment for
exercising their dogs. The GGNRA should not, and cannot realistically, expect us to
use only the western beach for walking on the beach and exercising our dogs off leash.
That beach is essentially inaccessible due to the great distance away of available
parking. The GGNRA should not expect senior (or disabled) citizens to park on the
other side of the street and then have to walk all the way across the grassy area just to
get to the beach where our dogs can chase balls in the surf and walk with us in the
sand. Because of the uneven terrain and hidden holes in the field, the grassy areas is
also dangerous for dogs to run on, and for humans to walk on. Because of this danger,
that grassy field is ABSOLUTELY NOT a feasible solution for exercising dogs off
leash.
Concern ID: 29665
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Issues for handicapped users are not addressed at Mori Point. Cutting off the trail from
Pollywog Path (the trail running north from Old Mori Road) would cut off access to the
adjacent neighborhood, limiting access to many elderly people and young children.
Lishumsha Trail is particularly smooth, making it a good access trail for disabled
visitors.
For other representative quotes, please see Concern 29275 (MP1200), Comment
202345 and Concern 29272 (MP1400), Comment 191130.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1924 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
192260
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please leave Mori Point as it is (Alt. "A").
Handicap issues - not addressed!
N
o off-leash reasonable walking in San Mateo Count!
Concern ID: 29667
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters questioned whether the proposed plan was in accordance with ADA
standards, and noted that it did not accommodate disabled users. Handicapped visitors
need to have ample space where they can easily access off-leash areas for recreation
with their dogs. These visitors need to have good trails and areas to recreate and
exercise with their dogs. Popular areas for handicapped individuals include Milagra
Ridge. Fort Funston, and Fort Mason .
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
2039 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
193279
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
SA1000SiteAccessibility
428
Representative Quote: I have not seen any references (in th report) that GGRNA have
for people (w/dogs) who have limited mobility (ADA). The map indicates the
walkways are further away on the new plan.
Corr. ID:
2106 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
193364
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Off leash access fo the disabled access trails is critical to dog
owning persons with some key access dificulties, where the individual has a well
trained dogs that is necessary for enjoyment of the person on the walks and for safety
reasons.
Corr. ID:
4218 Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club, Native Plant Society
Comment
ID:
208916
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA states that the disabled are afraid of dogs.
However, many of the people who use these areas are there because of disabilities.
People with diabetes, arthritis, and depression walk to keep their conditions under
control. People with mobility problems go to Milagra, Funston, Fort Mason and other
places because they can recreate more easily with their dogs on the paved surfaces.
People with service dogs go to these areas so that their hard-working dogs can take a
needed break.
Corr. ID:
4416 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
207196
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is absolutely no way any disabled senior could manage
the steps down to the [Fort funston] 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:
4486 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209403
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As an individual with limited mobility, I must point out that
the plan discriminates against handicapped dog owners, and is thus in violation of the
ADA.
Corr. ID:
4570 Organization: Senior, Half Moon Bay High School
Comment
ID:
209844
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposal also ignores the needs of dog owners with
limited transportation options or with special needs. People should have the ability to
walk dogs off leash in areas close to their homes. This proposed plan would limit
access to an entire class of people who have few other options and depend on the
current off leash areas to keep their dogs exercised and healthy.
SA1000SiteAccessibility
429
Concern ID: 29668
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Disabled visitors, particularly those with stability concerns, noted that it was very
difficult to find areas where they could access the park without off-leash dogs. The
preferred alternative would open up more areas of the park to those with disabilities,
and would comply with the ADA.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
2039 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
193280
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: WRT People of limited mobility: I recently had a stroke. It
was very difficult to find a park free of dogs off leash where I could walk (unsteadily)
with safety. Park are for people first (well or sick).
Corr. ID:
2167 Organization: GGNPC
Comment
ID:
200592
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to speak in favor of the GGNRA's preferred
alternative in its draft DMP.
The preferred alternative will make it possible for my son to visit portions of GGNRA
lands where off leash dog use is currently allowed that we have never been able to
visit. Such a change in land use management is fully consistent with and in fact
mandated by federal law including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
SB1100 - Stinson Beach: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29377
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative to protect visitor
safety.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 735 Organization: Physician
Comment ID: 182715 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I treat 100 dog bites a year in my job as Division Chief of
Plastic Surgery at Oakland Children's Hospital. I've treated dog bite injuries in
children from Stinson Beach and Mill Valley as well as from all over the Bay Area.
I live in Mill Valley and and we have dogs and children. I'm in favor of the new
tighter restrictions because a sizeable portion of dog owners ignore the rules with
regard to leashes and voice control at Stinson or in the NPS put children in danger
of sudden, severe injuries.
Corr. ID: 1320 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195065 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My comments are with regard to Muir and Stinson beaches
as these are the locations my family visits and tries to enjoy. I would like to go on
record stating that I would like to see unleashed dogs banned from the beaches.
PLEASE......BAN UNLEASHED DOGS FROM THE BEACH!!
Corr. ID: 1472 Organization: Marin Audubon
Comment ID: 200254 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative C: Stinson Beach, Rodeo Beaches
SB1200 - Stinson Beach: Oppose Preferred Alternative
SB1100StinsonBeach:SupportPreferredAlternative
430
Concern ID: 29378
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters feel dogs should be allowed on Stinson Beach and on the trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1661 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191059 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Stinson - How can you take away the whole beach!!! It is
not fair that people who have been going to the beach off leashy now cannot go at
all under the 1st proposed alternative.
SB1300 - Stinson Beach: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29379
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative A for Stinson Beach
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 10 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181415 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: the following are my comments on some of the various
areas under review.
Stinson Beash: Alt A.
Concern ID: 29380
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative D for Stinson Beach
For representative quote, please see Concern 29230 (MH1300), Comment 205586.
SB1400 - Stinson Beach: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29381
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Commenters suggested adding a ROLA to half of Stinson Beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1531 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190707 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative 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 part of the beach
Concern ID: 29383
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters would like both an off-leash area at Stinson Beach and a beach area
that does not allow dogs at Stinson Beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 438 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181674 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Re: Stinson beach - I am not sure whay they want the
entire beach to be closed for dogs, but really, there needs to be an area for dogs, and
an area that does not allow dogs. A compromise is a real solution, not this kind of
one-way proposal that keeps dog owners from having reasonable access to public
beaches.
Concern ID: 31546
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It was suggested that an off-leash area be created that abuts neighboring Upton
beach, which allows dogs. This would resolve issues with visitors parking at
SB1400StinsonBeach:SuggestChangeinAlternative
431
Stinson and illegally crossing to Upton, and would relieve some of the pressure
from this smaller beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4687 Organization: County of Marin Dept. of Parks and
Open Space
Comment ID: 227451 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: Upton Beach dog users are adjacent residents, and those
who were Stinson Beach bound but were prohibited by dog restrictions. These
redirected users park their cars in the GGNRA lot, cross an unsanctioned federal
area with their dogs to the county beach.
Managing Upton Beach is a challenge for the county. The county has two ideas to
improve management, health and safety, and visitor enjoyment of this area. The
county requests that a limited segment (to be determined) on the northernmost edge
of Stinson where it abuts Upton be designated for dogs. This would create a
sanctioned area on the federal beach near the parking lot, and relieve pressure on
the relatively limited area available at Upton. It would acknowledge and
accommodate those dogs that GGNRA rangers redirect to the county beach. This
also would help mitigate displacement from Muir Beach.
Concern ID: 31840
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
On-Leash - Commenters suggested allowing on-leash dogs on the beach.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 841 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186204 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Stinson Beach: please keep this as on-leash access.There
are enough people using the beach that a leash-law is justified here.
SH1100 - Sutro Heights: Support Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29258
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the preferred alternative which includes on-leash dog walking.
Commenters feel that the area is not well suited for off-leash dog walking.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1159 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193462 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I frequently go to Lands End and Sutro heights park. These too are
areas that are not well-suited to off-leash dogs.
SH1200 - Sutro Heights: Oppose Preferred Alternative
Concern ID: 29259
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose the preferred alternative and want to have the opportunity for
dogs off-leash at Sutro Heights.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3225 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202630 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sutro Heights. I would say that at least half of the Sutro
Heights Park Users are dog owners. It is ridiculous to make this a leash only area
with the amount of dogs in this park. These dogs are generally well behaved and
mostly belong to neighborhood residents who have been using this park since these
dogs were puppies. Everyone knows each other. The interaction between most dog
owners and the other users in the park is very favorable. As an example, I walk one
dog on leash the whole walk and the other dog (who is under voice command) goes
off leash once we are into the park and then as we walk around the overlook and
around the loop, then I usually hook her back up as we start to leave the park. Even
with all the weddings and picnics going on, I have never seen a dog off leash bound
SH1200SutroHeights:OpposePreferredAlternative
432
into the middle of a wedding or a picnic.
SH1300 - Sutro Heights: Desire Other Alternative
Concern ID: 29264
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
N
o Dog Experience - Commenters are concerned about the number of dogs at Sutro
Heights and would prefer a no dog experience, alternative D.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1544 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190727 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sutro Hts.
Everyone dog + otherwise confined to trails only + no dogs in picnic areas.
Prefer Map 14D
Corr. ID: 4215 Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208900 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: Sutro Heights Park - The Preferred Alternative, which
would allow on-leash dogs through the park (with one small exception), amplifies
the problem cited at Lands End and Fort Point (and Fort Funston) - that is, the
inability to have a no-dog experience. This park is a unique unit of the GGNRA,
and so provides an experience not available in other units. Because it is a developed
site, the environmental impacts of dog activity are far fewer. Nonetheless, we
would prefer to see a greater accommodation to those visitors who would prefer a
no dog experience, which could include a number of people with physical
challenges that would find it more difficult to visit other units of the GGNRA.
SH1400 - Sutro Heights: Suggest Change in Alternative
Concern ID: 29266
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the preferred alternative, with some changes. Specifically,
commenters would like dog walkers to be restricted to one dog per visitor and
compliance to be increased to 95 percent, instead of 75 percent.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4410 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206953 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sutro Heights Park ' 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.
Concern ID: 31845
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
ROLA - Commenters want all of San Francisco, including Sutro Heights, to
continue off-leash dog walking and thus they prefer alternative A.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1685 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191085 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe that all of the San Francisco County should stay
with Alternative A. I feel that cutting back the area we now have would be a
disaster. There are almost 200,000 dogs in S.F. alone. We need more areas to walk
dogs off leash, not less
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
433
TE2010 - Threatened and Endangered Species: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 30405
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters acknowledge that they have observed that dog owners encourage/allow
their dogs to chase after snowy plovers or commenters agree that off-leash dogs
present a threat to the snowy plover. Commenters urge the park to protect listed
species at GGNRA; some commenters state that protecting listed species is a
mission of GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 658 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181512 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have long believed that unconstrained dog access to the
GGNRA is inappropriate for the mission of protecting and encouraging native flora
and fauna, and often very unpleasant for other recreational users of the GGNRA
Corr. ID: 1773 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210994 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am always surprised at how little some dog-owners care
about what is left of our precious natural environment. This is even more true on
Ocean Beach. I've seen the following:
- Dog defecating on the beach and their owners kicking sand to cover it (instead of
picking it up)
- Dog owners encouraging their dogs to chasing after the protected snowy plovers.
- Dog owners allowing their dogs to run without a leash in areas they shouldn't.
- Dog owners encouraging their dogs to poop in their neighbors yard without
picking after their dogs.
Corr. ID: 2337 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202160 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I see off-leash dogs everywhere, and that includes the
Wildlife Protection Area at Crissy Field, where the endangered Snowy Plover is
trying to hang on. It includes places where children are playing--some of whom may
be afraid of dogs--or people are trying to eat. It includes "protected" natural habitats,
b
reeding ground for rare birds, and and many other areas that might quite reasonably
be better off with no off-leash dogs.
I think the GGNRA isn't going far enough. We have a terrific number of excellent
places to walk and run dogs in this city. And we have almost no places where
endangered wildlife can have a good chance at life.
Corr. ID: 2396 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202363 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please protect the unique and vulnerable species of animals
and plants in Golden Gate
Park.
Corr. ID: 2558 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195651 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to help protect wildlife from inappropriate
activities such as that represented by off-leash dogs. These activities have resulted in
habitat encroachment and wildlife harassment by dogs. it has been reported that
unleashed dogs represent the most significant recreational threat to wintering
western snowy plovers.
Wildlife take refuge on Golden Gate's beaches to rest, breed, and rebuild energy for
survival. Please give them a chance to thrive.
Corr. ID: 2607 Organization: Sierra Club
Comment ID: 195536 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
434
Representative Quote: The National Park Service has a responsibility, and actual
mission, to protect natural and cultural resources, not allow recreation to undermine
it. When considering that, one would want endangered species habitat to have a high
level of protection from human disturbance; the compliance rate should be 95%, not
75% as outlined.
Corr. ID: 2705 Organization: National Parks Conservation Society
Comment ID: 195552 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Golden Gate Park has reported that unleashed dogs
represent the most significant recreational threat to wintering western snowy plovers
and more endangered species, so, why are dogs allowed to run loose, in this fragile
area?
Simple solution, is to restrict dogs to a leash.
Also, stop letting children chase the birds, as well!
Corr. ID: 2846 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202576 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Endangered species should have a significant level of
protection from human activities/disturbances. This degree of protection should be
in the range of 90+%
Corr. ID: 3248 Organization: none
Comment ID: 202723 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Golden Gate Nat'l Recreation Area & the rare and
endangered species living there are gems that must be protected at all costs.
When considering planning for this area, please prioritize habitat above all else.
End the allowance for off-leash dog walking, as dogs are too big a threat to the
p
lovers. Also, other than service dogs, dogs should not be allowed in all areas. There
should be some dog-free places where hiking & picnicing can be enjoyed without
them.
Corr. ID: 3267 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202792 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Golden Gate National Recreation Area 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!
However, the current regulations do not address certain kinds of activities which
have been found to disturb wildlife like western snowy plovers and marine
mammals.
Part of the intention for the park was to encourage wildlife so that people could see
these animals in a natural habitat. Birds and mammals now take refuge on Golden
Gate's beaches to rest, breed, and rebuild energy for survival, but this is being
hampered by unregulated off-leash dog recreation in these areas which has permitted
dogs to harass wildlife and damage habitats.
Unleashed dogs represent the most significant recreational threat to wintering
western snowy plovers, an endangered species. Other than in off-leash areas which
are fully enclosed to protect park users, wildlife, and other dogs, animals must be on
a leash at all time enforced by significant fines to the animals' owners. No
exceptions.
The park should provide more facilities free from dog recreation. Dogs should only
be permitted in areas where they won't negatively impact sensitive wildlife and
habitats, and where they don't impact other user groups from enjoying the beauty of
the park.
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
435
We need to enforce the park's mission of protecting the natural and cultural
resources, and amend regulations for recreational use, best reflected by Alternative
D.
Please amend the proposal to provide for a 95%, not 75% compliance rate as
outlined. These animals need and deserve our help.
Corr. ID: 3306 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202874 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The dog people have plenty of places to run their pets.
Please protect the endangered and threatened species from the humans and their
pets.
Corr. ID: 3625 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204117 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've watched owners with their dogs run right through
marked areas for Snowy Plovers by Crissy Field, almost belligerently.
- One individual came out of the redwood stand adjacent to El Polin Springs with 10
dogs; they had been off leash in the stand, wondering about.
- There's plenty of feces along the trails every time I've hiked through the Presidio.
- While I firmly believe most dog owners are conscientious, the sheer number of
dogs means every day wildlife is assaulted/hassled throughout the GGNRA. The
Presidio in particular can look like a private reserve for dog owners.
As GGNRA Management considers a dog management plan, greater consideration
should be given to the following than the draft plan currently does:
- Dogs on trails should be on-lease; it's the only way to ensure wildlife can co-exist
in close proximity with dense human populations
- Fenced, large dog run-free areas need to be created throughout the GGNRA
- Beaches: some beaches within the GGNRA lend themselves to leash-free areas,
some simply do not. Clear signage delineating such areas would be needed
Corr. ID: 3768 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204829 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have personally witnessed off-leash dogs chasing snowy
plovers on Ocean Beach in the area where these birds are supposed to be protected
(and I do know how to distinguish snowy plovers from sanderlings).
Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209319 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Over the years, the Golden Gate Audubon Society has
documented that approximately 2/3 of dog walkers in the Crissy Field Wildlife
Protection Area (WPA) ignore the leash requirements and let their dogs roam off-
leash even while the threatened Snowy Plover is present. The rates of non-
compliance are even higher on Ocean Beach and at Ft. Funston.
Corr. ID: 4143 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208605 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I primarily hike, and have rarely had trouble with dogs in
the locations I frequent (Mori Point and Marin Headlands). It seems my fellow park
users recognize the value of the resources that require protection and the value of
sharing the trail, at least with hikers.
I often go to Ocean Beach with my young, 4-year old son and, unfortunately, feel
less and less comfortable there. I can't trust the unleashed dog or its owner to keep
him from my son. I can't stand watching an unleashed dog chase a snowy plover. I
no longer go to Fort Funston because of these two reasons. I don't want to lose
Ocean Beach too.
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
436
Concern ID: 30407
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that dogs are affecting the bank swallow at Fort Funston;
some commenters believe that human or other disturbances impact the bank
swallows at Fort Funston (hang gliders, natural impacts).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1803 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191661 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: b) Severe restrictions are not needed to protect the bank
swallow. The DEIS claims "continuing" impacts from dogs and/or humans that
include digging at or collapsing the burrows of bank swallows, flushing the birds
from nests, and causing active sloughing and landslides that may block or crush the
burrows. However, there is no documentation that any of these impacts actually
occur. Bank swallows burrow near the top (but not at the top) of sheer cliff faces at
Fort Funston. There is no way dogs can access these burrows, so there can be no
impact on them from the dogs
Corr. ID: 2044 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193286 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs do not interfer with the bank swallows they are up to
high and do not use the beach. They (the birds) get their water and bugs at the lake.
Corr. ID: 2103 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193356 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The new rock revetment has displaced more bank swallows
than ALL dogs running between Sloat & Fort Funston.
Corr. ID: 4153 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208654 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never seen dogs at Ft Funston bother bank swallows.
I have witnessed many times over many years bank swallows swooping in and
flying behind dogs catching the insects they kick up when they are walking in open
areas.
I have seen predation of bank swallows by the crows/ravens whose numbers seem to
be ever increasing at Ft Funston.
Corr. ID: 4249 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209210 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Additionally, this section is proposed as off limits to dogs
because of the bank swallows, but there research by California's Department of Fish
and Game that found that the bank swallow is remarkably indifferent to the
activities of people near nesting sites. Bank swallows frequently nest near intense
human activity, including busy highways, construction sites and quarries. There
does not appear to be scientific evidence supporting the claim that people or dogs on
the bluffs far above the nests or beneath the flyover zone would hurt the birds.
Corr. ID: 4396 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209569 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One large assumption is that both the environment and the
endangered species "could be" threatened by our dogs. These parks are not
designated as critical habitat. The Snowy Plover doesn't nest or breed at Fort
Funston or Ocean Beach. The endangered Bank Swallow burrows near the top of the
cliffs at Fort Funston where no dogs can possibly go. These birds are probably more
upset with the paragliders that are not being forced out of the GGRNA. As with
most of the wildlife that can tolerate our busy urban spaces, it is the bicycles and the
surfers and the people that are strange and frightening; not the dogs which appear
quite like normal predators to them. (Just another coyote).
Corr. ID: 4560 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209891 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
437
Representative Quote: The DEIS offers no definitive evidence, rather only
speculation, to document dog impacts that would support the proposed significant
restriction in space for off-leash recreation. Likewise, there is no plan in place to
evaluate the effects (or lack thereof) of the proposed drastic changes on the
environment within the affected areas once the plan goes into effect.
The DEIS lists as impacts things that "might" or "could" happen, not documented
impacts. The GGNRA monitors from 2000 to 2006 observed very few dogs in the
closed area around the Bank Swallow colony. No dogs were observed collapsing a
Bank Swallow burrow, flushing a swallow, or causing a landslide in the Bank
Swallow colony, yet digging, flushing, and landslides are listed in the DEIS as
potential impacts, and this is used to justify a significant land use change that will
adversely affect tens of thousands of people and pets.
The DEIS also does not contain any studies comparing the relative impacts of
natural predators and humans with that of dogs. Significant land use changes are
therefore proposed based on essentially confounded data.
Corr. ID: 4598 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210065 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS notes some studies and general tendencies of
dogs to harm natural resources, but with few exceptions, there is little documented
site-specific impacts to support the restrictions of the preferred alternatives. One
argument against off-leash dog-walking I have heard is the adverse effect on
wildlife in the area. I have seen statements that the dogs disturb the nesting of bank
swallows at Fort Funston. I don't understand this, having experienced the co-
existence of domestic dogs and the swallows for over 20 years. Indeed, the sightings
of the swallows actually diminished for a short time after the ice- plants were taken
out and before the native plants became established. I can only guess that somehow
the plants were harboring the insects that the birds consume as food. Now that the
native plants have established themselves, life goes on as before. The birds do not
seem to be bothered by dogs. Their biggest problem seems to be the hawks and
other air-borne raptors.
Concern ID: 30408
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that the CA red-legged frog or the SF garter snake [at
Mori Point] is being affected by dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4126 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208548 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The red-legged frog is nocturnal and is well hidden during
the day. Field biologists have a difficult time locating unless there is a radio
transmitter attached to the frog. The SF garter snake is also very elusive and stays
well within cover.
I think there is a slim to none chance that my dog "may" or "could" disturb one of
these animals. They would be gone long before hand at first human disturbance. The
scientific community at large acknowledges the most critical habitat for these
animals in San Mateo County is located on privately held lands.
Corr. ID: 4243 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209223 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have to ask what EXACTLY are the "current conditions"
and what EXACTLY are the park resources and "values" that are in danger of "not
being available for enjoyment by future generations"? The Mission Blue Butterfly?
A garter snake? The snowy plover? Coyotes? Certain plant species?
For example, I was informed by one of the NPS employees at the Cabrillo
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
438
Elementary School meeting that a species of garter snake is "endangered" at Mori
Point in Pacifica. I find this claim dubious at best. Even if true, I find that no reason
for alarm. I have seen plenty of the snakes in question and I know that they tend to
thrive near bodies of water due to the fact that the frogs these snakes eat also thrive
there. I also know that these areas are already bordered or fenced off adequately
enough, so that is no reason to make Mori Point dog free or even leash only. I think
everyone needs to keep in mind that many of the areas in question did fine
WITHOUT any environmental management for decades/eons, and the balance of
nature is NOT going to be thrown out of equilibrium just because a few dogs like to
chase balls, sticks, rabbits, etc., dig holes (which very few dogs engage in,
especially if allowed to run free) run free, bark, or defecate randomly.
Corr. ID: 4640 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208803 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no reasonable justification for reducing dog
activity on Mori Point since there is no scientific evidence or even reasonable
correlations that dogs are more than negligibly impacting the park and particularly
not the protected California Red-Legged Frog or the San Francisco Garter Snake.
Corr. ID: 4650 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227747 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no evidence other than speculation that dogs have
had or will have any impact on the San Francisco Garter Snake, particularly in
comparison to other park activities such as the park service using vehicles for plant
restoration or patrols or bicyclists. According to the US Fish & Game 5 year
summary and evaluation report at
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc774.pdf
, dogs are not mentioned nor listed as even a remote threat unlike cars and bicycles
have been known to kill individuals. Real impacts were issues such as 1) loss of
open spaces to construction, 2) loss of grasslands (due to stopping grazing and fire
suppression that allows for denser vegetation growth), and 3) illegal specimen
collection.
Corr. ID: 4650 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209005 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no evidence other than speculation that dogs have
had or will have any impact on the California Red Legged Frog population,
particularly in comparison to other park activities such as the park service using
vehicles for plant restoration on Mori Point or patrols or bicyclists. According to the
US Fish & Game recovery plan, dogs are not a listed as a threat to the frog. The
ponds are enclosed at Mori Point so it is only a rare anecdotal dog that enters the
ponds and that is not likely to have any more than a negligible impact on the
population at Mori Point. As for frogs on dispersed habitats, the DEIS provides no
evidence of dogs interacting with or harming any of the frogs in the GGNRA.
Concern ID: 30409
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Listed Plants: it has been suggested that since the SF Lessingia is not present at Fort
Funston there should be no impacts to this plant by dogs; it has been suggested that
dogs do not impact/trample lupine plants, the plants are do not exist at certain sites,
and/or that impacts are not evidence-based.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1483 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191259 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Your proposed policies are in contradiction to the
conclusions you draw in the study. To whit, you conclude that dogs have minimal
impact on compacted trails. On the south loop of the Oakwood Valley Trail, where
the GGNRA plans to mitigate dogs off- leash, the park service built a compacted
trail (built by the Conservation Corps.) Also on the Oakwood Valley Trail, your
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
439
policy indicates that you want to protect the Mission Blue Butterfly habitat. No
lupine grows on either the north or south side of the loop (and I believe there was an
attempt by the park service to grow lupine at that site.)
Corr. ID: 4583 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210000 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is real irony here. DEIS/GGNRA claims off leash
dogs will have adverse impacts on Lessingia at Fort Funston, where there is no
Lessingia and no record that Lessingia was ever there. But the same off leash dogs,
if displaced to Lake Merced, will have no adverse impacts on Lessingia even though
Lessingia definitely grew at Lake Merced historically, and likely grew specifically
in the off leash area at Lake Merced (on "The Mesa"). (USFWS 2003, p25-27,
Figure 1 p 5)
Concern ID: 30410
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters suggest that in urban areas like GGNRA, it is not necessarily
appropriate to try and re-introduce listed species.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4398 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209649 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As you might expect, dog walkers see little harm to wildlife
that they ironically rarely see anyway, just as most environmentalist see significant
and demonstrable harm to that very same wildlife. The fact that we are dealing with
urban parks seems to indicate to dog walkers that cities aren't the place for
endangered or threatened wildlife just as environmentalist struggle to allow
endangered species to get a tow hold in damaged, long neglected or compromised
areas. Dog walkers rightfully claim that they have been walking their dogs in these
areas for many years just as environmentalists try to reintroduce wildlife systems not
seen for just as many years.
Concern ID: 30411
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It is believed that the majority of people walking dogs at GGNRA are responsible
and protecting listed species at GGRNA.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 30388 (TE4000), Comment 209585.
Concern ID: 30412
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that dogs are affecting the snowy plover [at Ocean
Beach]; some commenters have been suggested that other disturbances (not just
dogs) affect the snowy plover [at Ocean Beach].
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1056 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192152 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have read a Bay Bird Survey that indicates the real
problem with the Western Snowy Plover is that the California Gull is eating their
eggs in the nesting areas. This seems consistent with what I have observed on Ocean
Beach where the smaller birds are harassed more by gulls and ravens than dogs and
people. I think the shorebirds are also more disturbed by the Park Police vehicles on
the beach than pedestrians with leashed dogs. I believe the GGNRA is acting more
out of fiscal preference than really trying to balance the needs of the shorebirds and
the residents. It's just easier to ban dogs altogether than to work directly to fine and
remove the minority of beach users who are irresponsible. Why doesn't the GGNRA
show us some scientific basis for this proposed regulation?
Corr. ID: 2053 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193308 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Ocean Beach comments: re protecting snowy plovers: what
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
440
keeps feral cats from colonizing near important ground-nesting habitat? Could dogs
off-leash help discourage feral cat colonization? The issues for protecting snowy
plovers must include the impact of dog management on unintended consequences,
such as a potential rise in feral cat colonies. Recommend base line studies now so
future management is evidence-based.
Corr. ID: 2201 Organization: Little Fluffy Clouds
Comment ID: 200705 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Repeated claims are put forward by the NPS that dogs, and
especially off-leash dogs, pose a significant danger to plants, birds and other
wildlife. These claims are stated as fact and are being used to justify the need for
significant restrictions on access to beaches and other areas in the GGNRA by off-
leash dogs. In fact the reverse is true. Assumptions about the effects of
"disturbances" on Snowy Plovers and other shorebirds by off-leash dogs have also
been disproved by many studies like the 2007 study by Megan Warren at Crissy
Fields and two other sites at Point Reyes - all NPS land. More excerpts of these
studies are attached at the end of this letter.
Corr. ID: 2951 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203518 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA's own studies show that joggers and walkers,
not to mention parents with toddlers, equestrians, surfers, and other park users
"disturb" plovers, yet there is no attempt to restrict their access in the plover areas.
As a frequent bystander in the dunes at Ocean Beach, I routinely observe people
without dogs camping, sleeping, walking, and picnicking in plover habitat.
Additionally, I have on multiple occasions observed SFPD officers riding dirtbike
motorcycles through the dunes and over the length of the beach.
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.
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
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: 4021 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206925 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 8) The GGNRA has not taken any other action to protect
plovers, despite clear opportunities to do so.
During the recent Cosco Busan oil spill, the GGNRA quickly erected floating
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
441
booms to keep oil from entering the Crissy Field lagoon at the eastern end of Crissy
Field, yet made no attempt to similarly protect the plover area at the western end of
the beach. The oil posed a significant risk to the plovers, yet the GGNRA did
nothing to protect them from it. Indeed, oiled plovers have been reported in the
GGNRA. The GGNRA has allowed sporting events like the 2006 Turkey Trot to
proceed, with the result that at least 1000 people (more likely 1500) walked or ran
through the plover protection area on Ocean Beach. Park rangers routinely drive
four-wheel drive cars and trucks through the Ocean Beach plover protection area
while pursuing people with offleash dogs.
Corr. ID: 4080 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207800 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We witness firsthand the birding activity and the impact
humans with or without dogs have on the birds: Birds, especially the protected
snowy plovers, are not at the beach 24/7, and people exercising along the shore or
roaming in the grassy dunes disturb the birds more frequently than dogs simply
because their numbers and usage outweighs that of dogs. Although there may be
random episodes where a dog is off-leash and chasing the birds, it is infrequent.
Corr. ID: 4152 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208651 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never run into a ill mannered off leash dog at Ocean
Beach. Dogs are not the ones destroying the bird area for the snowy plover. I've lost
count how many times I've seen the Beach Patrol SUV driving over the areas higher
up on the beach where the bird habitats are, dogs don't go to that area, they are at the
lower areas near the water.
Concern ID: 30413
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been observed that dogs adversely affect vegetation in MBB habitat at
Oakwood Valley and Alta Avenue.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 779 Organization: National Audubon Society
Comment ID: 185708 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog policy within GGNRA is in critical need of revision,
and enforcement.
Inevitable small percentage of scofflaw dog owners (majority obey rules) has
resulted in:
--Reduction in diversity of birds and other animals seen by naturalists. For example,
see Peter Banks; Biology Letters, Dec, 22, 2007 3(6) 611-613, documenting up to
40% measured reduction in birds along trails used by dogs.
--On daily nature walks, I have personally noted a reduction in threatened,
endangered, and special status species within Marin Headlands, and Oakwood
valley trails. Species of concern are ground dwelling birds (California Quail,
California Towhee, Fox Sparrow, Swamp Sparrow, Virginia Rail, as well as species
requiring secluded habitat and specialized cover, such as Long-eared Owl and
Rufous-Crowned sparrow.
--Along uper reaches of Alta trail professional dog walkers are seriously disturbing
habitat of Mission Blue Butterfly by allowing dogs to roam freely.
Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209323 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Too many times I have witnessed off-leash dogs in NPS
areas chasing after and harassing birds and other wildlife. A friend has related to me
how, on a weekly basis, she witnesses a professional dog walker release up to 6
dogs to run and chase each other and wildlife in Oakwood Valley, trampling and
tearing up the host plant to the endangered Mission Blue Butterfly. I've heard other
friends describe witnessing off-leash dogs in national parks attacking or harassing
pinnipeds and chasing after shorebirds, including the threatened snowy plover.
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
442
Concern ID: 30414
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not think seasonal closures adequately protect listed species at
GGNRA and other measures should be taken to protect listed species.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209320 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly discourage GGNRA from implementing any
seasonal closures to protect nesting wildlife; to adequately protect wildlife, current
and potential nesting areas should be off-limits to dogs year-round. Seasonal
closures are largely ineffective, even with the best of signage and education
campaigns. By permitting off-leash dogs in, as an example, snowy plover habitat
during any portion of the year, the park will reduce compliance with regulations
when the plover is present, as many people will not realize that the closure is
seasonal. I frequently visit the beaches of Point Reyes National Seashore where
there are seasonal closures for beaches upon which snowy plovers nest and elephant
seals haul-out. I have lost track of the number of times I have encountered people
with dogs--usually with the dog off-leash--in areas closed to dogs, and when I
inform the owner that pets are not permitted there, the response is often to the effect
of "but the beach was open to dogs a few months ago."
Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209312 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -establishes measures to protect and preserve wildlife and
habitat for future generations to enjoy. In particular, the NPS must maximize
protections for special-status species such as the Bank Swallow, Western Snowy
Plover, Northern Spotted Owl, and Brown Pelican.
Concern ID: 30415
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with how the existing conditions (affected environment)
and how dogs affect listed species have been described in the DEIS.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3213 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202533 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I recreate daily with my dog on POST (soon to be GGNRA)
land here in Montara. By my informal count, somewhere between 7 to 8 out of ten
people recreating on this land are with dogs. If you ban dogs from this area, I
wonder who will be recreating here? I and many others have been using this area for
30 years to walk with our dogs. In all that time I have seen no evidence where our
dogs damaged the land. I do not see anywhere in your 2,000 plus page study any
indication that dogs have damaged these lands. With regard to wildlife, I have never
seen a dog catch a garter snake or a frog. We do not have snowy plovers on this
land. There are plenty of coyotes here. Certainly they are a much greater threat to
wildlife than our well fed domesticated dogs. They certainly make their own
unsanctioned trails. By your reasoning, must they be removed?
Corr. ID: 3479 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203325 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: i have been following the GGNRA's attempt to eliminate
off-leash dog walking at its current locations for over 10 yrs. now. And after 2 yrs.
of Negotiated Rule Making, an astronomical cost, and 2400 pages, i'm stunned to
read the DEIS and it's proposed alternative. I concur with many who have read this
tome, there is nothing to justify such a dramatic alteration of the current off-leash
dog areas. There is no empirical data to support the claims of increased safety
incidences, at least nothing that would justify this kind of restriction. And the plan's
attempt to link off-leash and leashed dogs to severe environmental degradation just
isn't valid. Increased use of the parks will have a detrimental affect on its ecology...
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
443
but that's because more people, with and without dogs, are using the parks as they
were supposed to be used.. for recreation. I strongly request that until you can
unequivocally prove dogs are indeed hindering the mating of the snowy plover and
bank swallow, and that these species are dependent on these particular nesting areas
for their survival, you continue to allow dogs and most importantly dog owners the
right to recreate in these precious areas. Thank you.
Corr. ID: 3715 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202262 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There can be no doubt that the park service has cynically
ignored and purposefully buried scientific studies in an attempt to foist their
"preferred alternatives" onto the public and to create obfuscation at higher
Government levels. The same tactics employed as above were used in this NPS
report:
"Western Snowy Plover (a Federally Threatened Species) Wintering Population and
Interaction with Human Activity on Ocean Beach, San Francisco, GGNRA, 1988
through 1996" by park scientist Daphne Hatch.
. The 1996 Hatch Report states: "Factors other than the number of people or dogs,
p
ossibly beach slope and width, appear to exert greater influence over Snowy Plover
numbers on Ocean Beach."
. Unable to prove that dogs affect the numbers of plovers, the 1996 Hatch Report
argues that dogs "disturb" plovers. In fact, in the entire year-and-a-half study, only
19 out of a total 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."
Further scientific studies over the past 20 years show that in reality there is - no
scientific consensus that off-leash dogs have a significant impact on bird and
wildlife populations. I refer to the following studies:
. The 2006 Canada study, by Forrest and Cassady St. Clair.
. The 1997 Colorado study by, Beckoff and Meany.
. The 2007 UC Berkeley, California study, by Megan Warren.
Corr. ID: 3945 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227438 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) The DEIS claims that dog have accessed the bluff above
where Bank Swallows nest in sheer cliff faces near top; pet rescues have occurred
over cliff, which may disturb the colony during breeding season when personnel
repel down. There is no evidence of dogs and or humans digging at or collapsing the
burrows, flushing birds from nests, and causing active sloughing and landslides that
may block or crush burrows with the young inside. Dogs cannot reach birds from
bluff; cliff rescues are rare no documentation that dogs or humans contribute to any
other factors that may affect birds
2) The DEIS claims dogs could damage Mission Blue Butterfly habitat in the trail
beds and adjacent to the trails/roads; protective fencing for habitat does not exclude
noncompliant dogs. However, there are no known studies measuring the impact of
dogs on the habitat. The rangers did not document any cases of dogs in or damaging
the restoration areas
3) The DEIS claims dogs could gain access to closed lagoon for the Tidewater goby
(fish), dogs along the shoreline could crush goby burrows, cause increased turbidity.
While individuals would be affected neither the population and gene pool would not
be affected, and there are no known studies measuring the impact of dogs on the
habitat. The ranger narratives only documented one case with two dogs briefly
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
444
swimming in the Rodeo Lagoon during 2007 and 2008.
4) The DEIS claims dogs can cause California red-legged frog (amphibian) eggs,
j
uveniles, an
d
adult life stages to be affected by trampling and suffocation by
sediments coating the eggs and behavioral disturbance or causing injury or mortality
to individuals. There are no known studies measuring the impact of dogs on the
habitat.
Corr. ID: 3987 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207345 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Protection of the Western Snowy Plover is the chief
rationale offered by GGNRA for banning off leash dogs from most of Ocean Beach.
I, and others, have explained in other comment letters how WSP can be protected
without banning off leash dogs. I won't go through that entire discussion again. But
effective GGNRA management actions would include seasonal exclosures, signage
and education, prompt garbage pickup, and keeping other disturbances out of the
immediate area where plovers are roosting. (I have observed horses, kite flyers,
runners, picnickers, and NPS vehicles flushing WSP at Ocean Beach.)
Further GGNRA could have an independent study done to see what, if any, effect
off leash dogs have on WSP at Ocean Beach. The DEIS and the "studies" cited
therein haven't demonstrated any adverse impact of off leash dogs on WSP at Ocean
Beach.
Corr. ID: 4089 Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208365 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Draft Plan/DEIS does not address site-specific
resources and the condition/health of those resources. This lack of information
results in a vague baseline against which to assess the magnitude of impacts
associated with implementing the proposed action and alternatives. With such a
vague baseline, it's also difficult to assess the need to change existing dog
management strategies.
Select examples:
a. The affected environment section mentions California Native Plant Society
(CNPS)-listed species as having the potential to occur within the GGNRA but no
data are provided as to where/if they are actually present.
b. While some special-status species descriptions suggest a nexus between dog
activity and the species and/or their habitat (tidewater goby, California red-legged
frog), other species descriptions do not (San Francisco garter snake, Coho salmon),
and there is a consistent lack of detail describing the existing interaction, if any,
between the species and dog activity.
c. There are inconsistencies regarding the presence of species in the text and in
Table 8 in the Special-Status Species affected environment, the information in
Appendix H, and the impact analyses in Chapter 4.
d. In Table 8 on page 246, the GGNRA Location column contains the location for
plants that do not exist there according to the text.
e. For a number of the analyses of Alternatives B-E, the Draft Plan/DEIS states that
the area of impact is currently undisturbed. This is not the case, as dogs and humans
are currently allowed in those areas.
f. Additional examples are provided in Appendix D, "Soils and Geology," Appendix
E, "Water Quality," and Appendix F, "Biology."
Corr. ID: 4233 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208590 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: No dead Snowy Plovers, Bank Swallows or threatened
Rails have been found by
BeachWatch during the 18 year study period. Over 70,000 intake records (collected
over 19 years) by our local animal rehabilitation hospital show that no Snowy
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
445
Plovers, Bank Swallows have been admitted for treatment. Four Clapper Rails
admitted were not attacked by a dog and were not found on NPS property. (7)
As of May 2011, 4.31 roosting Snowy Plovers (per Km. surveyed) have been found
on
unprotected Ocean Beach Central. This is about the mean since 1995 (8) and 30%
higher than the median value even though San Francisco population has increased
about 10% during this period.
Also, simple correlations (at the yearly level) between the number of Snow Plovers
and 1) beach visitors, 2) off-leash dogs and 3) on-leash dogs are all positive (.30, .19
and .17 respectively). This indicates a positive association between the presence of
the plovers, people and dogs. We would expect a significantly negative correlation i
f
increased disturbance caused by a human / dog presence was driving the birds away
and lowering their population
Concern ID: 30416
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have observed or believe that dogs generally impact listed species at
GGRNA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1819 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191912 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We also know that we have many highly-sensitive
endangered plants and animals within Golden Gate National Recreation Area that
are having a very hard time surviving given the chasing, running, and digging that
occurs in areas where these species. There is such a huge population of dogs now
that their impact is significant, which is why it's time to address their negative
impacts.
Corr. ID: 2850 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202613 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am concerned about the continuing negative impacts of
allowing dogs full access to the entire area without designated no-dog areas and an
enforced leash law. In the GGNRA we have already lost one species on the
endangered species list, with other species threatened by dogs. Dogs are not a
natural predator in the area, but rather a man-made one
Corr. ID: 3438 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203240 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Alternative D best reflects the national park values.
I urge the National Park Service to protect Golden Gate's imperiled wildlife from
harassment by unregulated recreation. 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!Protect these
species and other protected wildlife from inappropriate activities such as motor
vehicle use on beaches. Te 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 off-leash dog recreation in these areas has resulted in habitat
encroachment and wildlife harassment by dogs. Unleashed dogs represent the most
significant recreational threat to wintering western snowy plovers
Corr. ID: 3462 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203285 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I was a long-time resident of San Francisco and still visit
the GGNRA and San Francisco parks weekly.
More controls on dogs are desperately needed in the parks to protect wildlife, plant
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
446
life and
I volunteered for the GGNRA on several bird censuses over a period of many years.
While doing the counts and monitoring, I frequently witnessed dogs chasing birds,
going into areas marked off as cliff swallow habitats and trying to climb up to the
nesting holes and, of course, defecating all over natural habitats. I saw dogs going
after quail babies in Golden Gate Park, as well as dogs digging up plants and
barking at nesting herons.
Meanwhile, their owners walked on, not having the dogs under voice control and
rarely putting leashes on them, even after their misconduct had been pointed out by
myself and other volunteers.
At Crissy Field and Fort Funston, I have been attacked five times and barked at
threateningly many more times. I am a senior woman, and I certainly don't do
anything to antagonize dogs. Fortunately, I was not harmed.
Unfortunately, dogs can be very destructive. More controls are needed so that other
living things are not harmed by them in our parks.
Concern ID: 30417
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that off-leash recreation should be limited or enclosed to
protect listed species at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 426 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181612 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: So here are some suggestions and possible alternatives that
have been brought up by other pro-dog people over the past few years:
1 Why not let the dog walkers, dog owners and pro dog people police themselves?
By allowing people a permit, they are granted access to the GGNRA and the
opportunity to run their dogs off leash?
2 Professional dog organizations and advocates are capable of organizing and
CHARGING both business and individuals to use the land to exercise their dogs at.
It is a luxury, and people get so much enjoyment from the GGNRA. And I am
positive people will be more than happy to pay to be able to continue to use the land.
3 This will increase annual revenue for the GGNRA, and also allow responsible dog
owners continued access to use the park. If people do not pay, or their dogs are
unruly, aggressive or the owners are uncooperative with the standard policies, they
lose their privilege of using the park.
4 If given permission from the GGNRA, why not allow pro-dog people the
opportunity to fence off and dog proof restricted and sensitive habitat areas to
reduce further eco- wildlife problems in the park? The park has limited and
unsuccessful barriers now that people do not know where are the restricted areas and
they do not keep dogs out of those areas.
Concern ID: 30418
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
A commenter has noted that dogs can impact salmonid and frog species in the Big
Lagoon and Redwood Creek.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29245 (MB1100), Comment 181557.
Concern ID: 31393
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters noted that the report did not account for historic species range of the
Western Snowy Plover in the Presidio, and did not include scientific studies
indicating this portion of the species area. Commenters also provided references of
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
447
nesting by the Plover in San Francisco.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3149 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203977 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Snowy Plovers -
N
esting records. The DEIS states that there is no record of nesting (p.1240).
However, there are records of bird and egg specimens collected during nesting
season. Grinnell, 1932, identifies the Presidio as the type locality for the Snowy
Plover with a collection date of May 8, 1854, a date that falls within the known
nesting season for the species. Also, Smithsonian Institution collection data
documents an egg specimen from San Francisco.
See http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/birds/
Potential nesting site. The DEIS fails to acknowledge that the USFWS Snowy
Plover Recovery Plan has identified Crissy Field as a potential expansion site for
snowy plovers; see USFWS Recovery Plan pp. 43/44.
N
atural & Cultural Nexus. The Presidio of San Francisco is the
t
ype locality for the
Snowy Plover, collected by Lt. William Trowbridge (Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Coastal Survey), on May 8, 1854 (Grinnell, 1932). Trowbridge is also
responsible for construction of the Golden Gate Tidal Gauge, which began operation
in June of 1854 (Nolte, 2004). Given the location of the tidal gauge, it is quite
possible that the type specimen was collected from what is now the Crissy WPA.
Corr. ID: 3606 Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 203951 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Factually erroneous statements in the report about the
historical and current status of the Western Snowy Plover are particularly egregious.
Snowy Plovers formerly nested in The Presidio and in fact The Presidio is the Type
Locality of the Snowy Plover (Trowbridge, May 8, 1854). Omission of sighting
vetted scientific studies regarding the impact of dogs on natural and cultural
resources has led to misinformation and speculation of statements in the DEIS.
Concern ID: 31814
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters believed there that dog recreation was not having an impact on the
Mission Blue Butterfly [at Sweeney Ridge/Cattle Hill].
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4640 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227735 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Other than the Mission Blue Butterflies habitat near the
N
otch Trail entrance, which is miles from the other trails, there is no evidence that
protected species even exist in this park. For the Mission Blue Butterfly, there is no
reasonable correlation that dog recreation would have any more than negligible
impact on the habitat, particularly since the habitats is fenced. I support adding
voice-control trails and adding other solutions to improve dog recreation at Sweeney
Ridge/Cattle Hill.
Concern ID: 31831
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There is no evidence indicating the presence of Hickmans potentilla in the GGNRA.
It should be removed from discussion of special status species.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4650 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227748 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no evidence other than speculation that the Park
Service that dogs would prevent the establishment of this plant at these locations
with the "no action" alternative. However, these plants do not exist in the park
TE2010‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:AffectedEnvironment
448
currently, and there is no evidence they ever existed in the park or that the Park
Service would ever be successful in propagating these plants from Monterey County
to these non-native locations in San Mateo County. It is disingenuous to include this
plant in the DEIS at all since it is not native to the area, and it should be removed
from both the Mori Point and the Pedro Point impact statements.
TE4000 - Threatened And Endangered Species: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Concern ID: 30382
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support Alternative A because they do not agree with the impacts
analysis for listed species at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3620 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204083 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Principal Reasons for Favoring Alternative A
2. Absence of Critical Habitat Protection. At the open house held at Fort Mason,
one of the senior rangers confirmed that there were few, if any endangered flora at
Fort Funston because of decades of urban and natural degradation beginning with
the area's use as a military complex. I have also not seen anything in the NPS
Report that suggests otherwise, other than declaratory general statements that there
would be some adverse impacts. Yet, the NPS's preferred solution would close the
entire area to off-leash dog walking.
As for fauna, where bank swallows or other birds nest on a seasonal basis, the NPS
has a reasonable solution that adequately balances competing interests by simply
closing those affected areas on a temporary basis to off-leash dogs or, if necessary,
to any dog-walking activity.
3. Closure will simply lead to concentrated degradation in areas that remain open.
The extremely limited opportunities for dog-walking in non-urban outdoor spaces
in San Francisco will guarantee Fort Funston's continued use as a dog-walking area
by area locals, regardless of which management plan is adopted. The NPS's
preferred plan, in which off-leash dog-walking areas are restricted to the beach and
to one area adjacent to the parking lot, will simply concentrate that usage to a much
smaller area, thus magnifying both environmental impacts - to the extent that there
are any - and the likelihood of conflict between dogs and people.
4. Closure violates one of the four outstanding values to be protected by the
GGNRA in the 1972 enabling legislation. It is important to recall that the GGNRA,
including Fort Funston, was originally intended as an urban recreation area. It
should not be viewed in the same category as other non-urban National Parks
covered by the NPS. As an urban outdoor recreation area, it fulfills an important
function in allowing urban dogs and their urban human owners a rare opportunity to
get out and stretch their respective legs. That function should not be jeopardized or
restricted, absent compelling reasons to do so - reasons which the NPS has not
shown with regard to Fort Funston.
Concern ID: 30383
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters support the Preferred Alternative because it would protect listed
species at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2013 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200524 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the national Park Service's dog
management plan for the Gloden Gate National Receation Area. Protecting the
Snowy Plover and other fragile natural resources should be the top priority of the
plan. There are already existing plenty of options for dog owners who want their
dogs to be able to go off leash. And owners who want to bring their dogs to the
N
ational Recreation Area can live within the leash rules proposed in the new plan. I
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
449
hope you will stick to your guns. This is a good plan which will preserve the great
and fragile natural beauty of the coast for everyone. I strongly support the plan.
Corr. ID: 2807 Organization: USFWS Sacramento Office
Comment ID: 201103 Organization Type: Federal Government
Representative Quote: The Service believes that the Draft Plan/EIS, as proposed,
meets the goals and objectives of the project and adequately addresses federally
threatened and endangered species and habitat within the project area so as to not
j
eopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In contrast
to the current "dog policy" within GGNRA, the Draft Plan/EIS appears to promote
a beneficial effect to listed species and critical habitat. The adoption of a
compliance- based management strategy is viewed as an important component of
the Draft Plan/EIS and instills confidence that GGNRA will continue to manage
their lands with an emphasis on managing sensitive resources responsibly.
Additionally, the proposed measures for increasing public awareness through
education and standardized management is viewed as a key factor in the successful
implementation of this Draft Plan/EIS
Corr. ID: 3568 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203535 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have a dog and strongly support the GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan. It strikes the right balance between protecting the many
endangered species in San Francisco's Presidio while at the same time it offers
unusually liberal use by canines and their guardians/walkers.
Concern ID: 30384
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative D is supported because it provides the most protection for listed species
(including the SF lessingia at Fort Funston; the snowy plover at Ocean Beach; the
snowy plover at Crissy Field; the MBB at Oakwood Valley/Alta Ave.,); some
commenters also believe that the compliance rates should be higher than 75%.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3322 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202926 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Given its mission to protect natural and cultural resources,
the National Park Service has an even more compelling reason to protect the habitat
of listed species. For that reason, I feel strongly that Alternative D is the right
choice for park to adopt as its Dog Management Plan.
I have a dog, and I would love to be able to take her on the beach near my home.
But if I walk an extra mile south I can take her to a beach without habitat for listed
species. The GGNRA is just a few miles north of here, and I am sure that many
residents and visitors experience the same tradeoff. But they have a choice; the
western snowy plovers do not.
Corr. ID: 3468 Organization: Nation Parks Conservation Association
Comment ID: 203300 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to accept Alternative D as it reflects the best
solution to provide and protect the future habitat destruction of the Bay. Requiring
all off-leash areas to be enclosed protects endangered wildlife that is just beginning
to return after much public money has been spent to restore this area. The will of
the people is clear. It is imperative you vote to protect and restore this valuable
resource for future generations to come.
Corr. ID: 3839 Organization: Endangered Habitats League
Comment ID: 203766 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 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. Endangered species wildlife habitat deserve a higher level of
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
450
p
rotection from human disturbance; the compliance rate should be 95%, not 75% as
proposed.
Please require all off-leash areas to be enclosed to protect park users, wildlife, and
other dogs. Limit off-leash recreation to areas where it will not have negative
impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats.
Concern ID: 30385
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that the DEIS does not provide an alternative that will
adequately protect listed species (such as the snowy plover) and/or do not agree
with the seasonal restrictions.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2813 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201117 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Why forbid dogs on the West Beach when the Snowy
Plovers are not there for almost half the year!
Last year the six Snowy Plovers on the West Beach departed in March and did not
return until November. I am perfectly happy, as are most dog owners, to protect the
birds WHEN THEY ARE THERE. I look forward to their return each winter. The
post and cable fence at the beginning of the Wildlife Protection area is a true
success. Ticket the dogs and their owners and other users who plant themselves in
the middle of the plover area.
Prohibit dogs on the West Beach when the Snowy Plovers are actually there, then
allow dogs the rest of the time. This beach is completely underused during the
plover off-season and would provide an outlet for the overcrowding on the Central
Beach. Also, at the Wildlife Protection area another sign should be placed on the
last post before the Bay so that everyone can be alerted to the restrictions at low
tide.
Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209322 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DMP would also preclude the possibility of the snowy
plover or other shore birds from ever adopting many coastal areas of GGNRA as
nesting areas. According to the background information printed in the Federal
Register during a previous comment period pertaining to dogs on Ocean Beach and
Crissy Field, "snowy plovers do not nest in the park; they overwinter from
approximately July through April. During the overwintering period, Snowy Plovers
rest and feed to gather reserves necessary to successfully breed at other more
suitable nesting locations up and down the Pacific coast." Given that snowy plovers
nest on the beaches of Point Reyes, I would assume that snowy plovers used to nest
on the beaches of the San Francisco peninsula, beaches which are now part of
GGNRA.
And allowing pets in these areas when snowy plovers would otherwise be nesting
there will assuredly prevent the plovers from ever selecting Crissy Field and Ocean
Beach as a nesting site. And given how few suitable nesting sites are left for the
snowy plover, it is incumbent upon the National Park Service-which is mandated to
protect the wildlife unimpaired-to do everything it can to preserve whatever habitat
there is for the plover to thrive.
Concern ID: 30386
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that the proposed DEIS does not establish reasoning for the
benefits to listed species as a result of stricter dog management.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2917 Organization: northstar export co.
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
451
Comment ID: 202822 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I think it is important to note that the proposed policies to
restrict off leash dogs due to the perceived threat to endangered species is only that:
a perception of threat. Is the GGNRA basing this threat to endangered species on
scientific data? I have yet to witness any dog harass any of the animals listed by the
GGNRA, much less kill or injure one.
Also, why does the NPS and GGNRA ignore the mandate issued by our local Board
of Supes who recognize that San Francisco welcomes dogs as loyal companions
who are deserving of unfettered exercise on open land? Our city is known as a dog-
friendly community and has established a long history of accommodating man's
best friend.
San Francisco citizens share responsibility for our natural lands and which are used
for enjoyment by all who have come to embrace the San Francisco way-
inclusiveness. The GGNRA can impose higher fines for non-compliant dog owners
who do not pick up waste or do not have voice command over their dogs.
Where else are dogs to go, who are always happiest when they are able to romp free
with their mates and masters but open lands? If the GGNRA seeks to ban access to
areas that have been historically available to dog owners, what lands are you
replacing them with?
Where is the evidence that supports your conclusion that dogs are creating havoc
among visitors and other animals visiting the area? I am convinced that those who
complain about dog's off-leash in these areas are a substantial, but vocal, minority.
It is shameful that a federal agency is imposing its own biased views and policies
against a community that has clearly expressed its desire to enjoy the lands....some
previously owned by the community....as it has been historically enjoyed.
Shame on the GGNRA and the NPS for ignoring our historical access and imposing
their will against the responsible wishes of the local community.
Corr. ID: 3786 Organization: Cayuga Improvement Association
Comment ID: 205541 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are plenty of things to disturb wildlife in a park in
the middle of a city. For example when I have gone down to the beach below Fort
Funston the dogs are generally playing in the water. Not climbing up the cliffs
disturbing the bank swallows. However I do see kids climbing up the cliffs. After
the 4th of July I have seen evidence of people shooting off bottle rockets below the
cliffs. There are many Crows out at Fort Funston and we all know they like to
scavenge other birds' nests. At Lake Merced across from Fort Funston where some
of the swallows feed there are two very loud shooting ranges. So how can the Park
Service say that removing dogs is going to protect the Bank Swallow?
Corr. ID: 4089 Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208387 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Draft Plan/DEIS doesn't establish how or why a
special-status species that has been sharing habitat with dogs for decades will
experience an actual, likely benefit from stricter dog management, given other
factors affecting the species.
Concern ID: 30388
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
In general, commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis of listed species
(snowy plover, bank swallow) at GGRNA as a result of dogs in the DEIS because
there is no scientific evidence connecting dog-related activities with the stated
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
452
impacts.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3679 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204793 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "Impacts to San Francisco lessingia would be long term,
minor, and adverse for alternatives C, D, and E, and the preferred alternative,
negligable for alternative B, and long term, moderate and adverse under the no
action alternative" (p. xxi)
On the NPS.gov homepage of the Presidio of San Francisco, the article on the San
Francisco Lessingia (Lessingia germanorum) the article states:
"Range in State: San Francisco Bay Area. The only population known of outside
the Presidio is located in Daly City. The Presidio is the type locality for this
species."
Please provide substantive documentation including biology reports that San
Francisco Lessingia (Lessingia germanorum) existed at Fort Funston as a native
species prior to the adoption of the 1979 GGNRA Pet Policy, and that this native
plant has degraded or disappeared as a direct result of dog walking.
I question the accuracy of all of the DEIS Executive Summary related to Fort
Funston on pp. xx and xxi.
Corr. ID: 4520 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209585 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Environmental Consequences (Section on Special-
status Species) in Chapter 4 is inadequate because it fails to provide adequate
scientific evidence connecting dog-related activities with impacts on snowy plover
populations or other wildlife populations. Are documented snowy plover
populations nesting or resting, and no site-specific scientific evidence is given to
the impact of canine interactions? I applaud and support protection of endangered
species. But, are interaction impacts between dogs and the endangered actually
more or less significant than other activities in the GGNRA. No comparative
evidence or analysis of varied activities is addressed.
Corr. ID: 4592 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209989 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Incident reports indicate that dogs and dog owners are
generally very well behaved. The percentage of incidents involving dogs is very
small considering the number of dogs in the park.
111 Off-leash recreation is being held to a higher standard when measuring "effect
on wildlife." The DEIS indicates that protection of wildlife is a rationale for
restrictions on off-leash recreation. Note that there is no scientific data indicating
that dogs per se have caused harm to the snowy plovers, bank swallows, or other
wildlife. This is in spite of the park and others who have been diligently LOOKING
for evidence of damage, and in spite of the fact that wildlife and off-leash dogs have
successfully co-existed for over three decades in the GGNRA. The turn of a plover's
head, a movement or lack of movement (!), is considered by the GGNRA to be an
"effect." In other national parks, when judging the appropriateness of a recreation,
e.g. hunting, an effect is measured by whether the recreation affects the
POPULATION count.
Corr. ID: 4630 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208655 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS is highly biased and blames dogs for problems
that are either caused by general park use or overall natural trends. For example,
there is no hard evidence offered that dogs create a singular burden on the park
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
453
resources and habitats. The 36 threatened and endangered species that exist within
the park system are not endangered by conditions here, specifically by dogs in the
GGNRA as the report would have you believe, but rather by their population
numbers worldwide. In fact, the small number of sites currently open to recreation
with dogs (as defined by the 1979 Pet Policy) include no critical habitats or nesting
areas for either the Snowy Plover or bank swallow.
Corr. ID: 4705 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209741 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The document you have prepared is not based on facts
about dogs' impact on the environment and the survival of endangered species.
There is no scientific data to illustrate your conclusions in your report. Humans,
pollution, and other factors contribute to certain species being endangered.
Corr. ID: 4712 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209789 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Crissy Field Dog Group - Preliminary Analysis of Draft
Plan/Draft EIS Draft Impact Analysis
1. Leaps of Impact
- The draft EIS impact analysis ' which in turn drives the alternatives analysis ' often
makes leaps of faith based on assumptions, rather than scientific or technical data.
- The basic assumption throughout the draft EIS sections is that: the presence of
dogs means impaired natural values, based on the general tendencies of dogs to root
around or chase other animals. As a general matter, it's hard to take issue with a
sweeping generalization like that.
- In many places, the draft EIS does not provide any data on actual impacts by dogs
in areas being proposed for closure to dog walking.
- There are big consequences to thousands of people around the Bay Area for
getting this wrong.
- But this is a site-specific technical planning document, where hard information
about actual effects needs to be disclosed and evaluated.
- In places where data are provided, for example, there are areas where the draft EIS
explains that people, as well as dogs, who traverse dune areas disturb the western
snowy plovers. Monitoring surveys in an area observed 48 off leash dogs chase the
plovers in 12 years. The plovers continue to return to the area each year. The draft
EIS then makes undocumented assumptions that there are unacceptable impacts and
that dogs, not people, are the culprits.
- There might or might not be a problem ' we can't tell from the draft EIS. If there
is, we can't tell from the draft EIS whether access should be limited for people, for
dogs, or both.
- The public deserves to knaw these answers to be able to comment intelligently on
the draft plan or be willing to accept ' for themselves or their dogs ' such severe
restrictions.= access to our own public lands, and San Francisco city beaches where
people have visited for decades.
Concern ID: 30390
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
In general, commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis of the snowy plover
as a result of dogs because other impacts such as natural predators, human
disturbance, horses, ATVs, etc. are also present at the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3607 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203867 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA draft management plan does not provide
evidence to justify such drastic changes to 40 years of healthy dog and human
recreation
I have been taking dogs to Fort Funston, Crissy Field, the Presidio, Sweeny Ridge
& Mori Point for the last 18 years. In all that time, I have not seen any dogs harm
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
454
any birds or the habitat. Yes, they chase them, but so do the kids on the beach. Dogs
dig in the sand, but so do people. The studies about the plovers and other species
are not specific for the GGNRA specifically and the dogs are not harrassing them
needlessly
Please don't make these drastic changes to the GGNRA dog policy.
Corr. ID: 3737 Organization: SF Dog Owners Group
Comment ID: 204261 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Relative Impacts of Dogs Compared to Other Causes - The
DEIS considers dogs as if they are the only thing in the GGNRA. There is no
context. For example, there is no discussion of impacts of natural predators on
snowy plover birds and how that compares to those from dogs, or how do
disturbances from people compare to disturbances from dogs. Without this context,
the DEIS cannot say restricting dogs will have a significant positive impact on
species. Horses, humans and ATV's have a MUCH higher impact.Lack of Site
Specific Information - 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
Concern ID: 30391
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis for the MBB at Sweeney Ridge
and believes that dogs do not affect this species.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1893 Organization: University of San Francisco
Comment ID: 200613 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While I agree that an increased usage of an area can lead to
environmental degradation, there is no reason to target dog owners as the specific
cause. For example, the documentation of the preferred plan for Sweeney Ridge
notes that "Alternative C protects the Mission Blue butterfly habitat and large area
of undisturbed contiguous habitat that is rare and contains wildlife that could be
disturbed by the presence of dogs." To point out the obvious, although protecting
habitat is an important goal, my dog doesn't eat butterflies. Decisions should be
based on carefully collected data, not just someone's feeling that a group "could"
disturb the habitat. Walking beside me on the trail, my dog does not degrade the
habitat any more than any other passerby
Concern ID: 30393
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that off-leash dogs disturb the bank swallows at Fort
Funston and/or that other disturbances affect the bank swallow (crows/ravens,
natural occurrences), or that effective signage/fences can mitigate for potential
impacts.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3127 Organization: N/A
Comment ID: 201560 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposed dog management plan is rash and
unacceptable. Any wildlife that needs protecting in these areas are already in a
national park with boundaries set up for their safety.
Birds or other endangered animals nesting atop the cliffs of Ft. Funston would
harldy benefit from dogs being leashed on the beaches 100 feet below. Furthermore,
any animal that may be upset by a passing dog will be no match for other naturally
occuring birds, gulls, raccoons and the plethora of other animals which already
freely live in these areas. Our dogs do no more damage than their natural
counterparts. Please reconsider taking no action against the current rules and
regulations regarding unleashed dogs in the GGNRA. Our beloved companions
deserve to be able to experience and enjoy nature the same as us.
Corr. ID: 4620 Organization: Not Specified
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
455
Comment ID: 207006 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It is significant that adverse impacts of dogs on swallows
have not been observed because people have been out there looking for them. A
GGNRA researcher closely monitored the bank swallow colony in 1994 and 1995
and wrote an official report. (1994-95 Bank Swallow Annual Report, Nola Chow,
1996) Chow observed that there were dogs present, and noted they did not disturb
the swallows. She also listed a number of things the GGNRA should do to protect
the bank swallow colony, but doesn't mention the dogs. Chow's monitoring is part
of NPS 2007e, but her report isn't included in the twenty-seven page bibliography
attached to the DEIS. Chow's observations of dogs with no impact on swallows are
not reported in either the DEIS or in 2007e. The entire 1993-2006 GGNRA bank
swallow monitoring project hasn't documented any dog-caused burrow collapses,
swallows flushed from nests by dogs, nor any dog-caused landslides crushing
burrows.
We should not be surprised that dogs have no impact on the bank swallows. Barrett
Garrison is recognized as a bank swallow expert by GGNRA; he has two listings in
the DEIS list of references. Garrison says in Bank Swallow, "Bank Swallows
appear relatively insensitive to moderate levels of human-induced disturbance."
Garrison lists documented land uses around Bank Swallow colonies: hydroelectric
power generation, irrigation, recreational boating, commercial agriculture, vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, and livestock grazing. They nest in active quarries and in
busy road cuts. Garrison says, "These land uses appear relatively benign as long as
the integrity of the nesting bank remains," and, "... are unlikely to have substantive
adverse impacts to Bank Swallows."
The bank swallows nest in burrows in the cliff faces above the beach at Fort
Funston, and fly directly from the burrows to feed over Lake Merced to the east.
They return directly to the cliff face burrows. During 90+ hours of sitting on the
beach beneath the bank swallow colony I saw many dogs on the beach. But I didn't
see a single dog that showed awareness that the swallows were present. People who
do not go specifically looking for the swallows don't notice them either. The
swallows don't interact with, or react to, people or dogs.
Corr. ID: 4620 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206992 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I closely monitored the bank swallow colony at Fort
Funston for five successive nesting seasons, 2001-2005. This involved 90
monitoring sessions of an hour or more each. I recorded each individual burrow on
maps, noted which burrows were occupied on each of the 90 days, and tried to
identify how many young were fledged from each burrow. My records are at least
as comprehensive and accurate as those kept by GGNRA staff. I tell you all this to
communicate: The bank swallows at Fort Funston are very important to me. I would
never do anything to compromise their welfare, nor would I willingly allow others
to harm them. So I do not make the following comments lightly.
Dogs have no impact on the bank swallows at Fort Funston.
The GGNRA/DEIS used deeply flawed "science" to justify removing off leash dogs
from most of Fort Funston in its Preferred Alternative. The DEIS claims (table,
page 1265) that allowing off leash dogs to remain would have "long term minor to
moderate adverse impacts" on the bank swallows because "continuing impacts from
dogs and/or humans would include digging at or collapsing the burrows, flushing
birds from nests, and causing active sloughing and landslides that may block or
crush burrows." In fact, there is no evidence that dogs have any impact on the bank
swallow colony at Fort Funston and, specifically, no evidence that they dig at or
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
456
collapse burrows, flush birds, or cause landslides that crush burrows.
Corr. ID: 4622 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207072 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Bank Swallows/Native Species/Habitat Protection -
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. In fact, I have never seen a dog anywhere near the
cliffs paying the least bit of attention to any 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.
The DEIS fails to address the effect of the large invasion of the non-native
crows/ravens at Fort Funston on the native species of birds and animals. Look
around. There is not a seagull to be found at Fort Funston. The seagulls were
previously at the Fort. Now they are at Lake Merced. I doubt the hanggliders drove
them off. I doubt the dogs drove them off. However, the crows/ravens have invaded
the cliff areas, have driven off most all of the other birds and appear to eat
everything and anything. They show no fear of dogs or humans. The DEIS fails to
address the destructive effect these birds are having on the native birds and animals
of Fort Funston.
Concern ID: 30394
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree that off-leash dogs will affect the western snowy plover
[effective signage is appropriate mitigation at the Crissy Field and Ocean Beach].
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4568 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209928 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Ocean Beach and possibly Crissy Field, the Snowy
Plover areas could be fenced. This would keep people as well as dogs from
disturbing the birds. At Fort Funston signs could be placed near the cliffs to warn
people away as those who are not familiar with the area are not aware of the steep
cliffs. I would also suggest moving the trail to the beach sand ladder farther away
from the hang glider takeoff point
Concern ID: 30395
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that since the SF Lessingia is not present at Fort Funston there
should be no impacts to this plant or that effective fencing could protect listed plant
species at Fort Funston.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4583 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209999 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: When discussing potential impacts to Lessingia on page
1311, the Preferred Alternative (C) at Fort Funston "may cause some of the dog
walkers to visit other locations." People will go elsewhere but there will be no
adverse impact because there is no Lessingia at Lake Merced. But when discussing
potential impacts on visitor experience in nearby parks on page 1530, exactly the
same Preferred Alternative (C) at Fort Funston leads to, "An increase in visitation
in nearby parks is not likely." Here GGNRA needs to claim dog walkers would not
go elsewhere in order to claim there would be no adverse impact on visitor
experience at Lake Merced.
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
457
There is real irony here. DEIS/GGNRA claims off leash dogs will have adverse
impacts on Lessingia at Fort Funston, where there is no Lessingia and no record
that Lessingia was ever there. But the same off leash dogs, if displaced to Lake
Merced, will have no adverse impacts on Lessingia even though Lessingia
definitely grew at Lake Merced historically, and likely grew specifically in the off
leash area at Lake Merced (on "The Mesa"). (USFWS 2003, p25-27, Figure 1 p 5)
Concern ID: 30397
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have requested that off-leash dogs be prohibited/limited (in the park or
in certain areas that support listed species), ROLAs should be enclosed, or leashes
should be required to protect listed species at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2254 Organization: Napa Solano Audubon Society
Comment ID: 201012 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: In general we agree with the National Park Service
Preferred Alternatives, but we feel that there should be NO area in the National
Park that dogs should be allowed to go off leash to protect wildlife, people, and the
dogs themselves. We are sorry to take such a tough stance on this, but wildlife,
especially those rare and endangered species are in your charter to protect. Dogs
and cats have an excellent sense of smell and can find and disturb nesting birds and
loafing animals
Corr. ID: 2715 Organization: Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley
Comment ID: 195566 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a frequent visitor to the Golden Gate National
Recreation area I am very concerned about impacts to wildlife from human activity
and from dogs. The park's mission is to protect natural resources of the park, not
allow recreation to undermine them.
Specifically, I am writing to urge that unregulated off-leash dog recreation be
banned on more beaches and trails in the park, in order to protect species like the
western snowy plover. Since the park is home to more endangered and threatened
species than any other park in the continental U.S. I would like to see wildlife
habitat receive a higher level of protection from human disturbance. The
compliance rate should be 95%, not 75% as outlined.
Corr. ID: 2949 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203395 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm writing to request that you limit off leash recreation for
dogs to areas that will not have negative impacts on indigenous and endangered
species. I have personally witnessed, multiple times, off leash dogs chasing
migrating shorebirds up and down the beach and effectively preventing them from
feeding, and costing them vital energy in fleeing the dogs. The people with theses
dogs have watched, but done nothing to intervene.
As long as some people cannot understand the necessity of allowing safe spaces for
other species who are completely dependent on those few spaces, restrictions must
be made to protect the voiceless from the the species with a very vocal and
organized lobby.
I have friends who are dog owners and some are dog walkers, who strongly oppose
any limitation on their recreational activities in the GGNRA. I explain to them that
dogs are not indigenous to this area, dogs are not an endangered species and dogs
can go elsewhere to run and play. Shorebirds don't have that option. They are
indigenous to this area, many are endangered or threatened and they do not have the
luxury of feeding or resting in any other area except the tidal zone where their food
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
458
lives.
I also feel that endangered species wildlife habitat protection should be 95%
compliance, not the 75% that is currently outlined.
Corr. ID: 3291 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202842 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support protecting our endangered species in the
Golden Gate Recreational area, including requiring dogs to be kept on leash. Dogs
can be a menace not only to wildlife, but to other dogs and to people, and most dog
owners do not have their dog under voice control. It is more appropriate to
designate a space for people and their dogs to play together where they don't
threaten wildlife and can be avoided by people with a fear of dogs.
I urge you to take all steps necessary to preserve our wildlife. Once gone, they can
never be recovered, a permanent loss to all of humanity.
Corr. ID: 3314 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202920 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no reason to risk the habitat of snowy plovers to
off-leash domestic pets, when there are many locations that would not impinge on
snowy plover nesting habitat. The Park Service should limit off-leash recreation to
areas where it will not have negative impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats.
Concern ID: 30398
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters do not agree with the impacts analysis for either the CA red-legged
frog or the SF garter snake at Mori Point.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3586 Organization: Sierra Club
Comment ID: 203668 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In regards to the SITE-SPECIFIC submitted by the City of
Pacifica (in quotes) my comments follow:
"Sweeney Ridge: ?..the fact that the Sneath Lane/A'PS 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."
This assumes that dog owners would keep their dogs leashed AND that dogs can
differentiate between paved and un-paved trails and would stay on only paved
trails. Would rely on enforcement in a remote area - but concedes that without
compliance and enforcement there would be "environmental effects" in
contradiction to their statement above!
"Mori Point: We suggest that the trails designated on Map 17C as "Tmigtac" and
"Pollywog" trails be modified to allow on-leash dog access. We believe the
likelihood of either the red-legged fiog or the Sun Francisco garter snake being
harmed or negatively affected is extremely remote?."
The uplands of the Mori Point area is critical habitat for the endangered San
Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) and trails bisect this area wihich adjoins Horse
Stable Pond, it's most crucial habitat. Currently dog walkers and hikers access this
area from three different directions and thus there is intensive pressure on this
species because of disturbances. By my own casual but routine observation I
estimate that twenty percent (20%) of dog owners do not comply with the current
leash law at Mori Point, and that by allowing on-leash access it would encourage
TE4000‐ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
459
more visitations by people with dogs, thus raising the count of off-leash dogs with
greater impacts on wildlife. Further, because of the presence of coyotes in the area a
greater dog presence would create more conflicts. The belief that on-leash dog
access is without negative impacts is totally without merit and has no basis in fact.
Concern ID: 30400
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some commenters have stated it is the park's mission to protect listed species at
GGNRA and that a compliance rate of 75% is too low.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2678 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195491 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The park's mission is to protect the natural and cultural
resources, not allow recreation to undermine it. Endangered species wildlife habitat
deserve a higher level of protection from human disturbance; the compliance rate
should be 95%, not 75% as outlined.
TE5000- Threatened and Endangered Species: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments for TE5000
TE6000- Threatened and Endangered Species: Impairment Analyses
There were no comments for TE6000
VR2010 - Vegetation and Riparian Areas: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 29620
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs are often seen impacting flora and riparian areas through digging, urinating and
defecating, and trampling of plants in areas where dogs are not permitted. Dogs
negatively impact native plant species, which are fragile when recently planted.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
2209 Organization: Mattingly Landscape Co
Comment
ID:
200729
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All it takes to kill a small, delicate plant is the urine,feces, or
trampling of one dog. When that is multiplied by hundreds or thousands of visitors per
week then it comes as some surprise to me that dogs are allowed in areas such as the
Presidio at all
Corr. ID:
2262 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
201028
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also think the negative impact of dogs to our environment is
not limited to damage they may cause to the plants and animals living in the area but
because of the vast amounts of waste they produce regardless of whether the owners
pick it up or not.
Corr. ID:
3961 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
206064
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
460
Representative Quote: Dog feces make the park feel unsanitary, and have an impact
on other species, such as butterflies, that are live their lives by their sense of smell. They
change the chemistry of the soil which can effect plant populations.
Corr. ID:
4004 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
206262
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On the same hike we saw a dog tearing back and forth in this
sandy area where it looked like native plants had been planted, or were at least
struggling to establish themselves. If we want these areas to remain beautiful for many
years to come, we need to allow the habitat restoration being done time to take hold, and
when dogs are running completely free everywhere, it can really damage that progress
in making, and keeping, our parks beautiful and great for all of us to enjoy.
Corr. ID:
4119 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
208524
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In addition, the impact to the surrounding land area is being
affected because the off leash dogs DO run off the fire roads and trails across sensitive
habitat areas, again, because often these dog walkers are not controlling them or keeping
them nearby.
Corr. ID:
4408 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
206414
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I remember when Fort Funston was covered in ice plant around
the parking lot area. Ice plant is a very tough "bullet proof" plant. I have spent time
pulling up this native in areas where the
native habitat is being restored. This plant has literally been worn away by the presence
of so
many dogs. Dogs dig and dog urine burns grass and other plants, probably due to the
high nitrogen content. Grass in SF parks is crisscrossed by numerous dogs, and dead
grass can easily be seen in circular areas where repeated marking from the dogs has
occurred. These areas continue to enlarge as more dogs urinate there. I think this is
another reason to limit the dogs to fenced areas.
Concern ID: 29621
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There are many areas with fragile newly planted native vegetation. When dogs run
unleashed through these areas, they impact the ability of this planted vegetation to grow.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
1206 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
194842
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And I also have spoken to many volunteers in the replanting
areas of Crissy as well as the Presidio. The off leash dogs wreak havoc on many native
plantings and wildlife areas,and can frighten people out hiking who aren't expecting a
loose dog at their heels when rounding a corner.
Please consider that many of us feel over-powered by the off-leash voices, but that
many of us with dogs, who walk them ourselves every day, welcome some reigning in
of conditions and hope for enforcement of any changes.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
461
1246
Comment
ID:
194930
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most owners are careful to clean up pet feces when they can,
but not all is removed, and there's no cleaning up urine. In addition, some overestimate
their voice control. Too often I've seen dogs rush around a newly-planted area digging
holes, chasing mice, and relieving themselves, while the owner shouts the dog's name to
no avail.
Corr. ID:
2058 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200513
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a volunteer, I help plant native plants in the park. Numerous
times I have seen dogs disobey their owners while off-leash. For example: One day- a
woman walking her dog off leash near our work site lost control of her dog. The dog ran
into the sensitive planting area and began growling and barking at the volunteers. The
woman was unable to capture her dog when she called for it. The dog ran away from her
and then both she and the dog were trampling through the planting area. This wastes the
N
ational Par
k
's money and time. And several of the volunteers were upset by the dog's
erratic behavior.
Corr. ID:
2194 Organization: University of Louisville
Comment
ID:
200689
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I later witnessed other dogs rooting around, and defecating in
one of the precious few areas that have undergone some native plant restoration work.
Despite the presence of obvious signage illustrating the work that had taken place there,
and several informative brochures noting just how rare of a micro-climate that portion
of the S.F. peninsula provides, it almost seemed like the dogs were there specifically to
undermine every attempt to give the part back to it's natural state
Corr. ID:
2211 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
200731
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The purchase of the Mori Point property by the GGNRA a few
years ago and the consequent work done by the park employees and volunteers is an
amazing improvement and a work of art. Unfortunately there are still many who walk
their dogs off leash and allow them to root around the newly planted areas. Off leash
pets should not be allowed on any GGNRA property where the tax payers money and
the park service efforts are compromised by thoughtless dog owners
Corr. ID:
3324 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
202930
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing in the hopes that my comments will help sway the
decision towards the alternate plan D or A. I care for dogs, but am all too aware of how
destructive they can be to sensitive habitats. My job is to restore habitats in the bay area.
Within the areas I work, there are many dog walkers who allow their pets to run around
off-leash and off trail. Because of this, many of our native plants we planted are
trampled and killed. It is so disheartening to work for over a year growing these
precious little native plants, only to have them die because of careless dog owners. I
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
462
think that dogs on leash in parks without endangered species should be allowed. Those
park sites with listed species, should either allow no dogs or only dogs on leash. The
difficulty with this however, is that most of the GGNRA is not actively policed by park
rangers. Without regular enforcement, people will continue to allow their dogs off-
leash. Professional dog walkers should also be heavy regulated, because it is often these
groups that do the most damage. I hope that the park will pass a strict plan like A or D
so that its natural resources will be protected and the parks can thrive.
Concern ID: 29622
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Impacts to vegetation and riparian areas are vastly overstated in the plan. The vegetation
present at many sites in the GGNRA is non-native. Dogs are well-behaved and under
the control of their owners, who respect fenced off areas and native plantings.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
263 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
180849
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Why do we need to make changes? The dogs are well behaved
and the owners are respectful of the native species and plants. We need this to stay dog
friendly.
Corr. ID:
1515 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
190671
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never witnessed any harmful encounters between dogs
and wildlife, or plant life and instead or restricting space for dogs should issue fines for
incidents allowing visitor/people to report. Having such fines would motivate
people/dogowners to respect the habitat.
Corr. ID:
2936 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
202231
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The parks provide many valuable uses for our community,
including uses for the human community. I pick up after my dog, keep her out of fenced
areas, and make sure she presents no harm to any wildlife (such as birds). There are
many of us seniors who count on the dog parks for our personal recreation. It is safe,
healthy, and beautiful. Please do not make Fort Funston inaccessible to me, to others
like me, and to responsible dog owners and walkers in our community.
Seniors like myself are often living on restricted incomes, and it is important for our
mental and physical health to have an opportunity to safely socialize with a like-minded
community. Fort Funston has resources, such as plants and geologic resources, but it is
equally important not to ignore the social resources; the human social resource should
be of equal value as the geologic resources.
This, however, begs the point that we users of the park are in conflict with the
environment peculiarities of the environment (bird safety, care of the dunes, growth
opportunities for specialized plants). To argue that we are in conflict is a false
assumption, and to conclude that off-leash dog use (and the people to whom the dogs
are attached) are a danger to the flora and fauna of the park is a conclusion that is
ineluctably drawn from a false premise. We all guard the plant life, we clean up after
our animals, we value the wild animal life (i.e. the birds); in the 5 years that I have
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
463
walked, limped, or rolled on the path at Fort Funston, I have never observed a dog
harming a bird. Someone posted a picture of a dog chasing an injured bird by the beach.
That is a peculiar and one-time activity - an activity that neither I nor anyone I have ever
asked has seen repeated. Please do not draw a false and harmful conclusion from a one-
time, media seeking photo op provided by those who look for ways to cause the
GGRNA to change its policy.
Corr. ID:
4145 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
208620
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As an avid environmentalist, I am very supportive of the work
the GGNRA has done to curtail erosion and protect plant and wildlife in the parks. I
make sure that neither I nor my dog goes into areas that have been fenced off and
designated (with signage) for replanting or environmental protection. In my experience,
all dog-owners I've come across in GGNRA areas have very effectively used voice
control to keep their dogs off these areas.
Corr. ID:
4155 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
208666
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The original 1979 ruling in regards to off leash dog walking
areas should be honored. The bad science in the DEIS doesn't prove that dogs off leash
are bad. The plants are better than they have ever been, the wildlife is more abundant
that it has ever been and there are more people enjoying the GGNRA. I walk my dog of
f
leash at Crissy Field, Baker Beach and Ocean Beach. He is always under voice control
and loves to chase his frisbee both in and out of the water. Both these activities would
be impossible if he were on leash.
Corr. ID:
4319 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209428
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the twenty-nine years that I've been walking at Fort Funston,
I've never seen a serious dogfight among the off-leash dogs, nor have I ever seen a
person attacked or harassed by a dog. I haven't seen vegetation destroyed by dogs, with
the exception of areas of summer foxtails that get trampled. On the other hand, I have
seen dramatic effects by wind and water over the years on the plants, cliffs, and hilly
areas
Concern ID: 29623
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
People and other natural factors have a much greater impact on vegetation and riparian
areas than dogs. Families, events, non-native species, and the elements all impact
vegetation in the parks, not just dogs.
R
epresentative
Quote(s): Corr. ID:
25 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209627
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) The biggest problems to habitat are restricting usage of the
park to trail or public use areas and dog feces. Park trail access is also a problem for
humans. I recently saw a family in Muir Beach that didn't want to use the pedestrian
bridge, saw a shortcut through the lagoon and trampled through the newly planted area
that park staff and volunteers have so carefully planted. They didn't have a dog. Should
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
464
we also ban humans from Muir Beach as well? If you value the habitat, that may be
prudent. I see far more humans abusing habitat at the Muir Beach lagoon than people,
including off-trail usage and littering. On the matter of dog fecal matter, why not require
all people that are walking dogs to provide evidence of having poopie bags for
removing litter? Anyone without a bag is obviously going to let their dog's fecal matter
by the side of the trail and should be fined.
Corr. ID:
1043 Organization: individual - cannot uncheck "member"
Comment
ID:
191840
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For example, when visiting Muir Beach, I see children run
amok in sensitive areas as dogs play in the surf or lounge with their families. Where is
the signage to protect recently restored riparian areas and the mouth of the salmon
stream? It is not being threatened by responsible dog owners, but by irresponsible or
uneducated people.
Corr. ID:
3444 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
203250
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs do not negatively impact the environment. It is not the
dogs that are stealing the nesting eggs from the birds, it is the crows and ravens! That is
why there are fewer birds.
Mother Nature changes the landscape at Fort Funston on a daily basis. The wind, rain
and wave water erosion cause the land to change dramatically. Everyday! So, it does not
matter that the dogs run up and down the hills because they are always changing and
will continue to do so, wether or not the dogs are there!
The dogs do not impact the ice plant - which is the natural plant that grows out there.
What the heck? Ice Plant????
Dog walkers benefit working people in allowing them to have time to go to work and
spend with their families rather than doing this chore.
Dogs benefit from daily runs on the beach because they are better behaved and less
aggressive when at home.
Dog walkers, by their sheer presence, keep gangs and violence off the beach and out of
parks.
Our urban parks will be saturated with dogs and there will be a negative impact
financially and more serious dog fights (and people fights)
There is a community of people that go to Fort Funston that will disappear and this is a
tragedy.
Are the horses allowed to stay on the trails and we are excluded?
How the heck are we suppose to keep 6 large, excited dogs on leash going down the
trails? I had my finger broken by a dog pulling me down the beach. How safe do you
think it is for someone to be expected to dragged by 6 dogs wanting to run free? Also, I
need my hands free for safety. The trails are unstable and sometimes I need to use my
hands to stabilize myself or grab branches or rocks.
Corr. ID: Organization: Not Specified
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
465
4172
Comment
ID:
208740
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have a degree in ecology and my first job was as in intern for
the GGNRA at Fort Funston. I wanted to give you this information so you understand
my commitment and knowledge of the ecosystem and plant community at Fort Funston.
The current plan seems to blame dogs for all the damage and harm that comes to the
native ecosystem life living there. This is false as anyone who works there or has
worked there should be aware of. The real damage that you can see is the non-native
invasive species such as ice plant, grasses, and other weeds which out compete the
native species such as bi-color lupine, indian paint brush, and others that give our home
part of its unique beauty. When I worked at Fort Funston in 1998, the GGNRA was able
to restore two parts of the park. Both of these are thriving with native species and have
not suffered damage from recreational use by the public or their pets. These remain to
date the only parcels of land which have been restored and with budget cuts ending the
visitor center and native plant nursery, I don't see much hope for future restoration
projects.
Corr. ID:
4533 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209690
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I personally have observed and reported people climbing into
fenced of vegetation areas at Crissy Field to take photos and to get better views during
events, as well as children playing in the areas, running up and down the dunes. I have
also observed people hiking off of the trails in the areas above Rodeo Beach and people
on bicycles where they are not allowed. In addition, I have observed and reported large
amounts of garbage and litter left behind after events, or not immediately picked up at
the conclusion of the events, so that birds and other wildlife have foraged in the
garbage, possibly ingesting harmful items. The dunes and fencing along the beach at
Crissy Field are regularly impacted by the wind and tides. It is common for the park
police horses to leave deposits along the trails in the park. I am really curious as to how
the proposals for the America's Cup event (which I support) will impact the area and
how that environmental analysis compares to the DEIS. All of these other impacts (and
not just the ones I have listed as examples) must be evaluated as well before negative
impacts are merely attributed to the presence of dogs.
Corr. ID:
4548 Organization: Not Specified
Comment
ID:
209813
Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The majority of problems are people related. There is the
occasional dog fight but those are usually a lot of noise.
Yes dogs do run in the fenced areas but in all fairness the fences are almost non-
existing. And in reality the area is sand dunes. The majority of the damage to the plants
is done by sand.
VR4000 - Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Concern ID: 29625
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Concentrating dogs into smaller spaces will result in greater impacts to vegetation
within these restricted spaces. These areas will receive more wear and tear as a
result.
VR2010VegetationandRiparianAreas:AffectedEnvironment
466
For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29507 (GR4000),
Comment 192048
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4569 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209831 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Preferred Plan for dogs at Fort Funston is nothing
more than a dog park. If that limited area north of the parking lot is used by the
same number of people and dogs that currently use the entire Fort Funston area
then all the vegetation will be destroyed leaving sand blowing worse than it,does
now. Also, that many dogs and people in a limited area will cause more conflict.
Concern ID: 29626
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Measures restricting dogs are necessary to protect the native vegetation found in the
GGNRA. These areas should not be subject to the impacts of dogs and humans for
their protection
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1052 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192139 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Remind the Park Service that while dogs are important
parts of our families and communities, they are just one animal that is having a
significant negative impact on thousands of other animals that rely on the park to
survive. It is fair to ask dog owners to accept certain limits for areas where their
dogs may play when the survival and well being of so many wildlife animals and
plants is at stake.
Corr. ID: 1684 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191082 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) There are many, many wilderness areas within GGNRA
that are close to being pristine - with abundant wildlife and plant life that should be
protected, with minimal impact by humans or domesticated animals, because un-
fortunately these all do impact these areas negatively - these areas are so vast, it
would be impossible for rangers & park police to patrol adequately.
Corr. ID: 2221 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200825 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: This document proposes a way to protect native vegetation
in national parks located in the SF area. For that reason, it should be supported.
Corr. ID: 3420 Organization: NPCA
Comment ID: 201427 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog parks in California are popular and needed as healthy
outlets for dog energy. However, in my view, they need to be carefully selected. At
times, image or territory on the map does not give information about the true needs
of the environment in those places. At Golden Gate area, so close to major city and
harbor, having a park of National Park stature is a fragile treasure. It does not seem
to be appropriate towards utilization by even beloved household pets. In every dog
park I have ever seen, greenery gets nearly destroyed and birds and animals
devastated.... adorned by leftovers of pets' excrement. I am not familiar enough
with the Golden Gate area, but I suggest seriously that it should be protected for all
nature's living there without fear and struggle, thus remain recreational for the
body, mind and spirit as only the undisturbed parks render.
Concern ID: 29627
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Marshes, dunes, and other fragile vegetated habitats are often full of dogs. It is
important to both remove dogs from this area to protect vegetation and wildlife
habitat. In many cases, commenters noted that the preferred alternative would still
VR4000VegetationandRiparianAreas:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
467
have impacts on flora, and suggested that alternative D be chosen instead.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29475 (CF1400), Comment 203616;
Concern 29238 (OV1300), Comment 209388; Concern 29238 (RB1300), Comment
209389; Concern 29458 (CF1200), Comment 209391; Concern 29424 (FF1200),
Comment 209393
Concern ID: 29628
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some areas do not contain endangered plants, so there is no need to ban off leash
dog walking. The removal of ice plant and other habitat restoration projects have
negative impacts by causing more sand to blow around in areas where this occurs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4577 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209677 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2. Absence of Critical Habitat Protection. At the open
house held at Fort Mason, one of the senior rangers confirmed that there were few,
if any endangered flora at Fort Funston because of decades of urban and natural
degradation beginning with the area's use as a military complex. I have also not
seen anything in the NPS Report that suggests otherwise, other than declaratory
general statements that there would be some adverse impacts. Yet, the NPS's
preferred solution would close the entire area to off-leash dog walking.
As for fauna, where bank swallows or other birds nest on a seasonal basis, the NPS
has a reasonable solution that adequately balances competing interests by simply
closing those affected areas on a temporary basis to off-leash dogs or, if necessary,
to any dog-walking activity.
Corr. ID: 4659 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209070 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As to Fort Funston, I believe the 2001 closures there have
not lent significant benefit to the environment or safety. The Park Service has not
achieved the planned native plant restoration goals and is not anticipated to do so
for decades. On the other side, the closures have led to a substantial loss of key
recreation access to a unique recreational asset ' the only big sand dune in the Bay
Area. I used to watch kids play there, and confess to the joy of rolling down the hill
myself in foolish middle age exuberance. It is now just a fenced off vacant sand
dune area standing as a daily frustration and visible monument to Park Service
deviation from the recreational access mandate of the park.
VR5000 - Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments on VR5000
VR6000 - Vegetation And Riparian Areas: Impairment Analyses
There were no comments on VR6000
VU2010 - Visitor Use and Experience: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 30419
VR4000VegetationandRiparianAreas:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
468
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors have never had incidents with dog waste on the beach, or with the smell of
urine being strong enough to impact their visitor experience. Additionally, visitors
did not feel that the sound of barking took away from the experience of the
GGNRA, particularly more so than other non-natural noises.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 286 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181012 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And dog ownership in Marin County is a big thing -- you
are limiting access to people who want to enjoy the outdoors with their companions
(their dogs) for what reason? How many more restrictions are you going to put on
people? The dogs aren't hurting the beach. Maybe signs need to be bigger about
cleaning up after their dogs, but honestly, I've never had an incident where I've
found any dog poo on the beach.
Corr. ID: 4369 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209512 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My experience is that dog owners are cleaning up after
their dogs and respecting posted restricted areas. I looked for site-specific data on
damage to protected wildlife and the environment that would support your proposal
to severely restrict off-leash dog areas. I could find no data of the extend of the
damage or specific causal ties to off-leash dogs at Crissy Field. I also could not find
any trend numbers correlating off-leash dog use to deterioration of the
environment. I found no scientific study to support your highly-restricted
conclusions.
Corr. ID: 4600 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206053 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I want to point to one factor that the report identified as an
important 'natural' resource to protect ' soundscapes. The report found the topic to
be important enough that it warranted its own subsection on Visitor Use section of
the document (page 281). Barking is specifically called out as something that
disrupts the soundscape, yet the areas addressed in the DEIS with dog usage all fit
the following criteria:
- They are frequented by visitors
- They currently are subject to some sort of use with dogs
In any of the areas that fit that criteria, a change to the dog regulations fails
spectacularly to address the primary degradation in the natural soundscapes.
Fort Funston faces a reduced off leash area to a ROLA next to the parking lot and
the beach. However, the areas eliminated along the paved trails get the constant
noise of both the traffic on Skyline Boulevard and the constant return of gunfire
from two gun ranges immediately outside of the GGNRA.
Crissy Field in San Francisco abuts a heavily trafficked park road. It also gets the
constant traffic noise from Doyle Drive (or the construction thereof), and it gets the
shipping noises and fog horns from the bay. The changes hardly serve any
improvement with these areas.
Ocean Beach runs along the great highway with its constant vehicle traffic which is
only abated by special events such as the Bay to Breakers. This event is hardly
known for its natural soundscapes.
Fort Baker is now home not only to traffic on the roads, but also Cavallo Point
resort. This activity is hardly one that creates a 'natural' soundscape.
Corr. ID: 4622 Organization: Not Specified
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
469
Comment ID: 207053 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Soundscape -
The DEIS does not include relevant information related to the soundscape at Fort
Funston and cites dog barking as an issue. As an almost daily user of Fort Funston,
it is my experience is that there is very little dog barking, and what dog barking
does occur primarily occurs inside vehicles in the parking lot. Changing the current
off leash to the "preferred alternative" will not decrease dog barking In fact, the
change to the "preferred alternative" will result in the increase of dog barking in
other parts of Fort Funston as the "preferred alternative" off leash areas are too
small to accommodate the amount of users (for which NPS has not conducted any
accurate statistical site survey of users), and dogs restrained on leashes in other
parts of the Fort are much more apt to bark than when they are off leash.
N
o reference is made in the DEIS to the constant noise from the very heavy use of
Hwy 1-Skyline Blvd by cars, trucks and buses. This can be heard in all parts of Fort
Funston with the exception of the beach. No reference is made in the DEIS to the
gunshot noise of the Pacific Rod & Gun Club range adjacent to Fort Funston which
can be heard through all areas of the Fort, excluding the beach area. No reference is
made to the noise from the SF Police Gun Range adjacent to the Fort Funston, that
seemingly is operated 24/7 and can be heard through all parts of the Fort, excluding
the beach. No reference is made in the DEIS to the noise made by the hang gliders.
N
o reference is made in the DEIS to the noise made by model airplanes. No
reference is made in the DEIS to the noise generated by the significant number of
SFO passenger jet takeoffs over Fort Funston and / or parallel to the beach and in
climb out prior to turning eastbound (depending on SFO flight rules then being
utilized.)
Concern ID: 30420
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The waste present on the beaches and trails from dogs is unclean. The smell and
unsanitary conditions make it less desirable to go to areas with heavy dog walking
use, and some visitors had stepped in dog waste.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1159 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193458 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Many dog owners allow their dogs to poop in the sand on
Ocean Beach, making it difficult for others to enjoy. Dogs poop all over the trails
making enjoyment of a routine walk on the any of the trails less likely
Corr. ID: 2340 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195388 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My daughter is 5 years old and I began taking her to Crissy
Field at the age of 1. I stopped at the age of 2. The first problem with Crissy Field
is that the overwhelming smell of dog urine is nauseating and disgusting. Why
would we want our children digging in this sand? The next issue is that the dogs
were constantly running through my picnic blanket and sniffing my daughter. With
the issues we've had in this town, we all know how scary and dangerous it can be
when a big dog gets exciting around a small child.
Corr. ID: 4519 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209582 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My grandchildren have not had access to the beach at the
tidal entrance to Crissy Marsh due to excessive dog use in that area.
My grand-daughter, then age 7, stepped into dog feces hidden in the grass of Crissy
Field. I would like to see the future dog area on Crissy Field fenced.
Corr. ID: 4530 Organization: Not Specified
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
470
Comment ID: 209720 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Although I love dogs (I am a dog person), I do not enjoy
walking on trails where there is dog poop or dogs running wild.
Once unleashed, a dog goes where he/she will. I live along the estuary in Alameda
and have problems with unleashed dogs and their waste in my yard.
Concern ID: 30421
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The sounds of dogs barking negatively impacted the visitor experience of many
visitors, particularly those who were seeking natural sounds, and did not want to
hear dogs or any noises associated with dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1166 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193536 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: . I love land end but it is now ruined due to dogs. Not only
is nature being destroyed but I can no longer go there due to off leash dogs and
rude dog owners. I don't even go to on leash areas of the ggnra because the sounds
of dogs barking ruins nature for me. I don't think dogs should be allowed in
national parks or in nature in general. Definitely no off leash dogs and no on leash
dogs would be ideal.
Corr. ID: 2161 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200577 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly oppose any dogs in the GGNRA. In this, I am
supported by many others; seniors like myself, disabled people, blind people, many
of whom have refrained from using the GGNRA where irresponsible dog owners
refuse (and most often are not able)to control their dogs. Dogs are a huge liability.
You cannot share spaces with them; they run all over everything -- including you --
they bark, whine, yap, thus destroying the beautiful sounds of nature with their
angry, hostile noise. They urinate and defecate everywhere. Some of them are
vicious, and attack people and other animals at will. Even the leashed ones befoul
any area they are in.
Corr. ID: 2175 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200568 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: When I visit any of our National Parks, I want to be in the
park, with nature, enjoying what is there. I prefer not to hear anything other than
the sounds of nature and those of my fellow park visitors. That includes the barking
and play-noises of dogs greeting other dogs.
I would also prefer that the natural environment of the park not be torn up by the
rough-housing of dogs.
Corr. ID: 2892 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202973 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Although much wildlife in busy parks has had to become
somewhat habituated to human encroachment (we ourselves are not a good
presence for wildlife), even a well-behaved dog presents an olfactory threat that
may cause an endemic species to permanently abandon its food or shelter source ,
but often the harm is much greater than that:
Dog waste contains microbes that are not part of the biota of our naturally-evolved
native ecosystems, and this waste enters terrestrial and aquatic life cycles.
Dogs can flush out and chase fauna, harm native vegetation, and assist in spreading
serious diseases (such as SOD), because most dogs do not maintain all feet on the
provided trail at all times.
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
471
Dogs can cause noise pollution, run or jump at strangers, and impede forward
progress of hikers, runners, bicyclists, and equestrians. These dog behaviors can
severely scare nearby wildlife and many types of visitors.
Dogs can sometimes "take" wildlife to the point of death.
As a visitor I have seen most of the above incidents occur first hand, and all of
them happened with a dog still on a leash!
Corr. ID: 3984 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207313 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In support of well-defined and realistically enforced dog
management.
Unfortunately my precious outdoor time has been increasingly degraded by
untrained, unrestrained, unavoidable canine influences. By this i mean dog noise,
dog excrement, random dogs jumping on me, dogs charging & nipping at me,
owner & dog on leash taking up the whole 2-way path with no intention,
awareness, or effort to "keep to the right". These intrusions occur in dogs-allowed
parks, no dogs-allowed parks, and stretches of shoreline that are bird sanctuaries.
Concern ID: 30422
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors, including those with guide dogs, expressed that they had been frightened
by dogs running up to them, or had incidents with dogs biting, jumping on them, or
urinating on them. Some commenters noted that they had stopped visiting areas in
the GGNRA after several similar experiences, or started carrying sticks and other
items for self-defense.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 506 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181898 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a Guide Dog user as is my daughter and several of
our friends. When we go to any beach, either regulated by GOGA or San Francisco
Maritime NHP, we have had some problems with dogs off leash. Our dogs are
never left to run off leash, one because they are working dogs, and two, because it
is unsafe not only for them but for us as well. It is very disconcerning when you
have a dog, who is not on leash, running up to your dog, sometimes causing
trouble, or just wanting to play, and distracting our dogs when they are trying to
work.
Corr. ID: 961 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191595 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We tried to walk there once when our children were
toddlers and were approached by bounding dogs at every turn. The owners would
sometimes call out "don't worry; he's friendly" but we were still sufficiently
intimidated not to return. My parents, who are not steady on their feet, have given
up walking there for the same reason.
I would like to raise an important point, which is that many of Fort Funston's
visitors who are not dog walkers have by now completely given up using the park. I
almost never go there myself and my parents don't either, though it was, at one
time, our favorite park in San Francisco.
Corr. ID: 1829 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191950 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a long time resident of Marin, who has enjoyed the
beaches at Stinson and the trails on Mt. Tam for many years, I believe the dog
population of this area has become an aggravation if not a hazard to residents. At
Rodeo Beach I have had an off leash dog urinate on my head as I lay face down on
a beach towel. "So sorry" was the apology of the owners. "Voice control" of pets is
an illusion as a 100 pound animal bounds over to pedestrians and sometimes to
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
472
children-"he's just friendlly" says the owner
Corr. ID: 3548 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203410 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It has been hard to relax at Muir Beach with so many dogs
running loose, including dogs of breeds that are statistically more likely to seriously
injure people. I want to be able to go to this beach and relax and not worry about
being bothered by dogs nor worry about my children's safety. It's sad, but this is the
one and only reason I haven't gone to this beach in a long time, and I should be able
to go and feel safe since this is our nearest beach.
Please consider that hikers, runners, beach-goers should be allowed a good number
of beautiful trails and beaches where they can enjoy nature and not have to deal
with dogs. The dogs have plenty of places to enjoy, it seems that with the way the
rules are now, they are held in higher regard than those of us who want dog-free
options.
Corr. ID: 4277 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209083 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I now walk with my Leki walking sticks, which I usually
reserve for wilderness walks. but which I now feel I must walk with in order to use
them in self-defense. Pedestrians in San Francisco and in the GGRNA should. NOT
feel that they can only walk if armed.
Corr. ID: 4291 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209026 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We love going to Cronkite Beach but too many dogs
j
umping on my wife - completely out of control. Dog people say their dogs just
want to play - we hate it. I used to fish there until every time dogs pissed on my
lunch box and fishing gear. By the time I find a ranger the dog and owner are gone.
Dogs chase the birds, also. If mothers of small children know of all the dog feces in
the sand they would put a stop to it.
Corr. ID: 4665 Organization: National Parks Conservation
Association
Comment ID: 209149 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: Other user groups, such as those with service dogs, have
stated their concerns with off-leash dog use. One survey from Guide Dog Users,
Inc. concluded that 89% of guide dog users report off-leash dogs interference with
the guide-owner team and 42% report physical attacks on the guide-and-owner
team.
Concern ID: 30423
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors noted that they had never had an incident with dog owners or other users o
f
the park. All the user groups were able to utilize the space harmoniously.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1162 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193476 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are not that many locations where I can bring my
dog to enjoy the outdoors without mulitude of restrictions or not at all. Over the
course of my time of using the trails, I have come across only respectful and
courteous dog owners and people alike all enjoying nature harmoniously.
Corr. ID: 3202 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202489 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm a new dog owner, but for years I enjoyed all those area
that are discussed here while hiking and bicycling without a dog. I have never been
bothered by dogs, or wittnessed any damages done by them. Most dogs owners are
responsible. Why would we apply the collective punishment by restricing the dog
areas use because of the irresponsible behavior of a very few dog owners? I VERY
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
473
STRONGLY SUPPORT Option A: CHANGE NOTHING!!!
Corr. ID: 3490 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203349 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am against the GGNRA's draft dog management plan. It
destroys totally my daily live. I walk every day with my dog of leash for about 4
miles. My doctors advised me to do so. I am a heart patient.
This draft is discrimination against all dog lovers.
The old rules are good and worked for many years, please keep them in place.
Corr. ID: 3498 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203386 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to make a brief comment as a dog owner and
citizen. I have walked my dogs off leash at Fort Funston for almost 20 years.
During that time, I have been impressed by the collegiality and care for the
environment shown by the user groups. I have also seen impressive restoration of
native vegetation, which has not been in any way disturbed or impeded by the
presence of dogs off leash. Almost all of the dog owners I have encountered over
the years have been respectful of the off limits areas, have cleaned of after their
dogs, and have cooperated with Park Service personnel. In an era of budget cuts to
our National Parks, the presence of many responsible dog owners is a real benefit
as this kind of usage helps keep Fort Funston safe and accessible for all. Based on
all of the above and on the lack of very few alternatives for safe and healthy off
leash dog walking in the urban environment of San Francisco, I VERY
STRONGLY oppose the proposed restrictions in the proposed Dog Management
Plan. As a responsible dog owner and citizen, I believe that these new rules are
unwarranted, unfair, and will have a negative long term impact on Forth Funston
and the GGNRA if they are implemented. I have contacted my elected
representatives about this and will remain actively engaged to do everything in my
power to insure that this wonderful resource for people and doges - many of whom
are from shelters - remains available to our community.
Corr. ID: 4027 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207105 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have walked my dog daily at Crissy Field (from west end
of lagoon to fort point) for 10 years. While there are cranky people and mad dogs,
that is few and far between. Never have I seen a "pack of threatening dogs". On
average, like a busy Memorial Day today, there were about 250 people, 8 dogs on
the grassy area, and 10 on the beach,(west beach area) 2 dogs off leash and 10 dogs
on leash on the gravel trail. Off season and foggy days (almost 360 days) there are
generally 2 dogs in the grassy area, 4 on the beach, and maybe 3 off leash.
Corr. ID: 4187 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208776 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a windsurfer I have for years made considerable use of
the beach at Crissy field in harmony with dog users. Having spent much more time
as a user without a dog I believe I can impartially state that the dog use at any of
the Crissy field areas has not posed a problem for me or anyone I know or have
seen in the parks.
Corr. ID: 4201 Organization: self, City College of San Francisco
employee
Comment ID: 208839 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you've ever personally spent time walking in the Ft.
Funston area or Ocean Beach or any number of open spaces, you would see, as I
have seen, a lovely and serendipitous mix of dogs running free and parents with
children (or single parents on their cell phones as their toddlers run into the ocean),
people flying kites, surfers, picnickers, joggers, yogis, lovers, the elderly out for a
stroll, and friends playing ball. Perhaps you have not noticed the lonely, the
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
474
grieving, the disabled, the mentally ill-all of them finding solace in nature and,
many of them, in the curative powers of a pleasant exchange with dog-owners, dog-
walkers, and dogs-open and free, easy and non-threatening.
Corr. ID: 4562 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209750 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As homeowners and dog lovers, we spend many of our
weekends at Chrissy Field, at Fort Funston, in Golden Gate Park. My daughter,
husband, and I find enormous peace, fun and happiness walking and playing in
these parks, playing ball and watching our dogs have a chance to run by our sides
off leash. Under voice control - of course - but free to walk and run unencumbered
by a leash. It fuels our mental and physical health ' and frankly keeps us living in
the City. In sixteen years, I have never experienced dogs behaving badly, scaring
children or birds, or fighting with each other.
Concern ID: 30424
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors said they had never seen an altercation between humans and dogs in their
experience at the park. Visitors have not experienced issues with dogs entering
restricted areas, or harming vegetation or wildlife. In fact, many visitors felt dog
owners improved the parks
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 560 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182034 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Fort Funston has been a treasure for taking our dog where
she can run with other dogs in a natural environment.
The vast majority of people who walk the trails and on the beach are dog owners.
I have never seen owners allowing their dogs to go into restricted areas where there
is vegetation growing. While I am sure there are some violators, even with new
rules there will be violations.
I understand that there must be rules in this park, but is there a problem currently
that requires that you be more restrictive than at present.
Corr. ID: 3551 Organization: Audubon, Sierra Club, WildCare,
Defenders of Wildlife, Nature Convservancy, In
Defense of Animals
Comment ID: 203434 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We feel very strongly that there is enough land for all
users, providing they are responsible, which is a problem for everyone, not just dog
owners. Speeding bikers, bikers on prohibited trails, people leaving trash etc. are
j
ust a few of the other problems. We strongly support no dogs in critical breeding
grounds, leashed dogs in some areas and no dogs in other areas. However, as with
the debate with MCOSD, we also believe that dog owners should be allowed to use
a part of these lands with their off-leash dogs.
One of the places we have been taking our dogs for years is Oakwood Valley. We
have never witnessed one dog-related incident detrimental to wildlife or humans in
the 20+ years we have been walking there with our unleashed dogs. We understand
dogs are only allowed on 0.5% of all GGNRA land. On MCOSD dogs are only
allowed on about 6% of the land. We have witnessed the following...birders and
plants seekers going off trail in large groups to look into nests, pish for birds, pick
flowers etc. Is that not also disturbing to animals?
Walking your dogs off-leash is so nice for both the owner and the dogs. We look at
wildflowers and birds and they smell doggie things and run through mud puddles.
When we see someone coming we call them to our side until we know it is a good
situation for all. We don't see much wildlife on the fireroads and trails heavily used
by bikers, walkers, birders, and dog owners. They stay in the more remote parts of
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
475
the land where there is less human impact. Also, many people cannot walk
theirdogs on leash due to a disablilty so this would end all walks for them.
Corr. ID: 4109 Organization: Friends of Upper Noe Dog Owners
Group
Comment ID: 208485 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Even so, in all the many years that we have gone to any of
the local beaches as a family, we have never witnessed any altercations between
dogs or between humans and dogs, or an attack on birds. And, while the Ocean
Beach area directly north of Sloat has seasonal restrictions there is no evidence in
the DEIS to support the closures of beach access because of the presence of snowy
plovers.
Corr. ID: 4163 Organization: former member of the San Francisco
Commission on Animal Control and Welfare
Comment ID: 208727 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've never been a guardian to a dog but in the four years I
took my granddaughter to the park when she was a baby, then a toddler, I never
saw any conflict between the above three concerns. On the contrary, one morning I
saw a young mother with a toddler and a big dog, off leash in Mountain Lake Park
(a medium-sized park in the Richmond District of San Francisco with a little lake,
lots of birds, children and off-leash big dogs who do not restrict themselves to just
the off-leash dog run)showing her little daughter how to pick up their dog's feces
and dispose of it responsibly, then after thoroughly brushing the dog for a while,
she gathered his combed out fur and placed the soft furry ball behind some bushes
surrounded by trees. Noticing we were watching her, she explained with a smile:
"The birds like the fur for their nests."
Corr. ID: 4223 Organization: Crissy Field Dog Group
Comment ID: 208945 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Personally, I visit Crissy Field several times a week, on
average, and I have not seen a dog altercation in several years. 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: 4323 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209459 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In over 7 years of visiting Fort Funston I cannot recall a
single incident of conflict or of' someone being disrespectful of the natural
environment. Due to this I am skeptical of the draft EIS's claim that the presence of
dogs is having a significant negative impact on wildlife. All such claims need to be
substantiated with well documented, site specific, scientific evidence that also
analyzes the impact of other recreational uses of the space (i.e. equestrians, boaters,
fishermen, hikers, bikers, runners, hang gliders, etc).
Corr. ID: 4520 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209589 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Over the many years I have enjoyed and explored the
GGNRA I have never witnessed a serious encounter between people with their
dogs and the native wildlife. Dogs may chase birds for a while, but I have never
seen a dog catch a bird. Nor have I seen an owner encourage the behavior.
Generally I have witnessed dog owners intervene, restrain and discourage their
dogs from endangering wildlife.
Concern ID: 30425
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Experiences with unfriendly or belligerent dog owners were cited by some visitors
as a reason that they no longer enjoyed visiting the GGNRA. Commenters noted
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
476
that dog owners were rude when asked to leash their dogs, pick up waste, or leave
restricted areas, and that when incidents occurred, dog owners often blamed the
other visitor.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1160 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193465 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: live in SF and try to enjoy GGNRA weekly, but it has
become more difficult with the proliferation of off-leash dogs at Crissy Field,
Ocean Beach and Lands End. I have been attacked by dogs on numerous occasions.
Last month I was yelled at by a dog owner after her dog attacked me. She told me
that I must have food in my pockets. This is ridiculous. It has become so
contentious on these walks that people definitely have a harder time enjoying these
areas than they used to.
Corr. ID: 2187 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200581 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On many hikes and visits to GGNRA parks, I and my two
young children, have been approached by unleashed dogs. Both of my children are
now terrified of dogs and the owners have little remorse or concern for the safety or
well being of my children.
I often ask owners to leash their dogs when my children are around. I receive rude
comments and many times people ignore my requests and do not leash their dogs.
As a parent and visitor to the GGNRA I need authority and enforcement to ensure
that people keep their dogs on leashes to keep the rest of us safe and free to enjoy
the parks.
Corr. ID: 3815 Organization: Wild Equity Institute
Comment ID: 226964 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Many non-compliant dog owners are abusive to visitors
who complain to them about their dog's behavior or their handling of their dog.
Corr. ID: 3852 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209324 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A number of these dogs have charged me, and many have
made contact. So far, I have been fortunate and have not been bitten or injured. The
same cannot be said for many of my friends or their pets which were on-leash.
When I politely try to inform the dog's owner of the park regulations pertaining to
pets, the owner more often than not interrupts me and generally is downright rude,
making comments such as "Mind your own business" or "Go home." My friends
relate similar stories. Granted, many pet owners are responsible and do not take
their dogs where they do not belong, but it seems as though many of the pet owners
who take their dogs to national parks are not amongst the ranks of the responsible
or courteous.
Corr. ID: 4024 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206982 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I cannot fully enjoy walking at Crissy Field or Land's End
because I have had many unpleasant interactions with dogs and their inconsiderate
owners. I have been hit hard in the back by catapulted balls, been shocked when a
large dog jumped from behind onto my hips and legs, felt scared when another dog
j
umped on my legs and closed its mouth around my fingers, and have repeatedly
dodged whirlwinds of dogs chasing each other. I enjoy well-behaved dogs in
appropriate places, and in the past owned a wonderful, trained dog, but do not
invite interaction with strange dogs. Every time a dog aggressively approached me
without my beckoning, I politely, yet firmly, confronted the owner, and each time I
was met with incredible rudeness. I have never encountered a ranger around the
time of the incident to report the interaction.
Corr. ID: 4267 Organization: Law Office of David Elliott Wise
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
477
Comment ID: 209104 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is, and always will be a sizable group of dog owners
that have no control, or don't care, about what their dogs are doing; many act as if
they feel that their dogs are members of their family, and that others need to adjust
their expectations to allow for their dogs unruly behavior. Consequently, when me
or my wife has asked owners to leash or control their dogs, we commonly get
dismissive or even aggressive responses. This spoils the beach for us, for the
wildlife, and the minority of dog owners who exercise real control over their dogs
Concern ID: 30426
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The presence of dogs, particularly out of control dogs, has made some visitors stop
using areas at the GGNRA, as they felt their experience of the park was
significantly compromised by the presence of so many dogs. Visitors felt stressed
out by the presence of so many dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 337 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181106 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Often one hears that since areas like Fort Funston are
mostly used by dog-walkers, it should remain that way. However, this was not true
years ago. I believe that the presence of so many dogs in areas like that have driven
away those who find the experience greatly degraded.
Corr. ID: 916 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191330 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And the situation as parks like Fort Funston has gotten
quite out of hand. I won't even go there any longer because it is impossible to have
any peace with all the dogs running around. The experience of the place has
deteriorated so that unless you are dog owner, and the purpose of the place is to
exercise the little beast, there is no use in going there.
Corr. ID: 1712 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191150 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA did not have as many dogs in the past. Over
the past 10 years, I have noticed an explosion of dogs. I used to be ok with sharing
the park with the odd dog walker, but now I find that I can't go to the park because
there are so many dogs and so many dogs off leash. For this reason, I believe that
off leash and on leash areas for dogs should be decreased.
Corr. ID: 4200 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208831 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The trail a couple of blocks from my house, Alta, has for
years been used heavily by dog walkers who arrive with a large number of dogs
and allow them to roam off-leash. I love dogs, however the sight of a large pack of
off-leash dogs coming towards me frankly makes me nervous. Once, I was
completely surrounded by barking dogs while carrying my baby. The dog walker,
in the distance, called the dogs, but they were slow to obey.
My husband avoids the trail now, too, since an off-leash dog bit him.
Concern ID: 30427
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dog owners who do not have their dogs under true voice control undermine the
experience of other visitors to the park, who do not like listening to dog owners
yelling to control their dogs. Many visitors relayed experiences of having dogs
trample or steal food from their picnics or out of their hands, and urinating on their
property, or just generally impacting their experience at the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1816 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191805 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
478
Representative Quote: I am compassionate about protecting our lands and the
native habits they support. This is why I am writing today in support of the most
stringent controls on dog owners.
Of concern to me are animals under "voice control". I loved reading the idea in the
plan to have dog/owner certified as being under voice control prior allowing them
off leash. My experience with owners who say their dogs are under voice control is
listening to them yell the same commands (usually, 'come here' and 'don't do that')
time and time again without result. I like the serenity of a park stroll and this
yelling does undermine my experience.
Corr. ID: 2556 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195652 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am in favor of your proposal.
I live directly across the street from an open space district
which hosts dogs and walkers of all shapes and sizes.
I put out a water dish and keep it filled, in an
attempt to be friendly and neighborly to both dogs and walkers.
There is no such thing as voice control. Our weekends are punctuated
by untrained dog walkers yelling for their dogs. Dogs
routinely crash through the underbrush chasing deer and squirrels.
We once had a dog chase our cat into our house through the front door.
At your beaches we have experienced, in addition to the above, untrained
dog walkers watching their dog urinate on our family's
toys spread on the sand. How do you explain that to a child?
You are wise to allocate a budget for enforcing your plan.
Please keep up the good work and implement your plan
Corr. ID: 2866 Organization: Women Helping All People
Comment ID: 202763 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On the Alta trail, it is a giant dog park. People do not have
their dogs on leashes. Dog watchers bring their dogs there to run without leashes.
Many are large dogs. When I go hiking there with children, most times the children
are afraid of them. I think that they should be on leashes for safety for all! To be
under voice control has been proven useless
Corr. ID: 3585 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203665 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are many users of the GGNRA including families
with young children (such as my own family), seniors, and people with disabilities
or a fear of dogs. Not everyone wants to recreate with off-leash dogs or even with
on-leash dogs. I have had several negative experiences with dogs within the
GGNRA, where I have had to pick up one of my children to get them away from a
dog, push a dog away from our food, or clean dog poop off my children's shoes.
My children are smaller than many dogs. While the majority of dog owners are
responsible and the majority of dogs would not hurt my children, I am not always
able to tell which dogs are safe and which are not. Worrying about what a dog may
do or dealing with dogs that do approach us just takes away from our ability to
enjoy and relax. I have tended to avoid parts of GGNRA that have high numbers of
off-leash dogs, such as Fort Funston and portions of the beach at Crissy Field.
I have also seen many dogs off-leash at Ocean Beach within the on-leash Snowy
Plover Protection area, which I find upsetting, as they are potentially impacting a
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
479
threatened species. I think as important as the establishment of clear rules on dogs
is the enforcement of the rules by National Park Service officials. Under the current
situation, it is not always clear what the rules are and whether or not they are
enforced.
Corr. ID: 3705 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202241 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
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. Sometimes the
owners have been apologetic, but other times they just laugh at how playful their
dogs are, as if no one could possibly experience discomfort at the prospect of being
run into and jumped upon by a 50-pound animal. I was in a picnic area once
designated as on-leash only, and a dog ran up and ate the hot dog right off of my
plate. When I said something to its owner about the leash rule, he told me that I
needed to educate myself about the park rules, as it was okay to have a dog off
leash if it was under voice control. This struck me as so absurd, given the
circumstances, that I did not bother to respond.
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 on-leash 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. And I have to say that these designations are easy to blur. If an area is
designated on-leash only, dogs will be off leash. If an area is voice-control, dogs
will be running around without any supervision.
Corr. ID: 3961 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206063 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In my personal experience, no matter where I am in the
park, I rarely get to have a dog-free experience. I like to go to the park to
experience peace and solitude, away from noise, and to enjoy the beauty of the
landscape. However it seems like wherever I go, I need to deal with someone's dog
running up to me - whether cute or initimidating, they are interrupting my
experience - and are usually are accompanied by their owner's shouting at them in
an attempt to demonstrate their responsibility and control - which is usually futile
and further distracting.
Sometimes dogs are threatening or make me feel stressed and nervous, and I have
no recourse. Never mind the all too frequent unpleasant experience of unavoidably
seeing dogs defecate or urinate
Corr. ID: 4246 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209215 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
480
Representative Quote: My grandson, while walking at Chrissy field had food
snatched from his hands by unleashed dogs.
Can dog owners be thoughtful enough to limit their animals to run where people are
safe and no small children present? Several areas, so limit some for dogs and
owners who will not endanger other people and children - not Chrissy field.
Concern ID: 30429
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having dogs present in the park significantly improves the visitor experience for
many at the park, who either enjoy bringing their dogs, like being around other
dogs, or feel safer with dogs and dog owners present. The park is unique within the
N
PS syste
m
. It should not be managed in the same manner as national parks. The
visitor experience in the GGNRA should be one that includes dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1826 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191934 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: So I was greatly dismayed to hear the GGNRA is
recommending severe restrictions on off-leash recreation. One of the reasons given
in the DEIS report is that
dogs detract from visitors' experience of the park. (p. 279-280) My experience is
j
ust the opposite.
Corr. ID: 1850 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192037 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS inappropriately suggests that a dog policy
inconsistent with the standard NPS policy is the source of all dog problems in the
GGNRA. There is no evidence to support that statement. The DEIS also fails to
characterize accurately the effects on visitor and employee safety and resource
degradation from current dog walking practices. The DEIS should be revised to
delete the suggestion that the NPS standard dog policy would eliminate any dog
related problems and the DEIS should remove the negative characterization of dog
walking from the Need for Action, based on the following:
i ) The National Park Service (NPS) has a long tradition of managing dogs by
severely limiting access to dog walking in national parks, typically requiring
leashes at all times and restricting dogs to parking lots and paved roads, while
banning dogs from trails and beaches. Throughout the document, the DEIS
interprets a "national park experience" as an experience without dogs. The DEIS
fails to recognize the unique character of the GGNRA and its urban setting.
Corr. ID: 1860 Organization: Self
Comment ID: 209622 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We only get positive remarks and smiles with our pug off-
lease even though he can be known as a "picnic crasher" as visits people relaxing
on blankets and walking about.
Corr. ID: 1862 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200289 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We walk OFF LEASH every day mostly at Baker Beach or
at Crissy Field.
When the weather is nice we share our walks with everyone on the beach, the very
young , the young, the old and every age in-between. When the weather is not so
nice we are still there and usually it is only the dog walkers that are there. People
love watching my dog catch his frisbee and frolic in the water. We have brought
lots of smiles to lots of people.
Corr. ID: 3822 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204945 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
481
Representative Quote: Dogs provide unconditional love and acceptance, unending
entertainment, and motivation to get out of the house, exercise, unplug, and enjoy
the real world. These are benefits to individuals and benefits to society. With all of
the negative and harmful activities that take place on public lands, and throughout
society in general, it is simply beyond reason why a positive and harmless activity
has been selected for new rules and restrictions. For dog lovers, and there are a lot
of us, our outdoor activities center around walking our dogs. We walk and explore
together and we enjoy the freedom together. Banning dogs from certain areas and
restricting dog walking to a leash only activity in other areas may seem like a ban
or restriction on dogs, and that is bad enough, but the effect is that it bans a targeted
group of people from those areas, and that is discriminatory and unreasonable.
Corr. ID: 3901 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205552 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA is an urban park. It allows people, their
animals and nature to interact and live together. The Draft Dog Management plan
fails to recognize the good that comes from these interactions-- that people enjoy
nature and visit the park more, that these dogs are safer and better socialized and
that they are a model for co-existence. In fact, I believe more land should be opened
to on leash and off leash recreation as to better balance park usage.
Corr. ID: 4025 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207061 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have to say that rather than being bothered by the
presence of dogs we and our dogs have been stopped on countless occasions with
people - both locals and tourists - proclaiming how happy they are to be able to
come to an area where they can enjoy the outdoors AND the presence of dogs
(sometimes they are dog lovers who live in apartments where no dogs are allowed,
so they come to the beach for their "dog fix"; other times tourists have spoken
wistfully of their canine friends left at home and express appreciation for an
opportunity to be reminded of them and to see dogs so well-integrated into the
social life and recreational environments of the City).
Corr. ID: 4257 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209174 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My children are third generation Muir Beachers and we
bring our dog Wanda down to the beach all of the time. The kids love it and Wanda
absolutely loves it too! She loves socializing with the other dogs as much as she
enjoys running free on the beach playing ball or Frisbee or whatever is in store for
that day. I can't imagine what it would be like I this were no longer possible. Being
able to spend quality time with my kids and dog at Muir Beach is one of life's
greatest pleasures.
Corr. ID: 4533 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209692 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Plan/DEIS seems to focus on the "visitor experience"
as one for people who don't want to be around dogs. However, not only are there
p
eople who go to the park with their dogs but there are people who go there without
dogs to be around and enjoy interacting or observing the dogs.
It gives those people a wonderful visitor experience and that experience should be
analyzed and acknowledged in the Plan/DEIS as well.
Concern ID: 30430
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having dogs in the parks allows visitors to form social groups, and get out and visit
these areas when otherwise they might . The dog-walking community significantly
enriches the experience of many park users.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2125 Organization: Not Specified
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
482
Comment ID: 193407 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: He takes his dog every morning to Muir Beach where he
meets his other (elderly) friends for socialization. This is his recreation. His dog +
the dogs of his friends provide the motivation to get their exercise, the reason for
socializing, safety and company on the walk to the beach.
Corr. ID: 3463 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203286 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog
management plan. I have been coming to Fort Funston with my dogs since 1985. I
currently have 3 dogs, two of them rescue dogs. One of my rescue dogs, Cosmo, is
a Border Collie/Golden Retriever mix and he is deaf. When we adopted Cosmo we
were told that he would never be able to go anywhere off leash because of the
increased danger of getting hit by a car, since he would never hear it coming.
Cosmo has been going to Fort Funston for 8 years. He knows the territory and is
very comfortable there. This is in contrast to the anxiety he experiences when he is
in an unfamiliar environment, which becomes readily apparent by his change in
behavior. Fort Funston is the only place in San Francisco where Cosmo can safely
run and play off leash. Border Collies need to run daily and there is no possible
way for them to run as much as they need to while on a leash.
In addition to the benefits that my dogs enjoy by spending time at Fort Funston, it
is so vital to my wellbeing and the wellbeing of my fellow dog lovers. An hour at
Fort Funston is filled with fresh air, laughter and exercise. You can't help but smile
when you see all of the dogs playing. One of my rescue dogs is a 7 year old Bassett
Hound named Sasha. I have always known that Bassett Hounds can move much
faster than one would think, but this morning Sasha was playing with a very fast
little dog. No one had ever seen a Bassett Hound run so fast and for such a long
time. We couldn't stop laughing, and laughter is so rare and so healthy. Sasha needs
to run to keep her weight down to avoid back problems down the road. She couldn't
have played like she did this morning at a city park.
My third dog is a 5 pound Chihuahua named Schnecken. While she could get her
exercise anywhere due to her petite stature, I have never seen her as happy as she
was this morning. The weather was perfect and a wonderful time was had by all. It
would be a tremendous loss if we will no longer be able to have such times again.
Corr. ID: 3597 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203719 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the eight years that Sport and I visited Crissy Field,
Ocean Beach or Fort Funston twice daily I created an amazing community of
friends. Friends I still have today. These friends were of all ages, races, ethnicities,
genders, sexual orientations and economic statuses. These friends got me through
the grief and trauma of years of watching my friends die from AIDS that no support
group or therapist could. I, like so many of my dog walking friends, were very
conscientious about our dogs' behaviors towards birds, park visitors, and poop. The
N
PS, in this poorly constructed plan, are clearly trying to completely remove all
dog owners, dogs, dog walkers or any other people who enjoy dogs from the
GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 4106 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208478 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: During that time, I've given birth to two children who
consider FF to be their second home. As a family we have bonded with each other
and with other similar-minded families. We even bring our 80-year-old neighbor
every Tuesday because he loves to be around the unleashed dogs. It's a wonderful
place that, if not for its off-leash access, we would not have had the privilege of
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
483
knowing and appreciating. Please continue to allow families like ours to enjoy this
special open space with our dogs off leash.
Corr. ID: 4179 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208763 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Walking at Fort Funston I encounter people of just about
all ethnicities, social classes, and orientations, brought together by their interest in
socializing their dogs and enjoying the outdoors. I have never seen any kind of
altercation like I regularly encounter in other City environments. Off-leash dog
walking fosters a very special sense of community, which the DEIS will destroy.
I request that the DEIS be amended to study this historically significant community
that has evolved in Fort Funston and other pockets of the GGNRA lands.
Corr. ID: 4320 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209438 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never encountered a more cohesive, caring, self-
policing, and diverse community. I have met other disabled and senior folks who
visit Fort Funston for many of the same reasons I do. One woman told me she
knows if she collapses on the trail due to her health condition (as happened to her
once before), she and her dog will be taken care of by the people there. Finding this
unique community has been essential to my wellbeing and I don't want to see it
disappear.
Corr. ID: 4385 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209555 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have noticed that the vast majority of dog owners at Fort
Funston, Baker Beach and Crissy Field, those areas we visit most frequently, are
similarly careful and conscientious. Walking our dog with our friends is how we
socialize, stay healthy and enjoy the outdoors.
Concern ID: 30431
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Other user groups in the park cause far more problems than dogs and dog owners.
Dog owners police each other to make sure waste is picked up and restricted areas
are protected, improving the experience for visitors in the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3637 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205056 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most of the people with dogs I know or meet are equally
positively affected by their dogs. In contrast, I've observed many uneducated adults
and children littering, yelling and scaring wildlife, throwing rocks and sticks at or
chasing animals, or cutting trails and causing erosion, leaving big ruts in trails with
their bikes. No user group of the GGNRA is perfect. To punish dogs by taking
away what little off-leash land they currently have is unreasonable and unfair. It
will lead to problems between humans and dogs when dogs cannot be properly
exercised and socialized and when humans are less exposed to dogs and therefore
don't have the opportunity to learn how to act with dogs.
Corr. ID: 3911 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205578 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While walking my dog along the beach at Crissy Field I
have even met people from other parts of the country who travel with their dogs
and we often discuss how wonderful it is to bring dogs to such places and makes
the Bay Area a unique place to visit. And if anything, dog owners including myself
are quick to police each other when misbehaving dogs are about because the
majority of us know the benefits and and honor of having such wonderful places to
share with each other are our canine companions. I hope the decision is given more
thought to help keep both the on-leash and off-leash areas in tact.
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
484
Corr. ID: 4018 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206875 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My own experience on Crissy Field is that while dogs and
their owners virtually never get in the protected dune areas of the beach I *often*
see people unaccompanied by dogs laying out blankets and/or having a picnic or
otherwise sitting in the designated protected areas, even when there are few if any
other people or dogs (for that matter) on the beach (so that there are plenty of
opportunities to sit on the beach properly unbothered - it seems simple to be a
preference of folks to sit among the protected dunes). I say this to point out that I
have witnessed far more instances of *people* violating protected areas at Crissy
Field and elsewhere and very, very few instances of a stray impetuous dog
trespassing in these areas.
Corr. ID: 4034 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207157 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog owners seem always on the look out for ways to be
respectful to this important access to the natural environment, while I have
witnessed many non-dog owners abusing the recreational privileges of the parks by
littering or sitting, spreading a blanket or holding a picnic in areas that are meant to
be protected and off-bounds to people and domestic animals. Enforce desired
protections by citing both non-dog-owners and dog-owners alike who may be in
violation. Though I'd venture to say very few are dog owners.
Corr. ID: 4236 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209242 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regarding the argument that some potential visitors
choose not to visit the dog frequented areas of GGNRA due to fear of canines, I
would respond that I, in turn, am precluded from those areas of the park which
allow mountain bikes, for walking on such trails and needing to keep constant
vigilance so as to be able to dodge any bikes bearing down upon me dampens
greatly my pleasure in the hike. Yet I do not insist that all biking be outlawed for I
comprehend the enjoyment of the bikers. Certainly there is room enough for us all?
One percent of GGNRA park land devoted to off-leash dog use is certainly cannot
be deemed an onerous compromise.
Corr. ID: 4236 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209240 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am not clear that dogs do any more damage than their
human counterparts do. For instance, one day, after dogs were newly restricted to
leashes-only along the northern section of Ocean Beach, I witnessed a youngster
throwing rocks at the snowy plovers. The adults who accompanied him,
presumably his parents, did nothing to stop him. At Ft. Funston, I have, on various
occasions, watched teenagers etch their names into the sand dunes along the beach
or looked on as people without dogs slide down the large dunes up top, an area
ostensibly cordoned off. On the other hand, volunteers comb for dog feces on a
monthly basis at Ft. Funston.
Corr. ID: 4253 Organization: Former Congressman
Comment ID: 209191 Organization Type: Federal Government
Representative Quote: We have hiked in the GGNRA and visited Crissy Field
many, many times. We have rarely seen dogs stray into restricted areas- actually,
children, teens, and homeless people are more likely errant in this regard. We have
never seen any dog be aggressive to any human. There is the occasional very minor
dog skirmish, which in our experience has never been more than a vocalization or
body posture, which are totally normal and no cause for restrictions such as the
ones you are proposing in the so-called preferred alternative.
Corr. ID: 4385 Organization: Not Specified
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
485
Comment ID: 209560 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For example, the wildlife area of the beach of at Crissy
Field frequently has hikers and families parked for the day in the dune areas where
the snowy plovers are said to nest. These families have completely ignored the
signs and often leave their trash behind. The dogs and their owners are by the water
and on leash. Perhaps the GGNRA needs to provide an analysis that considers
whether people should also be restricted from these areas or if recreating with and
without dogs can only occur within X feet of the highwater mark, for example.
This, of course, would include visitors for Fleet Week and other events.
Concern ID: 30432
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some visitors who were participating in non-dog activities, like biking, horseback
riding, or hang gliding, mentioned that their experience and activities had been
impacted by having dogs in the same areas at the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 575 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182079 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I felt that my experience of the mountain had been ruined.
Indeed, I felt like I was in a video game, watching around every corner to see when
next I would find myself confronted by a dog off leash, as if being attacked by
asteroids.
Corr. ID: 1236 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194894 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am even driven away from on leash areas due to the large
number of off leash dogs in on leash areas. Runners can not run in areas with off
leash dogs because dogs run after them and also often dart in front of them and
cause them to stop running. It is very disruptive and makes it impossible for off
leash dogs and runners to share the same space.
Corr. ID: 2088 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200561 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a runner and cyclist who uses the Crissy Field
promenade, East Beach, and Fort Mason areas several times per week. I have had
several "near miss" encounters with both aggressive dogs and small yappy dogs off
leash running at me, darting in front of me, and otherwise coming very close to
injuring me both at Fort Mason and Crissy Field.
I also frequently launch my kayak off of East Beach, and have had negative and
frightening labrador encounters. One time, a large dog swam up to my boat near
shore and nearly capsized me, as the owner seemed unconcerned. I also regularly
collect 3-4 gross abandoned dog-chewed tennis balls from the water when i'm out
off east beach. This is yet another negative environmental impact that dogs are
having.
I 100% believe that the current situation is unsafe and inappropriate, and i fully
support the Park Service's proposal to bring dogs under better management, while
still allowing some areas for off-leash use.
Corr. ID: 3514 Organization: fellow feathers
Comment ID: 201258 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I see dozens of dog walkers (commercial businesses!! how
is that happening?) release their dogs and they first thing they do is squat and
deficate right where I'm assembling my hang glider, the dog walkers cannot see
every poop pile and 70% of the time they miss the pile. I basically like dogs but
there are to many and the owners (a small number of them)just don't care or argue
with you when you ask them nicely to pick up the pile of feces.
I support alternative C
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
486
Corr. ID: 4070 Organization: Mar Vista Stables
Comment ID: 207672 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Equestrians who ride on the beach and on Fort Funston
p
roper have coexisted with dog walkers, hang gliders and other visitors for decades.
In the past ten years, however, the lack of guidance and enforcement and
inconsistent policies have led to increased incidents between off leash dogs and
horses. While the majority of dog owners (including those who ride horses with
off-leash dogs) keep their dogs under voice control, incidents have increased and
continue to threaten the health and safety of other visitors. Because of the danger,
many visitors choose not to frequent Fort Funston allowing the perception that the
entire area is only a "dog park" and creating the feeling that the park service is
violating their multiple use mandate by catering to a single user group.
Corr. ID: 4190 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208789 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "I know dogs can be such a distraction!" the lady with the
large dog said with a friendly chuckle, a form of apology to several park visitors
who were startled by the approaching animal. The people were doing tai chi in a
grove of trees in the Presidio. The dog was off leash in an on-leash area. This
happened several days ago.
Corr. ID: 4408 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206406 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Fort Funston, I and a group of friends, while riding our
bikes there, experienced a problem with dogs. We biked around Lake Merced and
decided to ride up to the ocean overlook at Fort Funston. The path up was full of
off-leash dogs and dog owners, standing and talking, making no effort to get out of
the way, or to remove their dogs from the multiuse path. Some of the dogs barked
and growled. We had to get off our bikes and walk. Weeks later, we tried this a
second time, wondering if we had just hit a bad day, but the experience was the
same. If dogs are going to be in the GGNRA at Fort Funston, they need to be on
leash or in a fenced area. They are not compatible with other users of our national
park.
Concern ID: 30434
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The visitor experience section of the DEIS focuses on visitors who do not enjoy
dogs, particularly minority, disabled, and elderly visitors. Commenters noted that
this was not representative of these visitors, as many visitors enjoy seeing or having
dogs at the GGNRA. Many visitors who bring their dogs to the GGNRA are
minorities.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3504 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201186 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Every time I have visited Ft. Funston over a ten year
period, I have seen a wide diversity of people recreating there. Many of the dog
owners I see at Ft. Funston are Latinos, Asians and African Americans, and the
people range in age from children to people in their 80s. In fact, I see a more
diverse group of people at Ft. Funston than I have ever seen at national parks that
do not allow dogs. I often bring visiting family and friends from Mexico to Ft.
Funston to see what a wonderful place we have for people who like to walk out in
this beautiful part of San Francisco with their dogs.
The GGNRA is not a national park and it is not a pristine wilderness area. It is a
recreation area. I oppose all of the proposed alternatives in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, because they all are an attempt to change these areas from
recreation areas into national parks, which is in direct contradiction to the mandate
under which San Francisco granted these areas to the GGNRA.
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
487
I support the 1979 pet policy and believe that new areas acquired by the GGNRA
should also include large off-leash, voice controlled areas so that Bay Area
residents and our dogs can recreate there.
Corr. ID: 4130 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208558 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's Draft Dog
Management Plan because the Visitor Experience section of the Draft Plan focuses
on park users who don't want to be around dogs, including minorities, seniors and
children.
I myself as a member of the minorities who visit GGNRA lands 4 days a week do
not see such phenomenon described in the Draft Plan. In fact, many of my fellow
Asian friends, with or without dogs, visit Ocean Beach and Fort Funston regularly.
Corr. ID: 4218 Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club,
N
ative Plant Society
Comment ID: 208915 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA states that children and elderly people are
afraid, and that's why dogs must be restricted. Has the park service studied this?
N
o. In fact, on any given day, I bet that a good half of the users of Fort Funston are
over 50. On any sunny weekend, I bet that 1/3 of the families at Baker Beach,
Ocean Beach, and Crissy Field have both children and dogs with them. This is an
educated guess, based on years of observation and fieldwork.
Corr. ID: 4218 Organization: Save Off Leash, SFDOG, Sierra Club,
N
ative Plant Society
Comment ID: 208918 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The GGNRA states that people of color are afraid of dogs.
When I go to these public areas, I see people of all races and nationalities. When I
say this to people who are apparently of Asian, Hispanic, or Pacific Islander
heritage, they roll their eyes. I'm regularly stopped in city parks by kids with
parents in tow. If the parents don't speak English, we signal to make sure it's okay
for their kids to touch my dogs. All their kids want to do is pet, play, throw the ball,
and run.
Concern ID: 30435
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors who were negatively impacted by dogs in the park were not adequately
addressed in the DEIS. These visitors included families with children, the frail,
elderly, and disabled, among other user groups. Guide dogs were also negatively
impacted by interactions with uncontrolled dogs in the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 413 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181580 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also recently discovered that people with guide-dogs
have not been able to enjoy the park due to attacks on the guide-dogs by other dogs.
Because the laws are not enforced, disabled people are forced out of the parks.
Please, protect this already discriminated against group. I urge the GGNRA to
protect the wildlife and protect the park's visitors from dogs.
Corr. ID: 3892 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206176 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing in support of your limited dog management
plan. I work in an area where I consistently have problems with dog owners
disregarding the rights of other people and wildlife. Dog restrictions are routinely
ignored and some go as far as claiming their dog is a "service animal" while the
dog is pulling on its leash and exhibiting none of the qualities of a highly trained
animal that provides an indespensable service to a person who needs it.
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
488
Please don't let this highly passionate and vocal special interest group get their way
at the cost of other users and wildlife. Please consider the rights of people that are
terrified of dogs and wildlife that may not continue to exist if dogs allowed to
trample their limited habitat. Dogs should not have an inherent right to be off leash
everywhere and your limited off-leash areas combined with the more appropriate
city dog parks is more than reasonable.
Corr. ID: 4398 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209656 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: - Beyond ignoring park users with severe disabilities, you
have also ignored a much larger constituency that includes the frail, the elderly, and
parents with small children and people who legitimately fear dogs or those who
simply want a dog-free experience in their recreation. It is the responsibility of the
N
PS to protect park resources for all its users, not to cater to pet owner preferences.
Corr. ID: 4545 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209801 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On a human scale, it should be possible to walk with frail
people or young children and not be threatened by large untrained dogs or their
anti-social owners. It should be possible to walk along the beach or path and be
unmolested.
Concern ID: 30437
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors noted that unleashed dogs were often present in areas that were designated
as on-leash only, or areas where dogs are not allowed. Having so many dogs in
these areas put many visitors who were not comfortable with dogs in a position
conflicting with dog owners. These visitors felt uncomfortable under these
circumstances.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 501 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181876 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: All of these occurrences are detrimental to the overall
experience. They also place me in conflict with the dog guardians, a situation that I
would prefer to avoid.
Corr. ID: 4256 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209182 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: My comment is that I am in favor of more restrictions on
dogs because in my experience wherever dogs are allowed to walk trails on leash,
90% of dog owners will let them off leash. In Tennessee valley I have seen this
more
times than I can count on the legal trail and the off limits trails. Dog owners always
claim they didn't see the signs or came in from some mysterious trail entrance
where there were/are no signs. The same holds true for Rodeo
valley. I regularly see dogs off leash on Rodeo valley trail, or on the illegal upper
part (coming from the East parking lot across from the rifle
range) where they can get to the legal Miwok trail. Some people I do believe are
genuinely confused, however I have seen on multiple occasions dogs/people
crossing a meadow/saddle from Rodeo valley trail to get to Miwok trail, usually
with the dogs off leash. I think the Miwok/Coastal trail/
Green Gulch should be off limits to all dogs for the sake of the Bobcats who live
there.
Corr. ID: 4269 Organization: Not Specified
VU2010VisitorUseandExperience:AffectedEnvironment
489
Comment ID: 209096 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a senior citizen, I don't feel safe when dogs are allowed
to run free. I have been bitten, had my food taken, water shaken on me and had
dogs running between my legs causing me to fall, while owners of the dogs did
nothing to prevent these occurances. And the owners disrespect posted signs and
get defensive when they are pointed out.
Corr. ID: 4464 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208638 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the Sutro Heights Park near my house, there are signs
saying "Pets on leash" at each entrance, but it is rare to be there without seeing at
least some unleashed dogs, and on several occasions I have seen at least 30, right
on the main pathways
Concern ID: 31827
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The methods used by NPS to measure visitors to the park and visitor satisfaction
are flawed, and underestimate visitation by those with dogs. Baseline visitation
must be established.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4640 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 227745 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: o For many of the sites, the GGNRA is not monitoring
visitation on any level to determine whether the recreation value is being
maintained , improved or degraded; and the park service is not showing how their
management decisions for each site impact the recreation value for the current and
future generations
o Using the 2002 population survey and self-reported visitation plus the visitation
counting methodology that ignores many entry points, the GGNRA is significantly
understating current and yearly visitation and thus is not is not accurately reflecting
the impact of management decisions on maintaining the recreation values for
current and future generations
o Not that visitation records baselines need to be established to determine whether
how dog management plans impact overall park usage and site specific usage. For
example, if a "no dog" area experiences a significant increase in visitorship due to
the new policy and the area is overcrowded and yet other "voice-control" areas are
underutilized or vice versa then the Park Service should re-evaluate the trail
distribution in an attempt to maximize the number of people enjoying the parks and
getting daily exercise
VU4000 - Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors who
Enjoy Dogs
Concern ID: 30438
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors felt their experience while recreating with dogs would be lessened by
having to be on-leash in many areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 31 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181491 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please, please, please do not require leashes for dogs on
the beaches!!! Walking a dog on leash on a beach is torture for both human and
dog.
Corr. ID: 202 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180622 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Overcrowding in off-leash areas will effectively exclude
older dogs like mine who cannot see or hear well, and therefore will, quite simply,
be knocked down and quite possibly injured by the younger, more active dogs. My
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
490
dog likes to sniff and explore. I like to keep up a steady, rapid pace so that I derive
full health benefits from my walk. My needs and that of my dog can only be
mutually met if we are not joined by a leash.
Corr. ID: 1270 Organization: public
Comment ID: 194981 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If off-leash is restricted, I will likely move away because
walking my dog on-leash is less safe for him as other dogs can attack him and he
cannot get away. I also can not get as good of exercise with a leash in my hands.
Corr. ID: 2239 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200879 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: What having all dogs leashed does is takes away the
j
oyfulness in bringing one's pet to a beach or a natural area (where endangering
wild life is not an issue)
Corr. ID: 4455 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208509 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm concerned that without off leash access, however,
responsible people and their dogs will not have adequate opportunity for recreation
and exercise. Having places in the GGNRA where I can daily take healthy walks
with my dog safely off-leash is an experience that cannot be replaced by standing in
a small city park, or walking restricted by a leash.
Corr. ID: 4598 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210058 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Without access to the small amount of land in the GGNRA
to which we currently have access, I am concerned that many dog and dog
guardians will not have sufficient opportunity to exercise and socialize their animal
companions.
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 makes an adequate distance. I would not want to take
that walk having to control two dogs on leash. Their walking paces and needs are
markedly different, and walking two on leash for that distance would be very
uncomfortable for me. The dogs actually need more vigorous exercise than I can
give them on leash. The current availability of paved trail and off-leash running at
Fort Funston accommodates the recreational needs of citizens like myself quite
well.
Concern ID: 30439
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The loss of off-leash dog walking in the GGNRA would negatively impact the lives
of many dog owners, who enjoy taking their dogs on off-leash walks. These dog
owners felt the restrictions would take away a valuable part of their lives and park
experience.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1372 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195237 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: write to urgently request that you keep the GGNRA OPEN
to dogs and off-leash dog walking where currently available. Please stop pushing
this extreme proposal, a plan that will negatively impact me and my dog directly
and so many of us who live in the Bay Area. There are so few areas left where we
can exercise our dogs to meet their daily needs for running, play and exercise.
Corr. ID: 3841 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208753 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Sadly, a main part of the reason I love to frequent GGNRA
locales is because they're off leash, and if that were to change I don't think I'd be as
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
491
inclined to use the spaces.
Corr. ID: 4656 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209832 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The people walking with their dogs that we see early every
morning are every bit as environmentally conscious and appreciative of their
surroundings as the theoriticians that drew up the proposed regulations. There are a
number of us who sweep the beach each morning for unwanted debris. This
consists of anything from non-dangerous, but unsightly pieces of styrofoam to more
lethal objects like hypodermic syringes. We have also assisted in the reporting and
protection of injured or sick sea lions and birds. In all the years we have enjoyed
these walks, we have never seen one instance of dogs interfering with people
walking on their own. On the contrary, the ones we meet all seem happy to greet us
and our dogs
Please be aware of the irreparable damage that will be caused to the quality of life
of those of us who frequent the recreation area on a daily basis, for whom these off-
leash walks have become such an important part of our lives.
Concern ID: 30440
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The restriction of dogs into smaller areas will make the GGNRA less pleasant to
visit for visitors with dogs, as they will be crowded, and there will be more
incidents between dogs. Additionally, this plan would force dog owners to find
alternative areas for walking, which may be hazardous.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1327 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195079 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The contraction of areas available for off-leash recreation
will significantly compromise the park experience for people with dogs, and could
lead to an increase in conflict as more and more people are forced into smaller and
smaller areas. The impacts of people moving from the GGNRA into city parks is
not adequately addressed in the DEIS.
Corr. ID: 1515 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190672 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In San Francisco county parks people and dogs interact
fine. By limiting dog areas dogs and people will be more crowded causing tension
and behavior problems which would impact the visitor experience. In order for
dogs and people to get along there needs to be more space for dogs then the Pref.
Alt.
Corr. ID: 3199 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203958 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm an Asian American woman and own a Bernese
Mountain dog. She doesn't play fetch, doesn't particularly enjoy socializing with
other dogs, but enjoys our hikes on the horse trails at Fort Funston, where we have
been going on weekends for years. She ignores the horses and other hikers (unless
they want to greet her, which she loves), and we would be lost without these trails.
I would not hike them without a dog at my side, and they enrich both our lives
beyond words.
The Preferred Alternative assumes all dogs are dog-park dogs, which is unrealistic
and based on ignorance of dog behavior and individual personality. If the Preferred
Alternative goes through, there will be an abundance more of dog/dog aggression
in fenced in dog areas than the alleged incidences -that seem to be more
annoyances - that are faced in off-leash areas currently.
Corr. ID: 4420 Organization: Not Specified
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
492
Comment ID: 207297 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are reasonable management strategies available to
GGNRA to produce high levels of visitor compliance. The most effective: Do not
eliminate most of the off leash area in the GGNRA. If reasonable areas exist for
visitors to take real walks with their dogs, those visitors are not inclined to walk
into unapproved areas. But in fact, all alternatives except Alternative A drastically
reduce off leash area in the GGNRA, leaving small ROLAS where a walk is not
possible. The small ROLAS also guarantee extreme crowding of visitors and their
dogs, changing an important recreational activity into an unpleasant ordeal.
Concern ID: 30441
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The presence of dogs running around the GGNRA is something that many visitors
liked to see. They felt that the proposed plan would take away from the atmosphere
of the parks. Some commenters felt the plan would result in rangers having a more
police-like presence in the park, which visitors felt would detract from their
experience and their support of the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1758 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191492 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly oppose the proposed draconian restrictions on
off-leash dogs on GGNRA lands!
Although I don't have a dog myself, I am a frequent walker at Ocean Beach and
Crissy Field, and it is a great joy to watch the dogs there running, swimming,
fetching, digging, and otherwise having a wonderful time.
I can't see anything positive at all that would be accomplished by the proposed
restrictions, whereas they would cause a serious reduction in the quality of
recreation on GGNRA lands.
Corr. ID: 2248 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200983 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been to Ocean Beach nearly every day for the past
20 years. I did not own a dog then, but one of my early joys was watching these
magnicent beasts romp and run to their heart's content. I have had two retrievers
since, and both have loved their beach experience
Corr. ID: 2771 Organization: Historian
Comment ID: 201089 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Historically, people in SF walked their dogs in many areas
before they came under NPS control and NPS made an agreement 20 years ago
with those people to allow dog-walking and to back out of that agreement now for
legalistic reasons or to suit management's interests is dishonorable. It is the reason
many people have grown a negative view of GGNRA because of its "BIG PARK"
mentality. If you impose drastic restrictions on dog-owners you will be alienating
many members of the public who would otherwise support increasing your
resources.
Corr. ID: 3536 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201297 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I hope you will consider keeping off-leash space in the
GGNRA available for the use of pets and their owners. While problem dogs (and
their negligent owners) are of course a very legitimate concern, changing the law
will not dissuade these people. They will be there with their dogs no matter what
any law says. Unfortunately the people that will be affected are the conscientious
dog owners who will no longer have a healthy and pleasant way to exercise and
enjoy Crissy Field, Fort Mason, and the rest of the GGNRA alongside their dogs.
While problem dogs need to be dealt with, by other dog owners and by park law
enforcement, it should be remembered that a well behaved, happy dog is often a
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
493
great enjoyment and source of happiness park visitors, even those unaccompanied
by a dog of their own.
Corr. ID: 4313 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209383 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The purpose of this letter is to let you know as a resident
of San Francisco and a frequent visitor to Golden Gate Park and Crissy Field, I
really do not like your plan to further restrict dog walking in the parks. Although I
do not personally own a dog I often walk my sister's dog and love to see dogs and
their owners in the park having a great time. You must realize San Francisco is a
"dog city" and we need to provide them places like Crissy Field to get some
exercise, socialize and enjoy the beautiful beaches. Your Alternative C would be
far too hard on dogs and their owners.
Concern ID: 30442
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed plan would negatively impact the recreational opportunities of dog
owners in the GGNRA by limiting the spaces and freedom they currently have in
regard to dog walking. Visitors who enjoy having dogs at the GGNRA felt they
were not included as stakeholders in the decision-making process.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1152 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192893 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: It seems to me that it would be better to punish bad dog
owners than to ban all dogs. To be able to romp unleashed in these beautiful hills is
a great joy and to go alone would be a great sadness and I probably would not. I am
growing elderly and I feel safer with my dog as well.
Corr. ID: 1289 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195020 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A host of reasonable, inexpensive and easy to administer
changes have been proposed by interested groups supporting continuation of
existing dog walking and off-leash parameters. These should be pursued, rather
than the proposals recommended in the plan. The plan's proposals would adversely
impact the experience of one set of users (dog owners), even though their numbers
have grown and they pay the same taxes and fees as everyone else. We need and
deserve a plan that treats all users equally.
Corr. ID: 1693 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191100 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is a huge population of responsible dog owners and
their pets in Northern California. This plan seems to ignore this population, and
their need for health, exercise, + enjoyment. There is already so little parkland that
is available to dogs and their owners. And now that is going to shrink? Seems
horribly restrictive + unfair. Many dogs need to run + play to get proper exercise,
and that can't happen on a leash.
Corr. ID: 1931 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192271 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: -I am unclear as to where stakeholders' input was included
in the ROLA designation.
-I would request an impact assessment beyond park boundaries, of implementation
of these ROLA.
-Society is also an evolving stakeholder in land use decisions. Urban areas have
higher concentrations of park guardians & dog recreation is a significant part of the
guardians socialization. For elders & the handicapped, such socialization lowers
depression. Many working in therapy dogs use off leash recreation, as well. These
dogs are also stakeholders!
Corr. ID: 3222 Organization: Not Specified
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
494
Comment ID: 202605 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I regularly frequent dog parks around the city, including
(but not limited to) Fort Funston, Crissy Field, and Ocean Beach. These are areas
where my dog can run freely, with or without other dogs, and be able to get the
exercise he needs. We are able to keep him out of any protected habitat restoration
areas (e.g. along Crissy Field), so that the natural wildlife is not disturbed.
N
ot only are these places critical for the well being of my dog (and those of
countless canine companions in San Francisco), but it is the time within each week
that I most look forward to, as it has become a part of my routine. It is important for
my own health and well-being to not only enjoy these spaces, but to share them
with my canine friend(s). I can't tell you how much enjoyment I receive from
playing with my dog, having space to run and play ball, being outdoors, and
enjoying nature and the wonderful parks and outdoor space that this city has to
offer WITH MY DOG! Please don't take away this right of mine/ours. The
intention of these spaces is to be used for BOTH recreation and conservation. I
don't understand why we have to choose one over the other. To do so is both one-
sided and short-sighted.
Corr. ID: 3748 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204610 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you limited the dog areas in your parks, it would
definitely negatively affect our opportunities to enjoy nature together. There are
many, many dogs in San Francisco and they deserve to have places to exercise
along side with their families.
I think you should support maintaining the existing dog areas (both on- and off-
leash) while looking for additional areas that could be used for dog activities.
Public education and outreach would also be useful to show the public how to
properly respect the GGNRA land.
Concern ID: 30443
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Many visitors felt that if they could not bring their dogs to the park, they would
likely not visit it in the future. Some commenters noted that they would consider
moving out of the area entirely if the proposed plan was enacted.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 322 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181083 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I adopted my dog specifically with the dream of spending
weekend days outdoors with her, going for runs and generally living a healthy life.
That has all come true but it will be a significant challenge and disruption to loose
these spaces.
Corr. ID: 456 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181726 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If bans went into effect, I would be less likely to come to
the park and look for alternatives throughout the bay area or within the city. I feel
restricting dogs from the current regulations would decrease attendance at these
parks resulting in fewer advocates for when it comes time to really have to
preserve/save these areas becuase of budget cuts, etc.
Corr. ID: 515 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181923 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If I was unable to take my dogs I would not hike in these
beautiful lands. Many people I have met in the last few weeks agree that we would
not be on the trails without our dogs. If you ban dogs I believe you will loose more
than half the hikers on the trails. Please don't take away this beautiful privilege
from us.
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
495
Corr. ID: 3378 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203105 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm a mother of a toddler and a dog owner, and it is
difficult to find places to go where I can bring both my son and my dog.
Playgrounds, for example, are dog-free. But as a city-dweller with no backyard, I
need to exercise my dog - as well as be active with my family. We frequently spend
our weekend days at Fort Funston and Chrissy Field, where both my son and my
dog can run and enjoy the outdoors. If dogs are no longer allowed in these
locations, or if their presence is severely restricted (as I believe your plan aims to
do) the result will be that my family and I simply won't visit as often.
Corr. ID: 3639 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205062 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: He is off leash for an hour, we both get our daily exercise,
and it is pure joy for both of us. There is a wonderful community of responsible and
dedicated dog owners who are there every morning. This makes city living possible
- and enjoyable - for me. IF there were no off leash areas where we could exercise
together and enjoy the surrounding beauty before I go to work every day, I would
likely move out of the city.
Corr. ID: 3849 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208806 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I absolutely would move if I didn't have this available for
my daughter, and being able to take both my dog and my daughter on a walk is a
crucial part of the experience both from a logistics/scheduling standpoint and a life-
enjoyment factor. From what I understand, this area was originally developed for
recreation-and it seems clear from the dog ownership numbers in this city that
people in this town really enjoy their canine companions. As it stands, only a small
fraction of the GGNRA lands are open for off-leash recreation, and this new plan is
vastly inadequate for the needs and clear desires of San Francisco residents.
Concern ID: 30444
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters supported alternative A, as it provides sufficient areas for dogs to run,
which is necessary to serve the recreational needs of dog owners in the Bay Area.
Visitors enjoy the park under the current rules and feel changing these rules would
lessen their experience at the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 516 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181924 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support Alternative A, no change to dog walking
requirements. I do have not a dog, but I appreciate how hard it is for dog owners to
find spaces where their dogs can run. I take frequent hikes at some of the areas
affected by this proposed change, and I enjoy the mixed human-dog environment.
Any inconvenience to me is outweighed in my estimation by the benefit.
Corr. ID: 1342 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195173 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to formally select Alternative A (no action). I
very much enjoy the parks as is.
I would not use the parks at all if the proposed changes were made.
Corr. ID: 1392 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195300 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm a native San Franciscan and I don't have a dog. These
proposals seem overly stringent -- dogs need to run off leash.
I do hope that you re-consider and leave things as they are. People and their dogs
need a lot of off-leash areas. These areas are too limited as it is.
Corr. ID: 2872 Organization: Bay Area Travel Writers
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
496
Comment ID: 202863 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have never experienced anything like Fort Funston in my
entire dog-owning life. When I took Etta there for the first time, it was literally like
we had arrived in dog heaven. The dogs - and their owners - were all ridiculously
friendly and respectful, and Etta could finally run to her heart's content without the
restrictions we've encountered in so many other places along California's coast.
As a travel writer, and the owner of a website with a section devoted specifically to
traveling with pets, I can tell you that the appeal of having a place where dogs can
run free is huge amongst dog-owning travelers. There are hundreds of thousands of
people who make their decisions as to where to travel based on how pet-friendly a
city is. San Francisco has set itself apart from other travel destinations for many
reasons, but the availability of so many great leash-free zones for dogs is a
significant contributor to the reputation of this city.
At a time when there are so many budget constraints on not only the state, but the
county and city as well, do we really need to be spending time, money and
resources on cordoning off areas that are dog-friendly and utilized by so many? I'm
not sure why we are even having this debate in the first place. Everyone at Fort
Funston (and the other areas under consideration for regulation) seem exceedingly
content at having these wide, open spaces to enjoy with their families and family
pets. So what, exactly, is the reason for changing the status quo? If the system isn't
broken, why is are you trying to "fix it"?
I am firmly committed to promoting the city as a dog-friendly city. But if that
changes, then I will be just as committed to letting my readers know that it is no
longer a pet-friendly town. So I remain hopeful that here in San Francisco, we will
b
e allowed to have our outdoor spaces remain as they are so that we can continue to
enjoy the 'great outdoors' together.
Corr. ID: 3395 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203138 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to express my support for Alternative A, with
site-specific, monitoring-based analysis on any new land additions to the GGNRA.
It only makes sense to evaluate each site when deciding whether and in what
capacity to allow dogs.
It saddens me to see how hostile the tone of the entire DEIS/Dog management plan
document is toward dogs and their handlers. All too often management seems to
conveniently forget that GGNRA has the word " Recreation" in it - and recreation
includes dogs for a whole lot of people! The GGNRA sites are mostly located close
to densely populated areas, and the reason most of them even exist is that at some
point a trusting individual or family donated land to an organization such as POST,
thinking that this would preserve the open space for all to enjoy. Unfortunately, all
too often that land then gets locked away from public use and even when it's re-
opened, the restrictions are often severe. I understand it is important to restore
sensitive habitats for wildlife etc, but areas that have been used by people for
decades, should remain accessible by all, at least for the most part.
Corr. ID: 4002 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206246 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The time my family and I spend outside with our dog has
been a wonderful experience for all of us. Our lab is in voice control on most trails
with few people and on leash where required or there are just too many people/dogs
around. Either way, GGRNA has been the reason we live where we do. Please
leave the dog laws as they have been.
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
497
Concern ID: 30445
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
If the proposed restrictions were implemented, it would result in the loss of a
community of dog walkers. Many visitors felt this community was their main tie to
the GGNRA, and for many, it is a main channel of social interaction. Visitors felt
the loss of this community would have a negative impact on their quality of life.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 736 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182712 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If the Dog Management Plan goes into effect, we lose a
community. The dog owners in this city are, in general, a friendly group of people
who enjoy getting to know each other and each others' dogs.
Corr. ID: 2006 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193211 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Many people won't go out without their dogs - self
conscious seeking human company when along- dogs bring people from all social
strata together in nature
Corr. ID: 2800 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201097 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to make no further restrictions on off-leash dog
walking in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The opportunity to walk
dogs off-leash provides a unique recreational opportunity for Bay Area residents
such as me to exercise not only our dogs but also ourselves. In the process, we are
able to meet and interact with diverse people from the community with whom we
would not otherwise interact in our daily lives, such as at work or in our own
neighborhoods.
Corr. ID: 2814 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201120 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I urge you to reconsider the current proposal to
significantly limit dog walking areas in the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area within San Francisco, particularly within
Fort Funston.
In contrast, one of the wonderful things about Fort Funston is the feeling of
community that exists. Everyone can enjoy the presence of the great number of
dogs enjoying the ability to walk freely.
Everyone has a reason to reach out other to other folks enjoying the park with a
welcome and shared conversation; made possible by the common interest in and
enjoyment of dogs.
In its current structure Fort Funston loosens the constraints of loneliness for many
and, thus, Fort Funston improves the quality of life for dog owners and non dog
owners alike.
The new structure with its greatly reduced on and off leash dog walking areas
would separate us yet again and thus weaken the quality of life for San Franciscans
and others who visit this area.
Please reconsider and keep Fort Funston available as an off leash walking area in
its current formation.
Corr. ID: 3649 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204122 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The proposal represents an existential threat to most Bay
Area dogs:
As near as we can tell, the proposal can be boiled down to "walking your dog off
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
498
leash will be banned on most Bay Area beaches".The proposal substantially reduces
the quality of life for dog owners:
Dog owners are being asked to surrender their enjoyment of most public
beachesThe proposal fails our senior citizens:
Many older owners, including ourselves depend on dog walking for exerciseThe
proposal fails our community:
The proposal unnecessarily creates deep divisions in our community. It has already
spawned tremendous anxiety among dog owners, and gratuitously created deep
seated animosity towards the National Park Service in particular, and
environmental causes in general, that will be difficult to reverse. The proposal
violates the terms on which the NPS originally took over management of GGNRA:
The NPS was charged with running the GGNRA as a recreation area, not as a
national park. At the time that deal was made, dog walking was explicitly on the
list of recreational activities the GGNRA was designed to accommodate. Dog
owners would never in a million years have supported that original deal if they
knew the NPS was even remotely capable of going back on it by producing a
proposal such as the one before us today. The proposal wastes taxpayer dollars:
The cost of the study and the cost of defending against guaranteed lawsuits from
dog owners, including ourselves, are projected to reach into the millions of dollars.
Conclusion:
Based on the above, we feel strongly that this disgraceful proposal should be either
withdrawn or completely rewritten (in English this time) to take the above points
into account and to expand off leash access at Bay Area beaches. As it stands now
it is fatally flawed in all of the ways described above, and we are shocked and
outraged that as taxpayers we have participated in funding a work product this
shoddy, incomplete, biased, and frankly, witless.
Corr. ID: 3798 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205340 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A very large number of seniors have dogs and walk them
at Fort Funston (and no doubt other GGNRA areas). I personally see and walk with
more than eight every morning between 6:45 and 8:30am. The eldest of my friends
is 88 and walks daily with her shepherd. You will be removing an important social
and fitness benefit from many lives if you so severely restrict off-leash dog access.
Corr. ID: 4239 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209235 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I oppose the preferred alternatives in the DEIS regarding
dog walking in the GGNRA lands and future lands to be acquired. First, I mourn
the loss of community that will result as I and other citizens that walk their dogs in
the GGNRA are no longer able to meet and walk our dogs off leash together there.
This will have a major impact on my life as nearly every friend I have is someone I
met at Fort Funston. My social life revolves around walking my dog at Fort
Funston. I have built up a network of friends that I see at Fort Funston as I and my
dog take our daily exercise there. To lose that is to essentially lose my entire social
life. As I understand it, the historic use of Fort Funston, for about the last 40 or 50
years, is as an off-leash dog park. Please allow this historic use to continue.
Corr. ID: 4386 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209565 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: For another, given my mental and physical condition, I
live a relatively isolated life. I've been able to meet people, get to know them and
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
499
their dogs, and now I'm at the point where the only socialization I get is within
these groups. I value that highly, and I Know most of us won't frequent these areas
without our dogs and I will lose contact with those friends. I'm uncomfortable in
most social situations and don't have visitors to my home, so I would be even
further isolated if I couldn't take my dogs to the beach.
Corr. ID: 4645 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208979 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS treats the GGNRA as if it is a pristine National
Park - however - the GGNRA is an urban recreation area. I have made some of my
closest friendships within the dog community at Fort Funston. Lasting friendships
that have continued for years throughout the lives of many dogs, miscarriages,
pregnancies, deaths and graduations. For me, the GGNRA provided a community
that I could go to daily at the same time and walk with the same people (and our
dogs). Every day, I had a community where I could share my struggles and be
heard and listen to other's struggles and offer my support. This is what life should
be like. The GGNRA areas in San Francisco are communities with a culture based
upon a shared recreational activity - off-leash dog walking. This culture provides
our community with places to exercise our dogs, while enhancing the social,
p
hysical, emotional and spiritual aspects of being human. The openness of the lands
of the GGNRA offer what few city parks are able to - and the mass numbers of
dogs and people who would need to use city parks if they were unable to utilize
GGNRA lands would be unbearable.
Concern ID: 30446
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Many dog walkers would not come as frequently to the GGNRA if the areas where
dogs are allowed were restricted. Visitors noted that without the presence of these
dog walkers in the parks, the parks would be much emptier, and they would not feel
safe visiting them.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 859 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 186254 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel quite strongly that the proposals to greatly diminish
the off leash areas of the GGNRA is bad for the people of San Francisco, dog
owners and non-owners alike. all I can imagine is an empty, run down park that
without the many, many, dog walkers I probably would no longer feel safe visiting.
Corr. ID: 1144 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192878 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog owners and walkers are responsible persons. Would
there be increased alcohol consumption or drug use at these beaches by persons
who do not need to be responsible (since they are not with dogs) and conscious of
their surroundings? Would these people go to the bathroom in vegetative areas?
Corr. ID: 1709 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191139 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 1) The ability to bring a dog w/me on my walks allows me
to use the trails. It is safer on many levels..I wouldn't go on many trails alone
without my dog.
Corr. ID: 1750 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191216 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you put in only dogs on leash the dog people will stop
coming - why would they come they can walk their dogs on leash on the city street.
You are alienating and losing an entirely group of free garbage collectors and
safety people. Real shame. I won't come if you make these changes. I don't own a
dog - never have. But I feel safe.
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
500
Concern ID: 30447
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having a fence along Oakwood Valley Trail will lessen the wilderness experience
of visitors to the park, including those that do not have dogs with them.
For additional respresentative quotes, please see Concern 29235 (OV1200),
Comment 193389.
Concern ID: 30448
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having dogs on leash, as proposed under alternative B, would make the parks more
enjoyable for responsible dog owners to visit, as they would not have to deal with
uncontrolled off-leash dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1165 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193534 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support adopting NPS leash regulation (Alternative
B) outlined in GGNRA's Draft Dog Management Plan.
As a long-time dog lover and dog owner, I avoid GGNRA off-leash areas, partly
because of the obvious degradation to the landscape wrought by dogs and their
less-than-attentive owners, but mostly because I am sick and tired of dealing with
people who don't have their dogs under control.
Corr. ID: 1183 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193561 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: please stand firm on leash laws and restrictions on loose
dogs in all GGNRA areas. those of us who walk our dogs on leash, walk alone or
ride horseback are tired of having to deal with out of control dogs running up to us.
Corr. ID: 2075 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200546 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I understand peoples' desire to let their dogs exercise off-
leash, but this is a safety issue. Both of my dogs have been attacked by dogs that
their owners claimed were "harmless" in dog parks and I no longer go to places
where dogs are allowed off-leash because the don't feel safe. These parks are meant
for people to enjoy and they should be able to do so without feeling threatened.
Concern ID: 30449
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some commenters said that they would ignore the proposed restrictions if they
were enacted, and would instead break the law at the risk of getting a ticket. Other
visitors felt that non-compliance would increase if dog owners were not provided
ample room for legal off-leash dog walking, so the laws would only negatively
impact those who follow them already.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1186 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193565 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you succeed in banning dogs on Ocean Beach, I will
ignore the law. So will most people. If you are going to give me a ticket for
walking my dog on a public beach next to my house, I am not going to bother
leashing him, since you are going to give me a ticket anyway. I will still clean up
after my dog, because I care about my beach. Like a lot of dog owners, I pick up
trash on the beach when I'm out walking my dog. My guess that we probably pick
up more trash than we leave as a whole. When I see another dog owner not
cleaning up after their dog, I speak to them. I don't like dog waste and litter on the
beach either. I love my beach. I love my dog. I'm not giving up either without a
fight.
Corr. ID: 3989 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207372 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Further, by my observation and in my experience, there are
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
501
quite a number of restrictions on off-leash use of GGNRA land already in place,
but enforcement seems to be the real issue. I fear that if these more restrictive
regulations are enacted, it will only be the law-abiding dog owners who will suffer;
the scoflaws won't care about the new restrictions--just as they don't follow existing
laws now.
I have also observed that when people and their families walk with their pets, they
are more open to meeting other people, usually via inquiries about their pets. In the
years we've had our dog, we've met more people and engaged in pleasant
conversations with strangers than I have ever experienced in all my years before
owning a dog. I truly believe pets can bring out the best of humanity in us all.
Concern ID: 30450
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors who enjoy dogs, but are disabled, would be unable to walk their dogs in
many areas due to the design of the proposed restrictions.
For additional respresentative quotes, please see Concern 29419 (FF1200),
Comment 195006, and Concern 29658 (SA1100), Comments 208770 and 209291.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3781 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205178 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Most of the recreational visitors to Ft. Funston will
therefore be extremely negatively impacted by the preferred alternative at Ft.
Funston. My wife is disabled. I will not be able to walk with my wife and our off
leash dog, (or on leash dog) at Ft. Funston with your preferred alternative.
Concern ID: 30451
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Although visitors liked dogs generally, many expressed that the current situation
was out of control with dogs in the GGNRA. These visitors felt some more
restrictions would benefit all users, and supported the proposed alternatives,
including alternative C, at various sites.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 75 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181835 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree 100% with the restricted area's for dogs in the
Presidio, Crissy Field area of the San Francsico Bay, it's about time! I love dogs but
over the last couple of years its really gotten out of control there, children play in
the sand where dogs do their business and run all over the place, while most owners
aren't paying much attention. Also, dog fights break out often, causing adult
frustration and arguments, I hope this helps the situation.
VU4005 - Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors who
Do Not Enjoy Dogs
Concern ID: 30452
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some visitors felt that they would not want to have an experience that included off-
leash dogs anywhere in the GGNRA except in designated areas. Having these areas
so that visitors that do not enjoy dogs can avoid them would provide a better park
experience.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 244 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180811 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I feel all dogs need to be on leash in all public parks,
except in designated fenced areas. I do not wish to encounter dogs anywhere in
parks, possibly excepting on leash with owners required to pick up their leavings.
VU4000–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoEnjoyDogs
502
N
O DOGS!
Corr. ID: 281 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180945 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Such a program would also allow park rangers and law
enforcement officers to more easily enforce the rules of the ROLAs. Although the
ROLAs will allow for separation between those visitors with and without dogs, it
migh also offer benefits to the latter groupe by reducing their concerns, causing
fewer complaints and perhaps even encouraging visitors who might otherwise avoid
the GGNRA.
Corr. ID: 2673 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195518 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Unregulated, unleashed dogs in GGNRA is destructive to
the environment and endangered species. It also creates problems for other users of
the park, like me, who prefer peaceful enjoyment more than tripping over (and
being bitten by) unleashed dogs.
The GGNRA should restrict unleashed dog areas in the parks. There is a space for
all sorts of activity in the park, and dog owners also need to respect use limits. I
encourage you to designate limited and specific areas for unleashed dogs.
Corr. ID: 2791 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201140 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to support the new policy to restrict off-leash
dog walking. The behavior of dogs at GGNRA beaches is not only disruptive to the
enjoyment of the area but is also threatening and potentially hazardous to people,
especially children.
I have visited GGNRA beaches regularly for the past thirty-two years. Since the
birth of my children, I have been particularly aware of the problems dogs pose to
other beach users. When my children were infants, they were routinely bothered,
terrorized, or knocked down by dogs chasing a ball thrown by its master or by a
pack of out-of-control, "happy" dogs playing. If, after such incidents, I had a dollar
for every time an oblivious dog owner said that their dog was friendly and loved
children, I would be a very rich man. I grew tired of having to console my crying
daughter after she was chased and/or knocked over by a dog at the beach. This was
especially problematic at Crissy Field, so much so that we had to stop using the
park entirely. This is not a live and let live situation - there are victims here.
I think that dogs should be banned from the GGNRA beach areas or be required to
be on a leash. There are hundreds of acres in the nearby parklands for clogs to run
free. Unrestricted off-leash dog access to the beaches is unacceptable due to the
disruption and hazard it poses to individual users (especially children) of these
natural areas.
Concern ID: 30453
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having dogs allowed in the GGNRA compromises the experience of visitors at the
GGNRA who do not enjoy interacting with dogs. Visitors felt that many areas they
previously enjoyed had been significantly degraded from the presence of dogs.
Areas with dogs, particularly off-leash dogs, should be decreased.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 245 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180812 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I've reviewed your alternatives, and hope the options
selected work out.
I just wanted to let you know there are also members of the community that are
anti-dog, of which I am one.
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
503
The experience at the park is compromised when dogs are present.
Corr. ID: 3254 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202751 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Not only do off-leash dogs on beaches disturb wildlife,
especially nesting birds, they also foul the beaches, annoy those of us just out for a
peaceful walk along the shore and generally make noisy, dirty nuisances of
themselves.
I have always hated dogs, and I don't think I'm the only person on the planet who
feels this way about them. They are noisy, dirty, and destructive and should NOT
be allowed to run loose on beaches where endangered birds and animals should
have precedence over a few people who think it is their "right" to roar around on
motor vehicles and/or let their dogs run loose.
Corr. ID: 3373 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203098 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support any action the NPS can take to lessen the
presence of unleashed dogs within the boundaries of GGNRA. I have been attacked
by dogs twice in the past and when I see dogs unleashed it causes apprehension as I
am walking along the trail. In fact, if I see an unleashed dog I usually walk the other
way or stand to the side as the animal passes. So, my first reason for requesting a
ban on all unleashed dogs from the park is the negative impact that unleashed dogs
have on people, diminishing our ability to enjoy the trails of GGNRA. As one of the
goals of the Park Service is to promote the enjoyment of our national parks, the
presence of unleashed dogs prevents enjoyment for a significant number of people.
My second reason for opposition to unleashed dogs is the impact on wildlife,
especially species that are on the endangered species list. While most dogs don't
stray into areas where endangered species are located, there is enough of an impact
from straying dogs that scientists have determined that there is a negative impact.
We cannot allow a "tragedy of the commons" in GGNRA by allowing large
numbers of people to unleash their dogs. It is simply not a good idea.
If the NPS determines that some accomodation must be made to the dog owners,
then I hope that unleashed dops will ONLY be allowed in areas with high fences
that prevent the dogs from straying into sensitive habitats.
Lastly, those who violate the rules should be fined in a way that makes it clear that
the NPS is seroius about protecting the resources of GGNRA. In other words, a stiff
fine would be appropriate.
Corr. ID: 3628 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204111 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please, please do not allow dog owners more use of public
lands to have their dogs off leash, Please lessen their off leash dog use as much as
possible. As it is, almost every park in the Bay Area is open to dogs, including
watershed land, right next to reservoirs.The few areas requiring dogs be on leash or
are restricted to dogs are ignored. When I was a docent with Audubon for the
Burrowing Owls in Berkeley, where people had a large off leash area, most still
would not put their dogs onleash near the owls.
It doesn't matter how many people are threatened or attacked by dogs, or how many
of us plead with dog owners to have control of their dogs, no public area is truly
safe. But we have the choice to never go to the parks -- it's even more upsetting for
native animals who have no where else to live, who are tormented, injured, and
killed by dogs.Really, we need some place where wild animals and we also are safe
from dogs and dog feces. We need to be able to go to parks and not worry about
having to face groups of snarling off leash dogs. The only way for this to happen is
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
504
to have more laws restricting dog use, and to actually enforce them.
Concern ID: 30454
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed regulations would benefit those visitors who feel that that presence of
unregulated dogs at many sites in the GGNRA hinders their time spent at the site, or
prevents them from visiting the parks.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1044 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192121 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'm for more restrictions on dogs in the Golden Gate
N
ational Recreation Area. I'm a 63 year old San Francisco resident. I used to
frequently visit Crissy Field but haven't been there in a long time. A few weeks ago
I did make a new attempt but as I drove up saw two dog-walkers with 5-10 dogs
each, and thought to myself this is not a place to enjoy a walk.
There are just too many dogs. A person with several dogs cannot keep them under
voice control.
Too many people let their dogs run loose along the main walk ways. They may
think their dogs are nice and well-controlled but not all people think that.
N
ot everyone likes dogs. Some people have had very bad experiences with dogs
attacking them, biting them, even mauling them.
Corr. ID: 1078 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192212 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am strongly in favor of the draft plan. I am in favor of
strong leash laws, and even limits on the number of dogs that are allowed in some
areas. Dogs stimulate fears and that destroys the enjoyment of serene environments.
For example I am thinking of the beautiful stretch of beach at Crissy Field, from the
Marina to Ft. Point. It is really terrible for walkers to encounter so many dogs
there, especially those that are not on leashes. Also the dogs are dirty. And they
scare the young children that are brought to the recreational areas. Put simply they
simply destroy the experience.
Corr. ID: 1164 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193533 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am in support of the proposed GGNRA Dog Management
Plan.
Another very upsetting point is regarding Fort Funston. The place is completely
taken over by dogs - not just a single owner with a dog or two, but dog walking
"services" with 5-10 dogs each. I decided to go running on the trails there a few
weeks ago and couldn't take more than a dozen steps without being surrounded by
dogs. It looked like a kennel and was just a complete waste of a beautiful property. I
had to turn around and leave. I won't be going back there, or even recommending it
to friends, until something is done.
I sincerely hope the Dog Management Plan moves forward so San Francisco
residents can enjoy land that has since been taken over by dogs.
Corr. ID: 1244 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194927 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the NPS preferred alternatives for dog
management. I want the ability to observe the birds, sketch the views and plants and
feel safe. I fear for myself and children being knocked about, nosed and licked by
frolicking dogs because I have seen this happen. Having approved areas where I can
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
505
choose to be or not to be around dogs meets my needs.
Corr. ID: 2217 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200786 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I just for once would like to walk on the beach and not
have a wet sandy dog run up and jump on me or run across my blanket while I am
eating. Please help!
Corr. ID: 3128 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201561 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support the proposal to restrict off-leash dog
activity in the park. Free-roaming, off-leash dogs are fundamentally incompatible
with the purposes of a national park becuase they harass and endanger the wildlife
that is supposed to be protected. They also mean that no other park user can
peacefully enjoy their own multi-use experience of the park because the guaranteed
out-of-control behavior of just a few dogs destroys that possibility.
Concern ID: 30455
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters noted that leash laws or banning dogs from certain areas would
provide a better experience for those visitors that do not enjoy interacting with
dogs. Having dogs present in the parks may impact the safety and experience for
some visitors.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 309 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181053 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs off leash are a real problem in the GGNRA. I have
p
ersonally seen dogs digging up wildlife in the GGNRA and harassing birds. I fully
support more leash laws or banning dogs from certain areas (or from the whole
park) to protect the wildlife. I also support leash laws or banning dogs from certain
areas to create dog free space for people who are uncomfortable with dogs to enjoy.
Corr. ID: 431 Organization: GG Parks Conservancy
Comment ID: 181620 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We are very frequent visitors to the GGNRA and long-time
members of the GG Parks Conservancy. We love to hike, ride our bikes and enjoy
the beaches. Dogs significantly detract from our enjoyment of the park areas.
Therefore, we the support stringent regulations of dogs - they should be kept
entirely out of most areas and, where they are allowed, they should be leashed at all
times. The only situation where they should be allowed to run free is within a
fenced off dog run area.
Corr. ID: 1273 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 194987 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I would like to see more dog free zones created and
enforced. My husband is disabled and it is important that he walks. He needs a cane
because he is unstable and is easily caused to fall. He fell in the park because he a
dog ran up to him and jostled his cane. Luckily he was on a soft surface and
suffered no fractures. However, in a slightly different location the outcome would
have been much worse. He no longer goes to the park for this reason.
Corr. ID: 1383 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195262 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the GGNRA Dog Management plan. Many dog
owners on the beach cannot control their own dogs. I go fishing at Baker beach
every weekend and every time I have dogs sifting through my belongings and
urinating all over my fishing gear. It is ridiculous. Dogs should be on a leash at all
times.
Corr. ID: 2886 Organization: Not Specified
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
506
Comment ID: 202924 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am so pleased with the draft dog management plan as it
allows places for me to take my family were I don't have to worry about dogs
taking over our space, barking, going to the bathroom and otherwise having dog
parties. Each time I take a walk in GGNA I am on defense of all the dogs running
around and going to the bathroom. It is most intense when dog walkers have a large
pack running free and the ratio of owner to pet is 8:1. I think the well planned areas
allow for plenty of space for dogs to run free and more importantly allows space for
people to enjoy the beautiful natural resources of GGNRA.
Concern ID: 30456
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs should be on-leash in the GGNRA to protect resources and provide a better
experience for visitors who may not feel comfortable with off-leash dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 333 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181099 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Where are regulations regarding cats?
My concern about waste from cats and dogs adds to my fear of dogs. I like dogs,
but when I see dogs and packs of dogs running together, perhaps towards me, I
become anxious. I believe that domestic animals should be kept on leash or tether
unless on their owner's fenced property.
Corr. ID: 1794 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200287 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs, both on leash and especially off leash, have negative
impacts on birds and other wildlife. Off leash dogs can inhibit visitors from feeling
comfortable and enjoying areas of the GGNRA, particularly the beach at Crissy
Field, all of Fort Funston and most of Ocean Beach. Fort Funston is so totally
overrun by dogs that it can no longer be enjoyed for hiking and bird watching.
In the GGNRA dogs should always be on leash. Compliance needs to be strictly
enforced, 100%. Commercial dog walking should not be allowed in the GGNRA.
Habitat and wildlife preservation should always be the priority for the GGNRA.
Greater restrictions on dogs are overdue and badly needed.
Corr. ID: 3843 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208757 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Earlier this month while walking along the beach of Crissy
Field, I was startled several times by unleashed dogs that came up behind me
barking, this is not the first time this has happened to me and frankly does not add
to my experience at the beach. On this particular walk I was almost knocked over
by a dog as it ran into me chasing a ball. If the dogs were leashed I believe that I
would not have been barked at and almost knocked over because people have more
control over the dogs.
Concern ID: 30457
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Alternative D would be the most favorable option for visitors who do not enjoy
dogs in the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 100 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181936 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I AVOID and DO NOT USE Chrissy Field and other areas
of the GGNRA which are overrun with off-leash dogs. It is scary, annoying, and
full of dog poop.If the GGNRA chooses to establish fenced, contained, off-leash
dog-run areas (preferably segregated by dog size), that's great. Otherwise, all dogs
in the GGNRA should be on a leash. I prefer Alternative D in the EIS.
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
507
Concern ID: 30458
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Visitors supported restrictions on dogs, but worried that the proposed regulations
would increase their negative experiences with dogs in other areas of the GGNRA,
local dog parks, and on city streets as dog owners would likely walk their dogs in
these areas if they were restricted in the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1393 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195310 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is a very large unleashed grass area where dog
owners can allow their dogs to run, play catch and roam freely where people
without dogs do not even go. While this area is large it is often at capacity. I think
reducing the number of unleashed dog areas in recreational areas of SF will pose a
potential safety threat to non-dog owners and children and result in further damage
to the terrain of our natural spaces which are so precious in an urban environment.
An increase in the number of dogs to Stern Grove due to closures in other parks
would increase all of the aforementioned concerns.
Corr. ID: 1435 Organization: Golden Gate Mothers Group
Comment ID: 195623 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have a small child and we use the GGNRA regularly. I
am very concerned that if you close the offleash areas then there will be more
conflict between dogs and kids. As it is they are fairly separate, but make the dogs
go on leash and they will move from the waters edge, and on to the walks with the
strollers. NOT GOOD. I prefer the dogs playing with each other, tiring each other
out, not on the paths getting tangled up and knocking my child over.
Concern ID: 30459
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The fencing on Oakwood Valley trail will negatively impact the visitor experience
of all visitors, including those who do not enjoy dogs.
For additional respresentative quotes, please see Concern 29235 (OV1200),
Comment 193389.
Concern ID: 30460
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The presence of dog waste in areas was cited as a major reason that many visitors
did not enjoy having dogs in the GGNRA, and was one reason these commenters
supported restrictions on dog walking.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2057 Organization: None
Comment ID: 200544 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support the Nps preferred alternative in this eis.
There are plenty of places for dogs, but only a few for rare wildlife. Also, dogs
detract from experiences in nature as their owners don't always pick up their waste
and when they are off leash, they could be especially disruptive. Park services lands
are the prize of the public lands system and the highest priority should be given to
p
reserving wildlife and their habitats and conserving the natural elements that make
experiences in the national parks so special for all.
Corr. ID: 2280 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201075 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree with the plan to exclude dogs from Rodeo Beach,
whether off or on leash. Dogs and their owners have reduced my activities and
visits to this beach. After my youngest son was bitten by a dog (not at Rodeo) he
was afraid of dogs for a few years and we stayed away from beaches that permitted
dogs off leash. But my main objective is dog owners not cleaning up dog poop. By
fall the beach sand at Rodeo is full of dog crap.
Corr. ID: 2651 Organization: Not Specified
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
508
Comment ID: 195455 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The National Park Service number one priority should be
to the wildlife in the area. Please restrict off leash areas. Irresponsible dog owners
have riddled the area with dog poop and made the area unpleasant for people who
do not have dogs to visit. The few times I have visited Fort Funston I have been
disgusted by the amount of dog poop on the grounds. I have not returned in over a
year. It is too bad that a handful of irresponsible and unpleasant dog owners can
ruin the area for everyone.
Corr. ID: 3024 Organization: Golden Gate Raptor Observatory,
California Native Plant Society
Comment ID: 201002 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Finally, as a frequent volunteer/visitor, I get really
disgusted and have zero tolerance for dog poo that's left behind, and just the
possibility of it makes my visits to the beach much less enjoyable. For this reason
alone, I think that at least half of your beaches should be dog-free.
Concern ID: 30461
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative does not provide enough trails for visitors who enjoy
hiking the trails without dogs, or other areas for those visitors who seek a dog-free
experience. Under the proposed plan almost all the trails in San Francisco allow
dogs on-leash on trails.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2382 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202168 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 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
Corr. ID: 3525 Organization: Golden Gate Audubon Society
Comment ID: 201274 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While dogs are an important part of our communities, they
are domestic creatures that are having a significant negative impact on thousands of
other animals and plants that rely on the park to survive, including some threatened
and endangered species. The parks should be maintained to be safe and accessibly
for all users and to protect our cultural and natural resources for future generations.
Certain trails in San Francisco should be entirely closed to dog-use. Under the
current plan, nearly every trail in San Francisco is open to on-leash dogs, leaving 0
trails available to public use without the presence of dogs.
Corr. ID: 4215 Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208886 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: There was an agreement by all parties in the Neg-Reg
process that park visitors who desired to have a "no dog" experience of the park
should be able to do so conveniently. It is our belief that the Preferred Alternative
does not meet this goal in all areas, particularly in the portions of the park within
San Francisco. We would encourage further examination and expansion of
opportunities for those people desiring an experience of the richness of this park
without encountering canines to be able to do so.
Corr. ID: 4410 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206942 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The plan does not provide an adequate amount of hiking
trails and picnic areas where visitors can enjoy a dog-free, National Park quality
experience. Within San Francisco, the plan provides no significant area where park
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
509
visitors can spend the day hiking and/or picnicking in a dog free environment. A
solution to this problem would be to designate all of the coastal bluff areas, from
the Golden Gate Bridge to and including Baker Beach, as a dog-free zone.
Corr. ID: 4665 Organization: National Parks Conservation
Association
Comment ID: 209146 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The current status-quo fails to provide equity to park users,
as there are limited areas in the GGNRA, San Francisco specifically, where one can
have a dog-free experience. Currently, if a family would like to have a dog-free
beach experience in GGNRA, only one beach in the GGNRA, the small China
Beach, allows for it.
Concern ID: 30462
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Enforcing the current regulations would provide adequate protection for those
visitors who do not enjoy interacting with dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2877 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202893 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I enjoy walking Crissy Field on a regular basis. While
many dog owners are respectful - there are many who allow their animals to run in
areas clearly marked otherwise. I have had dogs off leash jump up on me, run into
me - while the owner only offered a limp "sorry". All could have been avoided with
a leash or taking the animal to a designated area to run free. I don't believe new
regulation is needed - just enforce the laws all ready in place.
Corr. ID: 2890 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202970 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am very concerned about the fact that the current
boundaries for the off-leash area are not currently being enforced. Young children
and older adults should be able to use the area without concern of being attacked or
even just knocked over by off-leash dogs
Concern ID: 30480
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters felt that visitors who did not enjoy dogs had other areas to visit in the
parks and local area.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 248 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180820 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Bottom line it seems that the biggest concern is for people
who do not prefer dogs and I think they should avoid those areas that they know
there is a possibility that they might run into dogs (and that doesn't mean that
people who let dogs off-leash shouldn't be responsible for their dogs being trained
to obey voice commands to leave people alone and generally behave politely) and
go to the MANY other places that they can enjoy the same activities where dogs are
not allowed.
Corr. ID: 1554 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190743 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do understand that many people either do not like or are
afraid of dogs. They, however, have many options, ie: China Beach - no dogs
allowed.
This is an URBAN Recreation Area, not a wilderness area & people will always
have dogs.
VU4005–VisitorUseandExperience:ImpactofProposalandAlternativesonVisitorswhoDoNotEnjoy
Dogs
510
VU4010 - Visitor Use and Experience: Actions of Dog Owners
See comments under VU2010 - Visitor Use and Experience: Affected Environment; VU4000 -
Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors who Enjoy Dogs
or VU4005 - Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives on Visitors who
Do Not Enjoy Dogs
VU4015 - Visitor Use and Experience: Concern Statement of a Dog Owner
See comments under VU4000 - Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
on Visitors who Enjoy Dogs
VU4020 - Visitor Use and Experience: Concern Statement of a Non Dog Owner
See comments under VU4005 - Visitor Use and Experience: Impact of Proposal and Alternatives
on Visitors who Do Not Enjoy Dogs
VU4025 - Visitor Use and Experience: Professional Dog Walkers
Concern ID: 30465
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters oppose or are concerned that professional dog walkers are running a
commercial business free of charge at GGNRA at the cost of others and the park. It
has been suggested that commercial dog walking should be prohibited at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 537 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181948 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Literally hundreds of times, dogs have jumped on me while I
run or hike. I consider this a serious invasion of privacy. I have also been tripped, or
dangerously nearly so, numerous times. I regularly see dogs chase rabbits and other
wildlife. Whether they catch the animals or not, surely they wreak havoc on their lives
and breeding. Professional dog walkers run their commercial business free of charge
on GGNRA and other public lands, passing the cost on to other users. The sheer
number of dogs and dog walkers overwhelms many trails and trailheads. And when
rules and laws are so flagrantly broken, as dog owners--more than anyone else--so
brazenly do, no one can really feel safe in the open space.
I applaud the GGNRA draft plan's efforts to restore reason and science to this out-of-
control off-leash dog problem
Corr. ID: 1522 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190687 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 2) Commercial dog walkers should not be allowed. The Park
purposes do not include those activities.
Corr. ID: 2133 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193426 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 3. Commercial dog-walking should not be permitted in the
GGNRA. This is a commercial activity in the park and the Park Service cannot
legally permit it.
Corr. ID: 2238 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200876 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Professional dog walking in the GGNRA should be either
banned or drastically limited.
---- You Should Not Be Able To Make Money Consuming National Park Resources
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
511
Corr. ID: 2330 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201949 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree that commercial dog walkers should not be allowed in
the parks. These businesses should manage the dogs in their own proprietary fenced
areas, or they can walk them on the city streets.
Corr. ID: 2905 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202625 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Commercial dog walking should not be allowed. Commercial
dog walking does not relate to the purpose and mission of the National Parks.
Commercial dog walking provides no service or benefit to park users, has negative
impacts on park resources and park visitors, and serves only for the capital gain of
private enterprises at the expense of the American public.
Commercial dog walking will require additional annual expenditures for
administering and overseeing a permitting process, additional law enforcement,
additional resource maintenance and additional public relations.
The DEIS estimates that over 1000 dogs will be commercially walked within the
GGNRA daily (p. 63 p. 276). Commercial dog walkers, with up to six dogs, will
negatively impact the experience of park visitors on trails and in other areas of the
park. If permitted, commercial dog walking activity will increase within the GGNRA
and will displace park visitors, of all legitimate user groups, from areas of the park.
Commercial dog walkers will dominate the ROLAs, displacing other park visitors.
Commercial dog walking vehicles will occupy parking spaces resulting in fewer
spaces available for park visitors. If allowed, commercial dog walking operations will
have a dominant presence in some areas of the park thus affecting the overall
character and ambiance of those areas.
Currently, commercial dog walking is not permitted within the GGNRA or any other
N
ational Park unit and there is no justifiable reason to do so. The NPS is well within
the scope of its management directives to not allow commercial dog walking and I
support this position.
Corr. ID: 2919 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203318 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please keep private businesses out of our National Parks by
excluding Commercial Dog Walkers from using the GGNRA for business purposes.
The large presence of dogs in areas like Fort Funston excluded others from equally
using the space and private commercial benefit is not the purpose of the National Park
System.
Corr. ID: 3059 Organization: Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Comment ID: 201235 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: No commercial dog walking should be allowed inside the
N
ational Parks. If an individual owns more than 3 dogs, then s/he should be granted a
special permit to walk them all at once. This opportunity should not be extended to
for-profit individuals.
Corr. ID: 3584 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203658 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I read the following letter to the editor in the San Francisco
Chronicle on Thursday, May 12, 2011, and feel it
p
erfectly reflects my feelings on the
dog leash issue in the Golden Gate National Parks.
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.
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
512
Thank you.
-- "Leash commercial dog-walkers"
Commercial dog walkers are abusing our parks.
As a frequent visitor to the Presidio, I encounter many groups of eight to 12 off-leash
dogs in all areas of the park.
Although I love dogs, 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.
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: 4322 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209452 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Having watched vanloads of dogs unloaded onto park
property, I support whatever means GGNRA needs to control them. To site one
location, Baker Beach, I have personally watched vanload after vanload of dogs arrive
as paid dog drivers open up their vans and allow unleashed dogs to run onto the beach
without any controls. They are not so-called dog "walkers", they are dog drivers -
they drive dogs to parks and dump them there.
Corr. ID: 4421 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207307 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If the Park does allow professional dog walkers in the Park
with up to 3 dogs (and I do not wish in any way for this to occur), the dog walker
should be required to meet the following criteria:
a. wear visibly, a current SF business license, in bold print, enabling them to walk
dogs.
b. Place a placard in bold print in their vehicle window, facing out, showing a current
SF business license, enabling them to walk dogs
c. Carry proof of current SF dog license and rabies inoculation for each dog walked
and show to park law enforcement on demand
d. Be allowed to walk only those dogs who have been trained to voice, whistle or
hand command and be able to demonstrate this behavior to park law enforcement on
demand.
e. Not be allowed to walk specified, notoriously aggressive or hunting breeds.
f. Require a performance bond to be on file with the Park which will be used to defray
all expenses suffered by the park by malfeasance, accidents, and rule infractions by
the professional dog walker.
g. The Park will provide a hotline/response team for the public to report infractions.
h. The Park will provide the proper level of enforcemen to achieve their agreed to
rules and goals
Corr. ID: 4665 Organization: National Parks Conservation
Association
Comment ID: 209157 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The NPS should not permit commercial dog-walking as such
a use does not appear to be permissible under law and policy guidelines. Additionally,
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
513
commercial dog walking (with each walker having up to six dogs) will negatively
impact park resources and visitors, will not provide public service or benefit to
visitors, and is contrary to guidelines on private, commercial use of national parks.
Concern ID: 30466
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters suggest that professional dog walkers should have a
license/permit/fee/certification/identification and/or be regulated for walking dogs at
GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 5 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181405 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Lastly, please consider stricter regulation, licensing and fees
for dog walkers vs. single or 2 dog owners. One idea might be that during the weeks,
when dog walkers are more active the rules are different than on weekends when
owners are more likely to be out.
Corr. ID: 321 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181079 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree with the fact that as professionals we need to be
licensed and regulated. Although I think that 8 off leash dog per licensed professional
is a little more reasonable, I am comfortable with the 6 dog limit. I feel it is
imperative that we be able to use Fort Funston in the way that we are now. It is a huge
open space and that makes it more manageable and safe for walking a pack of dogs.
Why can't we as professionals pay a fee to use the park? That way the funds can be
used to maintain the trails better, etc.
Corr. ID: 1504 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191393 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Suggestions
1) Professional dog walkers should be licensed and pay a use fee as other vendors do
2) There should be a limit on the number of such licenses based on the "carrying
capacity"
3) Professional dog walkers should be limited to a maximum of 4 dogs and all on
leash. One person cannot manage properly more than 4 dogs at a time..
4) Professional dog walkers who do not respect the policy should not be allowed to
use the parks.
5) Post signs so that users cannot claim they do not know the regulations.
6) Authorize and encourage all staff to enforce the policy
7) Consider authorizing park volunteers from existing programs to help in policy
enforcement.
8) Consider establishing a fenced "dog run area" where dogs could run free. (perhaps
also a use schedule for professional dog walkers).
9) Promote better understanding of the need for a Dog Management Plan and the
restoration activities through signs and fliers distributed in the park and nearby
neighborhoods.
Hopefully, implementation of a clear policy will eliminate the many abuses that have
occurred and make the park pleasant and safe for all users as well as for the native
habitat.
Corr. ID: 2044 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193285 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree that commercial dog walkers have a permit to walk
their dogs, and use the money to maintain the parks.
Corr. ID: 4408 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206413 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One way to control commercial dog walkers at Fort Funston
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
514
would be to designate a small number of parking places for them in the parking lot,
parking places with an hour time limit. Their vehicles should have an identifying
bumper sticker that can be checked against their license plate and the dog walkers
themselves could wear an ID tag. Once again I do not feel that they belong there, but
if they are to be there and have dogs off-leash, they should do so in a fenced area.
Landscaping with natives could help to disguise the fence. Enforcement would be
easier and dogs would not be lost. Commercial dog walkers do lose dogs. The
majority of people who come to the GGNRA without dogs could then have a dog-free
experience in a national park.
Concern ID: 30467
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters acknowledge that professional dog walkers are bringing more dogs than
they can control to GGNRA and/or these dogs negatively affect visitors or the park
through impacts to park resources or through dog waste.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 215 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180674 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I do acknowledge and agree that there are people that abuse
the GGNP's dog friendly policies. Namely, the "professional dog walkers" that bring
7-10 dogs to the park at a time in their small trucks several times a day. There is no
way that one person can control that many dogs off the leash or even on sometimes. It
is also these dog walkers that do not pick up their dogs waste.
Corr. ID: 2308 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200626 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: At Fort Funston and lower Ocean Beach I have seen solitary
(professional, I presume) dog-walkers with 14-15 dogs off-leash. Usually the number
is over ten dogs per dog-walker. They cannot control all those dogs and they don't
watch them closely enough to pick up their feces. Many dog owners feel their dog's
poop is "part of nature" so it's okay to leave it on the beach.
Corr. ID: 2314 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195287 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 4. Professional dog walkers, with their large packs of dogs,
are something of a plague already in parts of GGNRA. They dominate certain trails in
the Presidio, for example, which is not necessarily a bad thing for people who like
dogs, but can be unpleasant and even intimidating for non-dog people, or even those
who do enjoy dogs in small numbers. The large packs of dogs also have a particularly
strong negative impact on wildlife.
Corr. ID: 3608 Organization: Golden Gate Audubon
Comment ID: 203970 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 5. In areas where dogs are allowed, there should be a
maximum of three per person. I regularly observe multiple groups of commercial dog
walkers with 10 or 12 up to 15 dogs. Voice and sight control of this many dogs is not
possible. With this large number of dogs the dog walker picks up feces from one dog
and misses the fact that other dogs are chasing wildlife or defecating. Feces are left in
GGNRA lands where it has a negative impact on park users, wildlife, and water
quality.
See EPA defined dog waste as a non-point source of pollution
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatudo.cfm and
http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/toolbox/print/psatpet.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/toolbox/other/KSMO_PetWaste.pdf
The San Francisco Public Utilities Company on dog waste and water
http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/14/MSC_ID/118/C_ID/3426
6. Some trails in the GGNRA in San Francisco should be no dogs allowed. Under the
current plan, nearly every trail in San Francisco is open to on-leash dogs, thus there
are no trails for people who prefer to enjoy the outdoors without interacting with
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
515
domestic pets. I recommend that the Coastal Bluff Trails be no dogs allowed.
Corr. ID: 3994 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207459 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Limit off-leash recreation to areas where it will not have
negative impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats and also on people. For example,I
would love to take advantage of the walks offered by the "Y" in the Presidio, but
cannot because of all the dogs off leash. Dog walkers take 4 or 5 dogs on these paths
and let them run wild. It is terrifying because the dogs turn into packs and can be very
dangerous.
I can never go to the beach either because of all the dogs off leash. Again the dog
walkers are a big problem here. I have seen some dog walkers that don't even know
the names of the dogs to call them off.
It seems so unfair that as a tax paying San Franciscan, I cannot enjoy some of the
beautiful outdoor spaces that the city has because of all the off leash dogs. There
needs to be more stringent regulations. And most importantly, they need to be
enforced.
Corr. ID: 4282 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209051 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We also hope the ultimate plan will address what Edward
Abbey might have called "industrial dog walkers". On volunteer habitat restoration
work in the Presidio we sometimes encounter people with 10 or more pooches in tow.
N
ot only are that many dogs in a group intimidating to those who fear dogs, such
treatment is unfair and maybe not humane for the dogs themselves. And one can only
wonder how dog walkers of large groups deal with dog feces and urine. Packs of dogs
must also be unsettling to wildlife, even if leashed.
Concern ID: 30468
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters suggests that professional dog walkers should be limited by the number
of dogs (which ranges from 3 -8 dogs) they bring to GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181596 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: On another note, I would like to commend the proposal for
limiting 3 dogs per person (6 with a permit). As a dog owner, I've at times been
annoyed with commercial dog walkers who have more dogs than they control.
Corr. ID: 1052 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192136 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There should be a limit of 3 dogs per person. It is not
appropriate for the Park Service to create commercial permits for 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.
Professional pet service activities should be done in places with guidelines in place
for this kind of work. A public park should be a safe space for people first, not one
dominated by professional service activities.
Corr. ID: 1561 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190763 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Allow people who walk their own dogs to have the freedom
they currently have but place restrictions on the "Professional dog walkers" i.e
numbers of dogs they can walk at one time together and where
Corr. ID: 2034 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193268 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
516
Representative Quote: Professional dog walkers should be limited in
number/maximum of 4 dogs - and should pay a fee as other vendors do. Uncontrolled
dogs are a threat to native plants as well as children who use the parks.
Corr. ID: 2888 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202946 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 7. Per dogs off-leash numbers and access:
a. Please put an 8 dog total limit for dog-walkers into effect. I also support 6 dogs off
leash max for two reasons. First, is the poop pick-up factor. It is so easy, and I also
see it almost daily, to miss some poop with more than 6 dogs off leash. secondly is
the transportation factor. I see far to many pick-up trucks jammed full of precious
pooches. This is one of the personal preference and responsibility angles vs, profit
potential that many dog-walkers are unabashed about when they sacrifice safety for
dollars. Limiting the max-number of dogs will at fist deeply disappoint and possibly
infuriate some singular dog-walkers and dog-walking companies, but the larger
benefit of safety, park flow, and management will create a more cohesive community
where everyone understands expectations and decorum.
Corr. ID: 3165 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203948 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As long as I can remember, GGNRA has not allowed any
type of commercial business on the property at Fort Funston. There was someone who
wanted to set up a coffee/snack truck and was told that it was not allowed-no
commercial businesses on GGNRA property. Why then do you allow professional
dog walkers to conduct their business at Fort Funston? These people do NOT pay
taxes on a large part of their income (as most goes unclaimed due to cash payments).
Most of them are not licensed businesses. They walk too many dogs simultaneously.
Many dog parks in the south bay limit the number of dogs one person can bring to the
park to three(3). Three is the number of dogs a household may have without a kennel
license.
A couple of dogs running down a hillside do not cause much disruption to the
environment. A person with a pack of 10 to 15 dogs does.
Instead of limiting off-leash access to dog owners, limit the number of dogs any one
person may bring at a time.
Concern ID: 30470
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some commenters are under the impression that that DEIS will ban commercial dog
walking at GGNRA and they are against this ban.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 629 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181318 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please allow dog walkers to continue doing their jobs,
walking up to 8 dogs at a time, on leash. The idea of banning commercial dog
walking is completely devastating to me.
Corr. ID: 3197 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203953 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a San Francisco resident of over 50 years. You may
have guessed that I am also a senior citizen. You may not have guessed that I am a
professional dog walker. My small business means everything to me...it brings me
great joy, and enables me to live in this very expensive city. My business is registered
and I pay taxes. I handle my dogs responsibly, which involves picking up after them
and making sure we do not intrude on other park visitors. I take my dogs to Fort
Funston, Crissy Field and occasionally Ocean Beach (where dogs are allowed off
leash). Often when I'm caring for these dogs I pick up litter. Most of the litter is left
by people. Because of my very small business, I am able to live...I also greatly
improve the lives of my clients who could not be dog owners in this city, were it not
for me. I have seen others in my profession act irresponsibly and I want to be clear
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
517
that I do not approve of their behavior. Since it is the wrong-doers who are causing
the issues in the first place, why not punish them rather than the rest of us? I deserve
the right to conduct my business.
Corr. ID: 3653 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204152 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a professional dog walker in Mill Valley, CA. I often
use several of the trails that are under review for changes in dog walking. I have to
say that I am daily befuddled at the thought of what I do becoming illegal.Being a
professional, I take great pride in the manners that I require of the dogs in my packs,
N
OT allowing them to pile out of the truck, but leashing each and every one until we
are well onto the trail, and then releasing only those who are trustworthy and well
trained enough to be polite trail users..Knowing that this is not always going to be the
case, I avoid, avoid, avoid whenever possible, and bait my ever hungry canine
companions towards me with treats, if necessary, to ensure that their attention in on
ME, and not anyone else passing by. We've received many compliments over the
years about how it can be done WELL. I provide a very valuable service to my
community, and plead with you to not take away the privilege of hiking these
precious family pets in Natural places where they can romp and play and spin out
their beans so that they can stay happy, healthy and fit, which makes them better
citizens all around.As a private individual with three of my own dogs, my heart
wrenches at the thought of never being able to go to Muir Beach again. I've lived in
Marin for 25 years BECAUSE of the Natural beauty of this place. The restrictions
coming down feel as though we are being choked right out of the county.As far as
degradation of the parks via feces and off trail galavanting, there will always be
individuals who scoff at their responsibility, but they are the minority. And I would
bet that no matter what restrictions come to pass that those same individuals will
continue to violate the laws. The VAST majority of us LOVE our parks, and show it
by cleaning up after our precious pets, as we do not like to step in poo anymore than
anyone else. In fact, my own personal and professional policy is to pick it up if I see
it, whether it came from the dogs in my care, or not.If this precious privilege is taken
away, not only will my own dogs and I suffer for it, but my business, as well.
Concern ID: 30471
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some commenters believe that the commercial dog walking business will be
economically affected by the DEIS (through limiting the number of dogs allowed)
and/or this will be passed down as a higher cost to the client.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 530 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182401 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I also know many people who make their living walking
dogs at Fort Funston. Requiring them to keep their dogs on-leash could potentially
put them out of work or at the very least, dramatically reduce their income due the
fewer number of dogs they could walk.
Corr. ID: 586 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 182111 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I work full-time during the week and my dog enjoys a long
dog walk with a group of 8-10 other dogs led by a passionate dog walker whose
business would be jeopardized by the plan due to restrictions on the number of dogs
he can have out with him as well as having a limited area to play (they currently go to
Fort Funston every day to play).
Corr. ID: 2008 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193215 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dog walkers typically charge between $15-25 per dog
perday. If dog walkers are limited to only "6" dogs, the price to have a dog walked
will have to jump up to $45-70/ dog-day. Is this fair for dog owners who pay to have
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
518
their dogs walked while they are at work?
Corr. ID: 2854 Organization: San Jose State University
Comment ID: 202652 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 3. The plan is quite dismissive of the impact on small
business, the professional dogwalkers, and a separate cost-benefit analysis must be
conducted in this regard (see p. 24 of Chapter 1, (72/269)). They dismiss this
socieioeconomic impact since "Estimated total spending by all local visitors to
GGNRA accounts for 0.0008 percent of total GDP for the San Franicisco MSA . . . "
Of course, any specific group of small business will account for a small proportion of
the regional GDP. In terms of the number of jobs, this could be quite high.
Concern ID: 30472
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that the commercial dog walking rules at GGNRA be the same
as the County and City regulations.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3166 Organization: Presidio Resident/SF Pro Dog
Comment ID: 203839 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing to oppose the GGNRA's draft dog management
plan. It is not based in fact; instead, it relies on speculations, exaggerations, and
misleading statements. It reaches conclusions that are not supported by either the
science or the law.
The Park Service should revise the dog management plan to:
Honor the original 1979 Pet Policy. Respect dog-walking as legitimate recreation.
Provide for extensive off and on-leash dog walking on all trails and other lands
acquired by the GGNRA since 1979, especially in San Mateo County. Exclude
speculative, exaggerated, biased, or misleading statements and studies.
Provide reasonable ways to address any significant adverse impacts from recreational
activities. Use objective standards applicable to other recreational activities (e.g.,
equestrians, boaters, fishermen, surfers, bicyclists, beach-goers, joggers, walkers,
etc.). Align commercial dog walking rules with county or city regulations.In addition,
the plan to permit dog walkers to six dogs is ridiculous. I've been a professional dog
walker for over five years and I don't know anyone that can't control six dogs on
leash. The limit, if any, should be eight. This way you are not capping our income and
you are not forcing us to increase our prices beyond the means of most of our clients.
Require people to geta business license with the city, be insured with any of the major
pet insurance companies and hold a permit. This will help get rid of some of the
walkers who don't take this job seriously. And to be honest, it's more of the individual
owners that are the ones causing problems: not leashing their dogs, leaving feces on
the trails, etc. I've heard this from multiple Park Police officers.
Corr. ID: 3494 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203373 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I believe the GGNRA can accommodate both recreation and
conservation, as it has done for many years. It was designed as an urban recreation
area, not a pristine wilderness area. I wish there were more of these in the state, but
the Bay Area urban environment and the GGNRA is not the place to try and do this
without comprehensive reform of all laws and norms regarding lifestyle, economics,
etc.
I urge you to consider revising your dog management plan to:
? Provide for extensive off and on-leash dog walking on all trails and other lands
acquired by the GGNRA since 1979, especially in San Mateo County, where more
not fewer off leash and dog friendly areas are desperately needed
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
519
? Honor the original 1979 Pet Policy and respect dog-walking as legitimate recreation
and need.
? Provide reasonable ways to address any significant adverse impacts from
recreational activities. Use objective standards applicable to other recreational
activities (e.g., equestrians, boaters, fishermen, surfers, bicyclists, beach-goers,
j
oggers, walkers, etc.).
? Eliminate "compliance-
b
ased management," which will allow additional restrictions
to be implemented without any public input.
? Enable professional dog walking and align any professional dog walking rules with
county or city regulations.
Thank you, and I hope you will take these comments into consideration.
Concern ID: 30473
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that time usage limitations be placed on commercial dog
walkers at GGNRA (such as only 3 dogs during the summer and 6 dogs at other
times).
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3095 Organization: Self
Comment ID: 203092 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: (4) limitations for professional dog walkers that are more
restrictive during high use periods (summer day times) and less restricted at other
times (early mornings, rainy days, winter weekdays, etc.) -- for example allowing
only 3 dogs per professional during summer days and 6 dogs per professional at other
times (with appropriate permits).
Concern ID: 30474
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commercial dog walkers are complaining that they cannot control their dogs on-leash
on trails so the trails should be off-leash for the dog walkers safety.
For representative quotes, please see Concer 29623 (VR2010), Comment 203250
Concern ID: 30475
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that commercial dog walkers should have their dogs on-leash at
GGNRA.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29679 (AL5000), Comment 203845.
Concern ID: 30476
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been stated that commercial dog walkers are responsible and clean up after their
dogs and/or do not pose a problem in or to the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3660 Organization: Doggy Rules Kitty Rules
Comment ID: 204588 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog walker and I take my dogs to many of the parks in
the GGNRA. But I only take one or two dogs at a time. Every dog walker that I see
out there is responsible, picking up poop and taking care that their dogs are behaving.
In fact, I believe that dog walkers and other animal professionals are the most caring
and responsible people out there. I believe that it is random, rogue dog owners who
do not train their pets and are most likely also not responsible in picking up their pet's
waste or curbing their pet's possible bad behavior.
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
520
I don't believe it is the "right thing to do", putting many, many people out of work or
in desperate circumstances for their livelihood. Not to mention all of the people (from
all over the Bay Area, tourists, etc) and their pets who count on these areas to be open
to them and their pets every day.
Why do a handful of irresponsible people have the power to ruin something
wonderful many, many responsible, caring people depend on and love? There has to
be a better way.
Corr. ID: 3973 Organization: Prodog
Comment ID: 206220 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The professional dog walkers seem to be the only ones aware
of the rules, like staying out of the dunes, lagoon and off the main trail while offleash.
I routinely encounter civilians letting their dogs dig for gophers and chase the
protected wildlife.
Corr. ID: 3977 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207168 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I primarily use the Alta trail head from Donahue Street in
Marin City to walk my two pugs off-leash. I have seen hundreds of dogs which also
use this section of the fire road over the 16+ years that I have been a resident here. I
have never witnessed anything which might be considered harmful to this
environment as it relates to pets and their owners being allowed to exercise
untethered. Several dog walkers depend on using this section of the trail for
exercising the dogs of their clients. All of them have either kept their dogs on a leash
or under good voice control whenever I have come across them.
Please keep This section of the fire road available for off leash use.
Concern ID: 30477
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has been suggested that a group be created of commercial dog walkers and the
government to regulate off-leash dog walking and protect the environment.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3895 Organization: ProDOG
Comment ID: 206416 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I agree with the DEIS in that dog walkers should be
regulated within the GGNRA. But the compliance based management strategy put
forth in this document is the wrong way to do it. Dog walking is one of the fastest
growing service industries in the country. It should be regulated and assisted by the
Federal Government. In these tough economic times, the government has a duty to
help maintain and grow any emerging industries to increase employment. The
GGNRA and professional dog walkers should be working hand-in-hand to grow the
industry, increase jobs, and create a sense of trust between our industry and the
government. We should be on the same team.
Therefore, I propose the creation of a Canine Stewardship Core(CSC) to work with
the GGNRA Conservancy to regulate off leash dog walking AND protect and
beautify the GGNRA. Whatever damage off-leash dog walking allegedly creates
within the GGNRA, surely it can be off set by intelligent projects to restore other
areas within the GGNRA. I'm proposing free labor from hoards of dog lovers in
exchange for access to the historically off leash areas within the GGNRA. Each side
need to compromise and bring something to the table and build a relationship for the
future based on trust and mutual respect.
Concern ID: 30478
CONCERN The DEIS will cause more commercial dog walkers to use the park, thus affecting the
VU4025–VisitorUseandExperience:ProfessionalDogWalkers
521
S
TATEMENT: character and overall ambience of those areas.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4584 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210017 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS estimates that over 1000 dogs will be
commercially walked within the GGNRA daily (p. 63 p. 276). Commercial dog
walkers, with up to six dogs, will negatively impact the experience of park visitors on
trails and in other areas of the park. If permitted, commercial dog walking activity
will increase within the GGNRA and will displace park visitors, of all legitimate user
groups, from areas of the park. Commercial dog walkers will dominate the ROLAs,
displacing other park visitors. Commercial dog walking vehicles will occupy parking
spaces resulting in fewer spaces available for park visitors. If allowed, commercial
dog walking operations will have a dominant presence in some areas of the park thus
affecting the overall character and ambiance of those areas.
Concern ID: 30479
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have suggested that commercial dog walkers should schedule their use
at the park or have a finite number of parking spaces for commercial dog walkers so
these businesses will be spread out at the park sites - could use a smartphone
application and have a cap for commercial dog walking parking spaces at each site.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4408 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206412 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: These dog walking businesses could also be scheduled to use
the facilities that have been created for dogs in San Francisco. If we can have smart
phone applications for parking places in San Francisco, we can also reserve spots for
commercial dog walkers in dog spaces in San Francisco in some equitable fashion,
using the web, and distribute them so they do not all crowd into one space. They
would have many choices.
VU5000 - Visitor Use and Experience: Cumulative Impacts
Concern ID: 30463
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed alternative will have cumulative impacts on dog owners, particularly
at Fort Funston.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4622 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207095 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Visitor Use & Experience -
The DEIS does not have data to support conclusions of "preferred alternative". This
"preferred alternative" will result in major adverse cumulative impacts for myself
and many other users of Fort Funston. In that NPS has not performed a site survey
at Fort Funston, it is amazing that the DEIS can support the "preferred alternative"
when the user population has never been surveyed.
WH2010 - Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 30481
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs chase wildlife in the GGNRA, including shorebirds and rabbits. Dogs also
harass marine mammals. Dogs also dig into burrows, tear up vegetation important
to species, and affect the smells of the park for wildlife. Even if the dogs do not
catch the wildlife, they cause wildlife stress, which can lead to less breeding,
smaller fat reserves, and other impacts that can lessen survival.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1681 Organization: Not Specified
VU5000–VisitorUseandExperience:CumulativeImpacts
522
Comment ID: 200231 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:
Dogs run right into the lagoon, disturbing and scaring away wildlife - ducks,
cormorants, gulls, pelicans, etc. I have even seen people chase their dogs into the
lagoon. This really upsets me.
- Dogs run off trail, and onto the plants on the sand dunes, probably stepping on the
nests and eggs of wildlife. I don't want to see the majestic Killdeer disappear
because its young are being trampled by dogs.
Corr. ID: 2939 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202400 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: PLEASE STRENGTHEN ALL RULES CONTROLLING
DOG BEHAVIOR AT OCEAN BEACH!!! THEY ARE A CONSTANT HAZARD
FOR THE BIRDS ATTEMPTING TO FEED AND REST. I AM A DAILY
WITNESS AT OCEAN BEACH!
I have lived in the Richmond District in San Francisco since 1960, moving here as a
child. I have always been an active user of our beautiful parks and now live five
blocks from Ocean Beach. Since we moved here four years ago, to this location
near the beach, my husband and I walk daily on or near the Ocean Beach. Frankly, I
have been appalled at the overwhelming presence of off-leash dogs and the
immense damage that they bring to the bird life. I love watching the birds at the
seashore, and yet, these birds almost never get a chance to rest or eat undisturbed. It
is so very sad that people are indifferent or completely heedless of the damage that
their dogs cause. Just today, while walking, every dog we saw was chasing the birds
full time, and in our 45 minute walk we saw absolutely no shoreline birds feeding,
the few that we did see were constantly fleeing the dog attacks. (Our walk started at
Judah Street and included a large area of on-leash dog territory. The dogs were all
unleashed!)
I have learned not to speak with the dog walkers as they are completely
unreasonable, often very nasty, if you point out the negative effects on the birds. I
really love dogs and birds too, but they simply do not mix at all. I know quite a bit
about birds, and their presence to me in their natural habitat at the beach is an
extremely important part of my health and well-being...not to mention their ability
to use the beach being essential to their health and well-being.
ABOVE ALL, DO NOT BELIEVE THE COMPLETE LIES THAT DOG PEOPLE
PROMOTE; i.e. THE LIES THAT ONLY A FEW DOGS CHASE THE BIRDS!!!
ALMOST ALL OF THE DOGS AT OCEAN BEACH CHASE BIRDS, UNLESS
ON A LEASH!!!
Corr. ID: 3665 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203515 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Keep dogs out of GGNRA trails! I have been bitten and
snapped at by dogs off their leash many times at Mori Point, and I'm just plain tired
of it. Not to mention stepping in the dog poop, and seeing the wildlife scared away
by dogs charging into the bushes. Yes, I'm tired of it. No dogs at all. I would
support a leash-only rule, but dog owners completely ignore such rules where we
have them now (e.g., Linda Mar beach). Dog owners should have their own dog
parks, where they can play dodge the doo-doo and hope that dog charging at you is
friendly
Corr. ID: 4024 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 207012 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have witnessed dogs burrowing deep holes behind
restricted, fenced areas, run freely in the snowy plover habitat during nesting
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
523
season, chase seabirds fishing close to shore, as well as audibly disturb the
landscape, which may drive wild animals from their habitats. Many dog walkers
either do not care about those around them, or cannot control their charges,
particularly when they take many canines out at once
Corr. ID: 4683 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210190 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: California Quail, jackrabbits and brush rabbits were once
common at Fort Funston. Prior to that area being taken by dog owners, they
successfully bred there. I recall watching 2 particular visitors encouraging their
dogs to chase the rabbits. Both told me the dogs never caught a rabbit and I have no
reason not to believe them. What they and many others apparently did do is chase
the rabbits and the ground dwelling quail to the point they could no longer
successfully breed. The stressful impacts of 2 dogs probably wouldn't do much, but
the stress from tens or even hundreds of dogs on a small population certainly
would. Those animals no longer inhabit Fort Funston and for that matter the rest of
GGNRA in San Francisco. Since all three species survived the period Fort Funston
was an active military base and the period it was vacated and a little used parkland,
it seems their demise can most likely be attributed to the onslaught of dogs that
destroyed their habitat. That in itself should be reason to ban dogs, or at least
require leashed access to paved trails only.
Concern ID: 30482
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs scare away wildlife by chasing, barking, and even their scent, which alerts
prey to a predator in the area. Dogs can find wildlife humans cannot see or smell,
and their scent can deter wildlife from occupying an area. Many people who seek
out wildlife watching opportunities have found that the presence of dogs
significantly detracts from this experience. Many commenters noted that owners
were either oblivious or actively ignoring the rules about wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1065 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192185 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I frequently visit the GGNRA lands and I strongly
recommend more stringent control of dog access to GGNRA lands. I have
witnessed dogs harassing wildlife, including listed species such as the Snowy
Plover. I have also experienced loose dogs running up and jumping on my leashed
dog when I am trying to take a quiet walk through the park. I have also seen dogs
digging and destroying vegetation off trail and in some locations I have seen large
amounts of dog feces which are not cleaned up.
I love dogs and think they should have space to run and interact with other dogs.
But wildlife and wild areas must be protected or the GGNRA lands that are so
popular will decline in beauty and species diversity. I think dogs should have
specific areas where they are allowed off leash and other areas where dogs on leash
only are allowed. I also strongly support restricting dogs from any areas where
listed species are present (whether resident or migratory). Dogs should not be
allowed to harass wildlife or to destroy habitat, this includes flushing birds.
Dogs are predators that can can directly and negatively impact species and even a
leashed dog can discourage species. Birds tend to flush with greater frequency even
near leashed, well behaved dogs.
Corr. ID: 1572 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190780 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: #1) Most sad are dogs chasing wildlife, I have heard that
when animals smell dogs they may abandon their nests. Dogs disturbing wild
creatures is my biggest concern. I have seen dogs at Stinson Beach chase shorebirds
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
524
until they cannot fly. Their owners just think it is sport.
Corr. ID: 2240 Organization: California Native Plant Society
Comment ID: 200886 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Although I admire and appreciate dogs as pets, I believe
most people who seriously consider the issue would agree that dogs do not belong
everywhere. Of course dogs enjoy running, but in the GGNRA unsupervised dogs
take a toll on native bird, wildlife, and plant populations through harassment,
flushing, and soil disturbances as well as direct killing.
Corr. ID: 3894 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206182 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I'd like to strongly suggest that Muir Beach and the
mountains south of Muir Beach towards Tennessee Valley and onto Rodeo beach
all be a 100% NO DOG Zone.
The last three times I"ve been there I have seen multiple rabbits, 1 coyote, and 1
bob cat - and some one was with me for a witness.
I know from the research that people who hike with dogs will see less birds, bc the
dogs run ahead and directly or more likely indirectly scare them away.
I think Muir beach and the mtns south to rodeo beach should allow wildlife to roam
free with out the fear of being chased or harassed by dogs.
I also WANT to see these animals. Dogs in this area would decrease my enjoyment
by scaring the animals away.
Corr. ID: 4215 Organization: San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters
Comment ID: 208890 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation
Representative Quote: We were unable to find an analysis of one probable effect
of dog activity on mammalian wildlife, either on or off-leash. Most mammals use
the production of certain chemicals and their sense of smell to communicate
substantial amounts of information. One well known way that canids, whether
domestic or wild, communicate is through chemical secretions in urine. The
awareness of scent marking in urination is not limited to other members of the
genus Canis, but is clearly perceived by other mammals as well, be they potential
prey like rabbits or other carnivores such as a bobcat. The daily presence (and
urination by) tens to hundreds of domestic dogs in areas of natural habitat create a
profound stressor on other native mammals, and should be noted in the
environmental analysis. An unfortunate brush rabbit finding itself at Fort Funston
would "believe" that it had landed in the wolf pack to end all wolf packs.
Corr. ID: 4250 Organization: SPAWN, EAC, PRNSA, Audubon,
CNPS, Lepidopterists Society, Sierra Club, Trees
Foundation, Nature in
Comment ID: 209206 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Therefore those who wish to observe wild animals, along
with the animals themselves, need to be spared the presence of dogs, who, whether
on a leash or not, will be perceived as predators, especially if they derive from
hunting breeds.
Because pet dogs are deliberately prevented from full maturity, and obtain food,
rest, and comfort with little if any effort on their part, they enjoy surplus energies
unknown to wildlife, -- to whom interruptions of critically needed rest, awareness,
and/or activities (also immune systems) represent costly perhaps fatal danger, and
cause alienating experience on what should be home ground. Those disturbances
and disruptions translate to deprivation for those who wish to engage in nature
study, the one visitor activity that should never be denied. I can enumerate many
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
525
attacks by dogs on wildlife that I or friends have witnessed; I and others I know
have ourselves been chased or attacked by dogs; and for everyone of my
acquaintance who visits parks, including dog owners themselves, both dog-
droppings and the means to dispose of them, have become as customary as they are
unwelcome sights -- or worse. Almost as ubiquitous: pet-owners, whether friendly,
furtive, flagrant, or hostile, who violate posted regulations
Corr. ID: 4265 Organization: Kellner and Associates
Comment ID: 209115 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have a concern regarding the effect of dogs and people on
the behavior of wildlife and use by wildlife of lands of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area. Because of a dog's acute sense of hearing and smell, they are able
to search for and encounter wildlife that would ordinarily escape detection by
humans. In addition, I have observed many times during my recreational use of
open space lands, dogs flushing and otherwise disrupting wildlife behavior. The
owners of the dogs are either oblivious or encourage such behavior. Off leash dogs
are particularly distructive because they chase wildlife.
In addition to the direct displacement of wildlife, the odor of a dog can deter widlife
from using a particular area thereby reducing the size of the GGNRA available for
use by wildlife. Barriers to wildlife movement, by either the physical presence of
dogs or the odor of dogs, are particularly detrimental when they they reduce the
movement of wildlife from one area to another.
Concern ID: 30483
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Even when dogs chase birds and other wildlife, they rarely, if ever, catch them.
Some visitors felt that it was satisfying to watch the dogs playing with the birds on
the beach, while others noted that dog owners were quick to stop the behavior if
their dog was chasing birds.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1699 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191116 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Walking every day for 10 years at Mori Point, Montara,
and/or Moss Beach, Cliffs at 20 miles per week, I have never had an incident with
dogs or birds.
Birders do hate dogs, usually. I however do not hate dogs. I enjoy the noises birds
make when they always easily get away from dogs chasing them.
Seems as though we can all get along without new laws, etc.
Corr. ID: 4115 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208499 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We talked about ground-nesting birds, yet raccoons,
coyotes, and humans are just as dangerous-more so for the first two-to the birds. All
of the animals poop; only the dogs' are picked up and removed. The birds don't
appear to be scared of or by dogs. If you ever watch a dog swimming or running
towards one, they wait until the last minute before moving, and then only move a
short distance away. The birds appear as if they're teasing the dogs, frankly.
Corr. ID: 4267 Organization: Law Office of David Elliott Wise
Comment ID: 209102 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Last year I saw an off leash terrier sneak up on a tern
standing at the surf line, near Sloat Blvd. at Ocean Beach. The terrier grabbed the
Tern, shook it hard a few times, while the owner watched and ineffectually tried to
call the dog off. After several shakes, it dropped the Tern. The bird's wing appeared
to be broken, it could not fly, but limped to the water, dragging the broken wing,
and then floated about in the surf. I called the Park Police, and about forty five
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
526
minutes later a Park officer drove by, looking out the window, and kept going.
Corr. ID: 4548 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209814 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: During our walks we have seen many dogs chase birds.
The birds, in all honesty, seem to be playing with the dogs. I have never see a dog
catch a bird. We did see a bird caught in a tree and reported it using the yellow
phone in the parking lot. We also seen dogs digging to try and get gophers but
we've also seen people grab them and pull them away.
Concern ID: 30484
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The statement that dogs affect wildlife is unfounded. This assertion should be
proven with site-specific examples in the EIS. The impacts of dogs need to be
compared to the impacts of other user groups. The examples given of incidents with
dogs and wildlife do not show a large impact, particularly when compared to other
factors.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2911 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202487 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: ?There is 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 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. In addition, the GGNRA has repeatedly cited research
that they claim shows major impacts from off-leash dogs. However, when the raw
data from these studies is analyzed, it is clear the claimed conclusions are not
supported by the data. This is highly reminiscent of the problems documented at the
Point Reyes National Seashore, where claims by staff biologists about negative
impacts from an oyster farm located within the park were proven to be baseless
when the raw data was independently analyzed.
Corr. ID: 3130 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202029 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS is full of impacts of dogs on wildlife and other
park visitors that "could" occur, but there is little evidence that these impacts
actually do occur. After over ten years of intensive scrutiny of off-leash dogs in the
GGNRA, it should be obvious if those impacts really do occur. The lack of data
indicates they do not. 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-feces-caused human illness reported by the San Francisco
Department of Health for over 50 years. A management policy should not be based
on hypothetical impacts.
Corr. ID: 3777 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205134 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS fails to note that there is conflicting scientific
evidence about the impacts of dogs on birds and vegetation. There is no scientific
consensus that restrictions on off-leash dogs are needed to protect wildlife and
vegetation. Forrest and Cassidy ST. Clair (2006) and Warren (2007) show that there
is little to no impact of off-leash dogs on bird diversity, abundance and feeding. The
DEIS needs to test the hypothesis that off-leash dogs are harmful to these sites
before it can justify further restrictions.
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
527
There is evidence that humans alone and humans with leashed dogs have greater
impact on the environment. Knight and Miller (1996, Wildlife responses to
pedestrians and dogs) shows that the flush distance of birds is greater for human or
humans with leashed dogs than unleashed dogs. This suggests that the birds in this
study view humans as more of a threat than dogs.
Corr. ID: 4015 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 206825 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: 3) Your proposal seems to place all of the responsibility for
impact to wildlife on un-leashed dogs without comprehensive, un-biased studies
which point to this conclusion. I am not a scientist, but I do operate in a world
where data are included as part of the decision-making process. The few reports you
did include point to human impact (snowy plover at crissy field, for example) as
having the highest disturbance rate, yet I see nothing in the plan which is aimed at
restricting walkers, runners, messy picnickers (whose trash we pick up when
walking our dogs) cyclists, skaters?
Corr. ID: 4575 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209971 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Your own data showed that of 5,700 dogs observed, only
29 deliberately chased birds. That only 1/2 of one percent! That percentage would
be a lot higher for the hawks and ravens, which actually kill prey.
Corr. ID: 4686 Organization: The Marin Humane Society
Comment ID: 227782 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: The draft plan refers to dog-related viruses that can be
transmitted through dog feces to marine and terrestrial mammals. The disease
examples listed in the draft plan are extremely rare and in fact the diseases spread
are even more unlikely without direct physical contact from the infected species.
Since the Marin GGNRA lands support a very healthy population of host wildlife
species_ the same dangers could also apply to protecting visitor's dogs from disease
issues and public safety issues around wildlife (as well as people). We are not
aware of any wildlife disease issues in. Marin County that have been spread to
wildlife from dogs and we would debate this finding.
Concern ID: 30485
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
If dogs were prohibited from some areas, it would give wildlife, particularly nesting
shorebirds, a new place to repopulate, increasing the numbers of wildlife in the
area. There are plenty of places dogs and their owners can go, but the wildlife does
not have this choice. Dogs are not part of the natural ecosystem, and should be
limited in their access to areas in the GGNRA to lessen their impact on wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1841 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192114 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: First dogs serve as companionship to people, and are not
part of the ecosystem. The coast birds are part of the ecosystem and must be
protected and maintained. The coast in California is the habitats of birds and must
be guarded. The coast birds that live, breed, and nest must be safe-guarded. This
dog management plan is to help rescue these coast birds from extinction. The
GGNRA has to be dedicated to conservation as a coast guard tradition. Dogs pose a
threat to nesting on the Coast. Dogs need to keep distance during nesting seasons
and the GGNRA must have a plan + a way to make sure nothing (dogs) do not
threaten the birds. the GGNRA plan is good, before a force- a legal force is forced
to guard the birds from dogs at gunpoint. the dogs are predors, and serve only as
companionship. allowing dogs to continue on bird nurseries is a threat to natures
birds, and coastal bird sanctuaries.
Corr. ID: 3087 Organization: Not Specified
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
528
Comment ID: 201421 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Pets are important to some families and communities, but
dogs are just one animal that is having a significant negative impact on thousands o
f
other animals and plants, and on many other human visitors. Dogs, no matter how
loveable, are not a natural part of the GGNRA ecosystem. The parks should be be
safe and accessible for all users and protect their natural and cultural resources for
the future.
Concern ID: 30486
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The invasion of the non-native ravens, crows, raccoons, and feral cats is impacting
the native populations in the GGNRA, not dogs. These non-native species are
taking over the habitat of native species, and destroying their eggs and nests of
birds, leading to less survival.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 312 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181063 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Human beings with their noise and intrusive natures create
considerably more havoc on the wild life living in these parks then dogs and some
of the wild animals such as coyotes and foxes and badgers and raccoons also cause
more havoc on the bird life in our parks than dogs.
Corr. ID: 4614 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210138 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The DEIS fails to address the effect of the large invasion o
f
the non-native crows/ravens at Fort Funston on the native species of birds and
animals. There is not a seagull to be found at Fort Funston. The crows/ravens have
invaded the cliff areas, have driven off other birds and appear to eat everything and
anything. They show no fear of dogs or humans. The DEIS fails to address the
destructive effect these birds are having on the native birds and animals of Fort
Funston.
The DEIS fails to discuss the clear lack of understandable notice, in both signage
and fences, o habitat protection areas at Fort Funston. It just is not present.
Concern ID: 30487
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Many commenters said that they had never, or rarely seen an incident of dogs
chasing wildlife, or disrupting wildlife, but did note extensive human-related stress
to wildlife, particularly after events and warm days, when a lot of trash was left.
Dogs do not scare wildlife, particularly any more so than many of the user groups in
the GGNRA, including hang gliders, surfers, bikers, and nature watchers. In fact,
dogs may actually benefit some wildlife, like birds, by scaring away feral cats from
the GGNRA, a major predator of birds.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 417 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181594 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: As a large proponent of wildlife and habitat preservation,
I'm also very unnerved by your claims of "sensitive habitat" as rationale for tighter
restrictions. Considering the recent development funded by GGNRA, there seems to
be a contradiction. Recent developments at Lands End, Mori Point, and several
other parks have ripped up vegetation that has been there for generations (no, not
native, but plants that were brought by settlers in the 18th and 19th centuries, which
wildlife has adapted to since) in exchange for paved walkways and "quaint" planted
areas. From personal experience, I can say that raccoons, foxes, etc... that once were
plentiful in the area (never in danger from dogs) have all but disappeared since
development commenced
Corr. ID: 2354 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195375 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
529
Representative Quote: I have never witnessed anyone's dog chasing snowy
plovers or harassing wildlife in any of the GGNRA lands that I have visited. The
density of people in the surrounding cities have a far larger impact on wildlife in the
GGNRA than does the occasional off-leash dog. Please count this letter as a vote
against the Preferred Alternative.
Corr. ID: 2586 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195608 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: A small percentage of people may allow their dogs to
chase wildlife. These same people allow their children to chase the snowy plovers
and other wildlife as well. However, it doesn't make sense to punish the majority of
GGNRA users and their dogs with this extreme proposal. A much better solution
would be to better educate people about the wildlife at GGNRA and create stiffer
penalties for the people who allow their dogs or children to harass the wildlife in
any way.
Corr. ID: 4535 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209746 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In over 30 years walking my dogs in the GGNRA, I
personally have never seen a dog injure or kill a bird or other mammal. Just the
opposite is true--wildlife in an urban environment are used to dogs. We have
existed together for years. The Marine Mammal Center has said that they like it
when people are walking their dogs on the beach, because we find the injured and
stranded marine mammals!
Corr. ID: 4570 Organization: Senior, Half Moon Bay High School
Comment ID: 209843 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: However I believe a better solution is we work hard to
educated and encourage responsible dog ownership. Some examples of this would
be community's volunteers to stock dog poop bags and regularly host trail clean up
days. Also work with the SPCA to provide low cost and free dog training classes. I
believe this collaborative approach is best and viable alternative to simply closing
areas to dogs or placing new restrictions.
Concern ID: 30488
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Many of the areas where dogs would be restricted on the premise that dogs are
impacting wildlife are currently doing well, despite the fact that dogs are present
there. Wildlife has adjusted over time to dogs so they are no longer viewed as a
threat, and dogs are not impacting wildlife. Dog walkers caring about beaches is
important.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 519 Organization: Marin Co Veterinary Medical
Association
Comment ID: 181933 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The wildlife are among my patients as well and I have a
deep concern for them and the environment. I don't believe dogs do a significant
degree of damage to wildlife and I do think having this huge group of people (dog
owners) caring about the beaches is critical.
Corr. ID: 1767 Organization: Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA
Comment ID: 191519 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: Our professional wildlife rehabilitation staff completed a
review/analysis of the site and the proposal, and we believe that there is no
observable reason related to the protection of native wildlife which would justify
denying access to off-leash dogs in the area. If there was impact on wildlife, it
happened long ago. Wildlife continuing to use this area are most likely well versed
in people, bikes, and dogs and probably avoid the area
during the day. The overall area is very large and wildlife have adequate space to
avoid people and dogs.
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
530
Corr. ID: 4657 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209058 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have been visiting GGNRA lands, including Oakwood
Valley and Muir Beach, for decades. I now see more wildlife, including bobcats,
coyotes, rabbits and deer than I have ever seen before. There have even been reports
of mountain lions. Using your weak criteria, one could just as legitimately make the
opposite argument that the environment has only improved as the number of dogs
has increased.
The document makes wild assumptions that there are negative impacts on the
environment due to dogs. There are no studies showing that things are worse today
than they were yesterday or even ten years ago. Without a baseline study there is no
foundation for these policy changes. I have attached photos of Oakwood Valley to
visually demonstrate that flowers and plants are thriving on and near the dog trails.
And, more astonishingly, the draft plan assumes all of the alleged negative impacts
have been caused by dogs, not humans. Where's the evidence? The document fails
to provide long term monitoring data to support its claims that dog activities
threaten the parklands. The document's conclusions must be modified based on
scientific evidence.
For example, the draft plan says dogs need to be banned to protect stranded marine
mammals and shorebirds. There is no documentation or evidence indicating that
dogs have ever interfered or caused any harm to those protected species. In fact, I
would argue that humans without dogs have caused much more harm to the
environment and wildlife, from trampling plants and grass by holding huge festivals
to the subsequent littering. Where is there a comparison of exclusively human
impacts and exclusively dog impacts? Perhaps, humans should be banned.
Concern ID: 30489
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Birds and other wildlife have the rest of the California coast to make their home,
while San Francisco needs a place to exercise a growing dog population. There are
few areas for off-leash dog walking, and wildlife in the GGNRA should not be held
above the need for recreational space in the GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1594 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190824 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are 1000 miles of coast in California where native
plants and wildlife can thrive. San Francisco is a densely populated area where
people need places to exercise their dogs. Compressing the growing dog population
into less and less space will only lead to more management issues with this
population.
Concern ID: 30490
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dog use of trails and beaches has had documented negative impacts on bird
populations.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2144 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 193439 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Measures of impact of these alternatives on specise
abundance + diversity should be made on test sites. Published data (ie biology
letters - 1977) document 47% reduction in bird diversity along trails used by dogs.
Concern ID: 30492
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dog waste can negatively alter soil chemistry and native ecosystems, which can
impact species in the GGNRA that use olfactory cues, like butterflies.
WH2010WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:AffectedEnvironment
531
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29620 (VR2010), Comment 206064
and Concern 30421 (VU2010), Comment 202973.
WH4000 - Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Concern ID: 30493
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Restrictions on beaches should be tight to protect wildlife, and surveys should be
undertaken to make sure that beaches with seasonal wildlife have adequate
protection. Allowing dogs off-leash on the beach in beach ROLAs would
negatively impact wildlife, such as birds and marine mammals, which are
sometimes harassed or chased by dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4683 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 210181 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Beaches: Beaches are a particular problem since the
resource itself is wished clean with tides and storms and impacts are not to be seen.
However there are significant impacts to wildlife that use our beaches. The simplest
example is illustrated in the attached photo of the dog chasing Willets on Ocean
Beach. From birds as common as Willets and Western Gulls, to the Federally listed
Western Snowy Plover, dogs have an incredible impact on birds. For that reason
dog use of beaches should be highly restricted. Beach areas known for bird roosting
should be off limits to dogs. A practice that would be consistent with NPS
regulations would be to ban dogs from all beaches in GGNRA. Since that seems
unlikely dogs should be limited to a bare minimum of beach areas. No beach should
be entirely open to dogs. A comproinise might be to limit dogs to no more than
some percentage of any given beach. Given the habitat value of beaches, we would
think that limitation should be areas adjacent to parking lots with an outside limit of
30% of the entire beach. That at least would allow space for wildlife. It is important
to note that many beaches will have little or no wildlife presence during parts of the
year. A survey might be appropriate to determine if a given beach is in fact devoid
of wildlife. In that case other criteria might be used to determine what if any dog
use might be appropriate.
Concern ID: 30495
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
It has not been shown that removing dogs from the GGNRA will have a beneficial
impact on wildlife in the park, which is already flourishing in the parks, despite the
current presence of dogs. The current protections under alternative A are already
protecting wildlife. One measure that would improve this would be to fix up signs
and fencing in the park.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 409 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181575 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please strongly consider Alternative A (No Change). I find
all other Alternatives to be extremely restrictive with not enough benefit to the
surrounding wildlife and other benefits cited in the documents.
Corr. ID: 1626 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 190933 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There is no shown benefit to complete exclusion of dogs
for shorebird wildlife encouragement, these leashed walking areas should continue
even where off leash is precluded.
In all the literatures and prefferred analysis I have seen no sufficient basis for
thinking dog walking is at all related to the problems with bank swallows.
Corr. ID: 3761 Organization: Not Specified
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
532
Comment ID: 204651 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I have yet to hear anything that even begins to convince
me that their plan will benefit the bay area urban wildlife enough to warrant the
drastic changes they propose for dog access to the parklands. Any tour of most of
the land in question will reveal wildlife flourishing in proximity to people and their
dogs. It is only because wild species are doing well under the present setup that
there is any wildlife to protect and manage.
Corr. ID: 3883 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 205892 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are adequate protections for sensitive land and
wildlife. The GGNRA should better maintain these protections-specifically the
fencing on the beach at Crissy field where sand has covered it. This is a simple fix
rather than restricting use.
It is not appropriate to restrict all dog owners for the few issues with a small
percentage of dogs. 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 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) are not based
upon sound science or long-term monitoring of site specific conditions. I am
concerned about the long-term preservation of the GGNRA's natural resources and
want to protect these important natural areas, but other options besides restricting
dog-walking access should be considered first.
Concern ID: 30496
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
If impacts to wildlife from dogs are found to be present, they should be mitigated
by having dogs on-leash or banning them in the areas where the wildlife is, not
every area. Dogs need to be under control either on-leash, or under true voice
control.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1899 Organization: Bay Nature Institute
Comment ID: 200437 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And given the difficulty of educating and training all dog
owners to keep their dogs under voice command and to recognize rare and
endangered wildlife, it seems to me that there is a reasonable basis for banning off-
leash access in areas that are determined -- by scientific study -- to serve as habitat
for wildlife that would be adversely affected by the presence of such domesticated
predators... i.e. off-leash dogs. In other areas, where human presence has so
degraded habitat that coexistence with sensitive wildlife species is no longer likely
or possible, then it seems to me that off-leash dog recreation should be considered,
as long as it does not conflict with more passive recreation by other humans.
Corr. ID: 4708 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209753 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If you're worried that off leash dogs will molest wildlife -
have a leash requirement JUST IN THOSE AREAS.
Concern ID: 30497
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Having a fence on the Oakwood Valley trail would negatively impact wildlife by
creating a barrier to movement, especially of smaller species.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4312 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209376 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
533
Representative Quote: Another consideration I would like to point out is the fact
that the proposed fence that the Plan currently shows being built along the
Oakwood Valley Fire Road will in all likelihood have a greater negative impact on
the local wildlife than the off-leash dog walking that will be allowed there. Having
a Fence there will not allow wildlife to cross from one side of the road to the other,
which I am sure it currently does all the time when dogs are not present. In recent
years we have become more and more aware of the severe impact that fenced roads
have on wildlife and the environment.
Concern ID: 30498
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Park rangers patrolling sites by car for non-compliance would have a much greater
negative impact on wildlife than dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4312 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209377 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While it is true that the length of the Oakwood 'Valley Fire
Road being fenced is much shorter than those examples, it will be a significant
barrier for any animal smaller than a deer or coyote. Another adverse
environmental impact of the plan as currently formulated will be the additional
vehicular traffic by park police performing the surveillance needed to enforce the
new restrictions. This added vehicular traffic will have a greater impact than the
dogs being walked that they are trying to control.
Concern ID: 30499
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The proposed plan is a fair and balanced plan, which will protect wildlife from
unregulated dog-walking recreation. Even if only a few dogs harass wildlife, these
few dogs can have a significant impact. It is reasonable to have off-leash areas
limited to protect wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 352 Organization: Marin Audubon Society, MCL, Sierra
Club, North Bay Hikers
Comment ID: 181127 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I fully support and encourage the directors to accept the
dog management plan. I support this plan for two reasons:
1. Protection of birdlife and habitat
2. Protection of recreational beaches for enjoyment by children and adults.
Corr. ID: 2311 Organization: Calif Academy of Sciences
Comment ID: 195291 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I support the leash plan for Dog Management in GGNRA.
Shoreline wildlife needs to be protected from offleash dogs.
Corr. ID: 2610 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195534 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: We have visited this are with our dogs. It is nice to have
some areas that are dog friendly, off-leash, but we have no problem with these areas
being restricted to certain parts of the coast in order to protect the wild-life.
Corr. ID: 2672 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195519 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I wholeheartedly support the GGNRA Draft Dog
Management Plan. All dogs should be on-leash or in enclosed areas for their own
safety and that of wildlife. Wildlife and their habitats, especially threatened and
endangered species, in the GGNRA and greater area is under constant threat and
protecting that wildlife must be a high Park Service priority and given sufficient
funding.
Corr. ID: 2769 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201086 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
534
Representative Quote: I'm writing to support the preferred alternative or
stronger.There are so many dogs at the beach that a minority of those dogs are still
enough to unneccesarily impact the birds. Even if they're not immediately dropping
dead. As you know. Meanwhile the dogs go home and eat undisturbed.
Corr. ID: 2772 Organization: Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association
Comment ID: 201090 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Very good proposal fair and balanced.
The national parks cannot be considered as private dog runs.
Very damaging to wildlife, the environment, and other users.
Concern ID: 30500
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Removing dogs from areas where they previously have disturbed wildlife habitat,
particularly nesting birds, may allow for a return of nesting and activity to these
sites. Having restrictions on dogs may allow wildlife to return, and park visitors
could then observe wildlife in these areas.
For additional representative quotes, please see Concern 29245 (MB1100),
Comment 209140.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4132 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208564 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While walking on Ocean Beach I noticed a woman whose
dog was running loose. When I informed her that this was a protected area for birds
she replied "It's ok. There aren't any cops around."
A man who I informed about the protected area at Ocean Beach said "My dogs
never catch the birds so it's ok." He went on to say that he would let his dogs run
loose wherever he wants.
Dogs seem to run wild everywhere. Why can't people have some space where we
do not have to put up with dogs running wild? On Ocean Beach this would also
greatly benefit the birds in the area and we would see more birds when they are not
constantly frightened by dogs running after them.
Concern ID: 30501
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Wildlife will never be safely protected from dogs off-leash. By having areas where
dogs are allowed off-leash, NPS is creating areas of potential habitat that wildlife
will never inhabit due to the dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4470 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208701 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The National Parks are one of the last refuges of wildlife.
Any area with dogs running without a leash is not safe for wildlife and never will
b
e. This plan will create zones that will never be useable habitat for the wildlife that
N
ational Parks are supposed to protect. They will be zones barren of any life except
dogs
Concern ID: 30502
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Some areas of the park should be entirely off-limits to dogs, for the protection of
wildlife. Areas where dogs are allowed, particularly off-leash, should not be placed
in areas with wildlife or wildlife habitat, particularly sensitive wildlife. Some
commenters suggested that off-leash areas be fenced to provide better protection of
wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2385 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202179 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
535
Representative Quote: I believe that all off-leash areas should be enclosed to
protect park users, wildlife, and other dogs and that off-leash recreation should be
limited to areas where it will not have negative impacts on sensitive wildlife and
habitats.
Corr. ID: 2652 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195454 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regulations must require all off-leash areas to be enclosed
to protect park users, wildlife, and other dogs.
Regulations must limit off-leash recreation to areas where it will not have negative
impacts on sensitive wildlife and habitats.
Protection of wildlife and habitats must have priority over dogs.
Corr. ID: 2655 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195445 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am a dog owner and I do like to go to off-leash places
where my small dogs can run free. BUT, just as I believe it is my responsibility to
clean up after them, I also believe that there should be serious and effective
protection of wildlife. So I think that Golden Gate Park should have off-leash areas,
but fenced in such a way that the dogs, wildlife, and everyone else is protected.
The off-leash area should be in one that is not environmentally sensitive. And it
should be large enough that it will accomodate the needs of pet owners. The rest of
the park should be protected from off leash dogs.
Corr. ID: 2819 Organization: Sierra Club
Comment ID: 201127 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Thank you to the National Park Service for working to
implement a Dog Management Plan. Please go further with this plan by ensuring
the protection of wildlife in the area. This can be done by ensuring that all off-leash
areas are enclosed. Such areas should also be limited to areas without sensitive
wildlife. The Park Service should also ensure that rules of the park, particularly
those that protect wildlife and people are enforce. Alternative D is the best one, and
should be adopted.
Corr. ID: 3623 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204123 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I strongly support restricting dogs, especially off-leash
dogs, in sensitive habitat areas. Too many times I have witnessed wildlife being
harassed and chased. Habitat and wildlife are precious resources that deserve
respect and protection.
Corr. ID: 3734 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 204230 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please protect the wildlife by not allowing unleashed dogs
to have full access to GGNRA. It would be my hope that designated areas for dogs
can be established in areas that will not adversely impact the wildlife, nor the
habitat.
Concern ID: 30503
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
If signs indicating areas of wildlife habitat were put up, dog owners would obey
these rules. At present, it is hard to know what areas are protected.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4430 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 208565 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Where there are very sensitive wildlife areas, they should
be WELL marked.
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
536
We responsible dog owners are concerned with preserving our natural resources
and need a little direction as to where these areas are.
Concern ID: 30504
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Restraining dogs on-leash in the GGNRA will assure the safety of both wildlife and
dogs. While dogs disturb wildlife, wildlife also poses a threat to dogs from conflicts
during interaction, parasites, and disease.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2190 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200585 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please do not allow any dogs off leash anywhere in the
p
ark. Please impose severe fines and punishments for those who allow there dogs to
be off leash. I would very much like going to this space but feel threatened by dogs
and aggressive dog owners. I enjoy the wildlife and have witnessed on more than
one occasion dogs chasing and killing birds
Corr. ID: 2233 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200859 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The wildlife MUST be given top priority, because they
can't protect themselves from us (or from our pets). Dogs and other exotic species
do not belong in our parks and other wildlife habitat. At a minimum, they should
always be on a short 6 foot leash. But it is preferable to ban them from our national
parks.
Concern ID: 30505
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs should not be banned at Muir Beach to protect wildlife. Rather, Redwood
Creek should be closed, even fenced, and areas where migrating birds nest should
be closed on a seasonal basis.
For representative quotes, please see Concern (29248 (MB1200), Comment
203793.
Concern ID: 30506
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The eastern portion of Crissy Airfield should be off-limits to dogs, in order to
protect grassland bird species.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2965 Organization: Urban Estuary Network
Comment ID: 203625 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And in hot weather the tidal channel is always full of
mothers with toddlers splashing in the water -
p
robably the only place in S.F. where
they can. Those users need shielded from off-leash dogs.
N
ow that a ROLA is designated for the central part of the Airfield can the eastern
portion now be turned over to the marsh? I've never been able to see an outline of
the old runways in the grasses there - does anyone? The ROLA would seem to
make the pattern even less obvious.
Originally there were plans to have an aeronautical museum with old planes parked
around to evoke Crissy's original purpose; those plans never came to fruition and
the whole thrust of the Crissy experience now is nature. Time to jettison the
Airfield and enlarge the tidal marsh westward.
Certainly the eastern portion of the Airfield should be a no-dog area to protect the
grassland birds that are frequently found there in migration.
And of course, enforcement of the leash laws on the Promenade should be 100%,
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
537
with one dog per person and no commercial dog walking.
Concern ID: 30507
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The preferred alternative does not go far enough to protect wildlife. Alternative D is
necessary to provide the best protection of wildlife from off-leash dogs and non-
compliant owners. Compliance with the rules needs to be higher than 75%.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2918 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 203314 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I am writing in regards to the Draft Dog Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. I have lived in the San Francisco Bay area
for nearly 30 years. During that time, the population of both humans and their pets
have greatly increased. I visit Golden Gate National Recreation Area for hiking and
birdwatching. I have frequently witnessed dogs chasing shorebirds; gulls, and other
species. This disturbance is harmful to the birds, and very disruptive to my
recreation.
I write in support of Alternative D: Most Protective Based on Resource Protection
and Visitor Safety the least environmentally damaging alternative. Frankly, I think
that dogs should be eliminated from all of our federal lands. The problem, of
course, is not so much the dogs but their owners. I frequently make polite
comments that there is a leash law, that I would prefer that a dog, not jump on my
clean pants with its muddy paws, or that having their dog lick my binoculars (yes,
this has happened) is not conducive with nature observation and birding. I get a
polite response only about 25% of the time, and of these responses often there is
absolutely no attempt by the dog owner to regulate their dog's behavior. About 25%
of the people do not respond at all, and I often get a rude to extremely rude
response such as "shut up -- this is none of your business" (Bolinas Ridge,
GGNRA, March 2010). My response was that it was indeed my business as I was
also there to enjoy OUR public lands and that one of the mandates of the National.
Park Service was to protect wildlife, which the dog in question was most definitely
disturbing by running several hundred yards off leash at great speed.
N
eedless to say, considering allowing voice-control, as proposed under Alternative
A. at Ocean Beach in the sensitive Snowy Plover area would be completely
irresponsible and provision of habitat for this endangered species.
Allowing up to three dogs per commercial dog walker -- or private dog walker -- is
absurd. Again, many impacts to the passive (non-dog) user as well as wildlife.
N
ot only do I endorse Alternative D, but I urge the Park Service to strictly and
consistently enforce dog regulations.
Corr. ID: 3269 Organization: Clean Air Now
Comment ID: 202799 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Clean Air Now's Board of Directors is concerned with the
p
rotection of wildlife and habitat in our national parks. Safe and secure recreation is
important for the public's exposure to healthful air, relaxation, and the natural
environment. It is the National Parks Service's job to ensure that human activity
does not infringe on that critical need in society. All creatures must coexist in
balance, and because of this we ask that you implement the EIS's "Alternative D".
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. We
are all dog lovers, but we also see the need to properly exercise our dogs without
harm to others.
Corr. ID: 3313 Organization: Not Specified
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
538
Comment ID: 202918 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: While recreation is important, the park's primary mission
should be to protect natural and cultural resources. I support Alternative D.
Habitat for endangered species should be given a higher level of protection from
human disturbance; the compliance rate should be 95%, not 75% as outlined.
Also, while I support dog owners having a place for off-leash time with their pets,
this must be done in a way that protects the local wildlife (especially during nesting
seasons).
Corr. ID: 3701 Organization: Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Comment ID: 202225 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter urges the
GGNRA to reject the Preferred Alternative identified in the above referenced DEIS
due to that Alternative's inadequacy in protecting native plant and wildlife species,
including listed species, as well as its failure to provide undisturbed national park
experiences (nature recreation, education and science) to its visitors due to the
impacts of off-leash and leashed dogs.
Instead, we urge you to adopt Alternative D, "Most Protective of Resource" as the
alternative most appropriate for implementing a GGNRA Dog Management Plan
that protects the parks natural resources and provides appropriate visitor
experiences. We also urge you to add a further component to Alternative D. We
believe it is essential that ROLAs be delineated by physical boundaries in order for
dog walkers to more easily determine the location of these ROLAs and to facilitate
enforcement of ROLAs by providing clearly discernible borders.
Concern ID: 30508
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Heavy fines should be enforced for visitors who let their dogs harass wildlife or run
off-leash, in order to protect wildlife.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2829 Organization: NATIONAL PARKS
CONSERVATION
Comment ID: 201146 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: DOGS ARE PETS AND DESERVE LOVE AND CARE
BUT ALSO DISCIPLINE HARASSING WILDLIFE IS WRONG AND THE
OWNERS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WITH FINES OR
BANISHMENT.
Corr. ID: 3411 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 201398 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Wildlife's right to survival must trump human's right to
witness it!!!
$5,000 dollar fine and 6 months jail mandatory minimum sentence for any
unleashed animal. No plea bargain or suspended sentences.
Algerian Ivy eradication needed. Non-native ice-plant removed and replaced with
native species.
Concern ID: 30509
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Other threats to wildlife, such as feral cats, development, hang gliders and
recreational vehicles, should be removed from the park to protect bird species and
other wildlife. Dogs do impact birds and other wildlife, but these threats are also
significant.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2406 Organization: Not Specified
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
539
Comment ID: 200643 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The Golden Gate Recreation area must be kept sacred as
wildlife habitat. Your job is to protect wildlife, not open up critical habitat to
human destruction. Please immediately keep this area off-limits to any
developement, and pristine as a habitat.
Corr. ID: 2417 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200660 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: The main issue I believe that needs to be addressed when
working to protect wildlife is recreational vehicles. In my opinion people who love
to use off road motorized vehicles with huge tires and loud engines are the ones
who pose the biggest threat to the lives of animals. There are also issues with dogs
harassing birds, but I believe that people are the ones who do the most damage.
there should be designated areas that are for leashed dogs and some so dogs can run
off leash like there are at Fort Funston. Trails should be well marked and there
needs to be places where birds and other wildlife are protected so no humans, dogs
or off road vehicles are allowed.
Corr. ID: 2484 Organization: American Bird Conservancy
Comment ID: 200813 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Feral cats must also be removed from the Golden Gate
Recreation Area. It must be illegal to establish and feed free roaming cat colonies in
parks. Feral cat colonies are fed by caretakers and the feral cats stay in one area
because of the food supply. They have decimated quails in the area and are the
threat to future generations of birds since they kill fledglings that are still unable to
fly.
Wildlife in parks must be protected from *domestic animals* such as cats and dogs.
Corr. ID: 4705 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209745 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: If the GGNRA's preferred alternative goes through, the
only users of Fort Funston will be the hang gliders. (Maybe they are impacting the
habitats of the birds in the area by flying around.)
Concern ID: 30510
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There should be areas in the GGNRA that are fenced for off-leash dog walking, and
some areas for on-leash dog walking, but the majority of the park should be dog-
free to protect wildlife, so that they can feed, rest, and breed unmolested. There are
many places where dog owners can recreate, but the wildlife does not have more
habitat, and these areas need to be protected.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1653 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191048 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I go to Ocean Beach 1-3/4 times a week at various times a
day. I've NEVER been there to my recollection with out seeing at least one dog
chasing shorebirds, often with the owners watching and doing nothing. Yes, I know
this is a minority, but to the migrating birds who need to use their energy to feed,
this means that large potential (non-native) predators can interrupt them at any
time. The birds are declining as a result. Dogs have other places to go to build
community. Frankly, it's not just the beach. I've heard from parents who don't want
dogs in the playgrounds where dogs aren't supposed to be, etc.
The National Parks, wherever they are, are supposed to be protecting special status
specie. Threatened species, wherever they area. Birds only have so much habitat.
Dogs do have more choices. Let the birds have the little habitat we've left them. Let
the dogs play elsewhere.
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
540
Corr. ID: 1791 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200282 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: However my interest of concern is maintaining as much as
possible if not entirely dog free Golden Gate National Parks. A exception being
Fort Funston due to it's past practice
designation.
My familiarity as a volunteer and visitor of Mori Point, Milagra Ridge and
Sweeney Ridge of the San Mateo County Parklands, prompts me to discourage any
dog activity that would ultimately threaten these sensetive wildlife sanctuaries.
Dog walking should not be allowed on the Mori Point Timigtac Trail.
Corr. ID: 2091 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200563 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: However, I am also a bird spotter and enjoy seeing the
many beautiful and unfortunately sometimes threatened species. These wild
animals need secure places where they can feed and breed unmolested or they may
not survive. Dogs are not threatened and live in comfort and security with humans.
We need to keep wild areas that are free from domestic animals so that the birds
may thrive and not be harassed.
Most of the GGNRA should be off limits to dogs, even supposedly leashed ones. I
often visit Heron's Head Park where there are many very visible signs requesting
that dogs be kept on leashes, yet every time I go there I see dogs running free,
sometimes in the direction of nesting birds. Many dog owners are respectful of the
ordinances about leash requirements, but many are not. Let there be areas in the
GGNRA where leashed dogs are allowed, fenced areas where they may run free,
but please keep most of the GGNRA free of pets.
Corr. ID: 2603 Organization: arbor day foundation
Comment ID: 195542 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: There are more than enough places for people to go to
enjoy the outdoors. There are also plenty of places for people to allow their dogs to
run around. Let's face it, dogs aren't endangered and probably never will be, do they
really NEED to be able to run around in a protected wildlife area? NO. This is
ridiculous. This place has been set aside for wildlife, ONLY wildlife. We have
taken over 95% of what used to be "wild", can't we let the animals have their small
chunk of space and leave it at that?
Corr. ID: 2636 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 195465 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: I love dogs and and I love wildlife but, in the end, dogs
have many more options for recreation than do wild species for survival. Please
preserve this bit of land for the plovers and their wild friends to do what they've
been doing since the beginning of time, living.
Concern ID: 30511
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
If dogs are removed from some areas of the GGNRA where wildlife was previously
kept at bay by their presence, it could result in greater use of areas by wildlife. As a
result, more conflicts between users of the GGNRA and wildlife may occur,
including more incidents between wildlife and human ecosystems. Removing dogs
may also increase the feral cat population, which is detrimental to birds.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 753 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 185429 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: wildlife adjustment. deer, skunk, raccoons, rats, other
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
541
rodents, feral cats, cougars, bobcats, coyotes, and even snakes may re-enter current
"dog zones" due to less fear of encountering both dogs and humans. these can be
represented as signs of a healthier eco-system. however, the reintroduction of
wildlife can become an endangerment to park visitors and eventually become a
great tragedy and loss for not only park visitors, but also for wildlife. dogs have
managed to keep wildlife at "bay" in most areas of highly traffic off leash dog use
areas. if the park system elects to close off specific areas to re-habilitate the
ecology, wildlife will eventually re-enter these areas and may cause more problems.
deer may become a hazard in areas where once there were no signs. deer may cross
roads, injure motorists; resulting in fatalities, both in humans and the deer
population.
cougars may encroach these new deer populated areas, resulting in more cougar
sightings, accidental attacks on humans or pets (primarily small pets and small
children), eventually contributing to fish and game obligated to destroy our
precious california mountain lion population.
coyotes and bobcats may follow suit and become entangled in an urban wildlife
management crisis that is denied in the documentation provided in the nps proposal
for eco restoration and management, resulting in even more damage to our current
wildlife endangered already from urban sprawl.
Concern ID: 30512
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Overall, alternative C provides the best protection of natural areas and wildlife.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29646 (GC9020), Comment 181170.
Concern ID: 30513
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters voiced concerns that if dogs continue to be off-leash, they could be
attacked by natural predators, with the result being removal or killing of the
wildlife, such as coyotes, or mountain lions. Signs about these wild animals may
help prevent this.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 219 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 180685 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Regardless of decisions made, people will continue to
allow their dogs to run off-leash in the less populated areas of the GGNRA. My
concern is that when a mountain lion or coyote attacks somebody's dog that the
wild animal will be seen as a nuisance and killed. (I've already watched coyotes
stalk leashed dogs, so this is just a matter of time.) I'd like to see some sort of
safeguard in place for the animals that belong in the parks rather than for those that
only visit. Maybe posting warning signs. I don't want to see more signs, but some
people don't believe that their dogs are seen as tresspassers or moving snacks to
local fauna.
WH5000 - Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments for WH5000
WH6000 - Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Impairment Analyses
There were no comments for WH6000
WH4000WildlifeandWildlifeHabitat:ImpactofProposalandAlternatives
542
WQ4000 - Water Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives
Concern ID: 29543
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters believe that dog feces on the beaches would be eliminated by wave
action and strong currents and that any fecal water contamination would be due to
sewage overflow. Commenters do not believe that beaches with dogs have higher
bacteria counts than beaches without dogs based on the SFPUC monitoring reports
and Heal the Bay reports.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 23 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 181456 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Please allow responsible pet owners to continue to enjoy
the area in line with the 1979 Pet Policy. I would take issue with the rationale that
is being presented to change the rules from the 1979 Pet Policy:
-Data presented for problems within the existing rules seem extremely low, and do
not support any change
-The main problem presented within the data seems to be for off-leash violations,
however the problem with dogs present within restricted area are quite low.
-Fecal contamination by dogs at Ocean beach is cited as a rationale for restricting
dogs, however due to strong currents and wave action, the only time I can
remember any problem with water quality at Ocean Beach is due to sewage
overflow.
Corr. ID: 3725 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202341 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: In the DEIS, "A substudy of the San Francisco Sewage
Master Plan determined that bacterial contamination of the water off Ocean Beach
was significant due to dog fecal matter depositied along the shoreline. (NPs, 1999)"
(DEIS, p 228, para.5)
See, this is just one example of why we don't trust you, GGNRA. Why would you
include this statement in your DEIS when you know this "substudy" was
impossible to track down? During Negotiate Rulemaking in 2007, NPS admitted
neither they nor the SF PUC Water Quality Bureau could find it, yet here in 2011
you made this claim sound like i
t
came from a real document. And this is your
basis for the accusation that dogs contaminate the water starting with the Executive
Summary.
You actually had real data to draw from regarding water quality at Ocean Beach
and elsewhere. The SFPUC website has information available to the public. The
reason you didn't is THERE IS NO PROOF DOGS ARE CONTAMINATING
THE WATER. To the contrary, there is evidence fecal contamination doesn't exist
there at all. The SFPUC monitoring San Francisco beaches showed off-leash
beaches do not have higher bacterial contamination than beaches where dogs are
prohibited.
On May 26, 2011, a front-page story in the San Francisco Chronicle was entitled,
"Where Not to Go in the Water at Bay Beaches." The environmental group Heal the
Bay annually rates the Bay Area Beaches, among others, and concluded, " Ten Bay
Area beach locations received perfect scores and were named to the groups' honor
roll, including Ocean Beach at both Balboa Ave. and Sloat Blvd.,Crown Memorial
St. Beach in Alameda, Montara State Beach, Surfers Beach, and six others in San
Mateo County." (p.1,12)
Concern ID: 29544
WR2010WaterResources:AffectedEnvironment
543
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
To keep dog feces out of the oceans there needs to be strict enforcement of dog
waste pickup laws.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 3713 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 202254 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Dogs/domestic animals on leash in all parks.. along with
feces-pickup enforcement
N
o dogs/domestic animals in critical habitat!
Specified leash-free areas especially with strict feces-pickup enforcement
Dogs need outdoor space to run of course..
meanwhile we Need to keep feces out of ocean!
Concern ID: 29545
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have reported seeing dogs in the marsh at Crissy Field which has
inadequate flushing; therefore, requiring dogs to be on-leash at Central Beach and
the promenade area will help keep dogs from running into the marsh thus
preventing water quality issues.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29475 (CF1400), Comment 203616
Concern ID: 29546
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have stated that removing dogs from a site will not reduce the risk
from rabies and the parvovirus because rabies is also common in mammalian
wildlife and the parvovirus is endemic and can be transported on shoes, bicycles.
Giardia is also endemic in GGNRA waters.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4601 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209936 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: "Water Quality" (pg. 64 of the DMP/EIS) state that dogs
may bring rabies and parvovirus into the area. This is clearly true. However -
removing the dogs does not reduce the risk! Rabies is more common in mammalian
wildlife - including bats, coyotes, foxes, and raccoons than in domestic dogs, who
are generally vaccinated. Parvovirus is endemic. It can be transported into an area
on the soles of shoes or on bicycle tires. (Consider the experience of the original
wolf pack on Ile Royale.) Thus, the statement is misleading with respect to the
impact of dogs on wildlife disease and water quality. Similarly, giardia is already
endemic in GGNRA waters.
Concern ID: 29547
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The negative impacts in the plan from off-leash dogs should be peer reviewed and
should be based on specific studies conducted at the park. The plan has failed to
prove with facts that dogs are contaminating the water at GGNRA.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1835 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191984 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Although this time the GGNRA is supporting the agenda
with environmental rationalization, the allegations in the report have not been
proven and are not peer reviewed. In summary they are as follows:
1) The negative impact of off-leash dogs on the environment of these Bay Area
parks due to accelerating erosion, and being destructive to the plants, animals,
diversity, and ground water.
WR2010WaterResources:AffectedEnvironment
544
2) Off-leash dogs represent a safety hazard to people using these parks.
After attending the Fort Mason Open House I'm convinced that nowhere in the
GGNRA proposal are there substantive studies or proof for these allegations
against off-leash dogs. In contrast, these allegations are refuted in studies such as
those listed at the end of this letter: Reference 2 (Scientific Assessment of Impact
of Dogs on Birds, Snowy Plovers, Small Mammals, Wildlife Diversity, Vegetation
and Bodies of Water In Urban Recreational Parks of the Bay Area) and Reference 3
(Statistics and Analysis of Safety Issues Associated with Dogs in Bay Area Parks,
and Comparison to Reported Incidents Not Involving Dogs).
Concern ID: 29548
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The plan has failed to provide evidence for the attribution of poor water quality
from dog waste in the tidal marsh at Crissy Field. The commenter feels that the
poor water quality in the marsh is more reflective of its shallowness and stagnation.
Also, runoff from the drains along the promenade, bird waste, and decaying
vegetation in the marsh contribute to poor water quality conditions. In addition,
hikers, bikers, and horses cause erosion on the sand dunes, and golf courses near
the headlands over use the water table and contribute pesticides to nearby water
systems.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 1850 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 192073 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Currently, the eastern third of Crissy Airfield., which
drains into the Crissy Marsh, receives a moderate to high level of use by off-leash
dogs and a substantial amount of pet waste."
Comment: The DEIS fails to provide evidence for the attribution of poor water
quality in the tidal marsh to pet waste in the eastern portion of the Airfield. The
DEIS should remove the sentence regarding pet waste from this section and should
address the following factors as more likely sources of poor water quality and low
oxygen levels in the tidal marsh:
- Tidal marshes depend on daily tidal surges to reinvigorate the marsh (as explained
in graphics near the tidal marsh). The Crissy Field "tidal marsh" does not benefit
from the tidal effects because the inlet to the Bay is often closed for long periods of
time, due to local conditions and, apparently, to failure by the Park Service to
follow recommendations from designers on appropriate size for the marsh
(minimum 30 acres versus actual 18 acres built). As a result, the shallow marsh
tends to be stagnant and water quality becomes poor.
- The grassy Airfield is flat, covered with a thick coating of grass. After heavy rain
the Airfield is characterized by significant amounts of boggy ground and standing
water, suggesting it is not draining anywhere. In any case, the Park Service oversaw
design and construction of the Airfield in 1997, so why did they have it drain into
the marsh?
- The grassy Airfield abuts the marsh on one end, representing less than 20% of the
shoreline of the marsh. Along the long edges of the marsh accounting for at least
60% of the shoreline are Mason street on one side and the Golden Gate Promenade
on the other side. There are drains (8-10) along the promenade that take runoff into
the marsh from the promenade during rain. (I have seen them with water flowing
through during a rainstorm.) There are also two culverts on the Mason Street side
of the marsh that appear to allow run-off from somewhere up in the Presidio.
Contaminants are likely coming from these other sources rather than the Airfield.
- There is vegetation around the marsh and there are significant numbers of birds in
WR2010WaterResources:AffectedEnvironment
545
the marsh'all of these create material (decaying vegetation and bird "poop") that can
directly affect water quality, leading to low oxygen levels if water is stagnant.
Corr. ID: 4396 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 209570 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: And it is the hikers, bikers, and horses that cause erosion
of the sand dunes far more effectively than the the canines due to the sheer size and
continuity of their footprints. And it is the lawns and golf courses near the
headlands that over-use the water table and pollute it with pesticides. The dog
waste which we try to pick up is at least biodegradable.
WQ5000 - Water Resources: Cumulative Impacts
There were no comments for WQ5000
WR6000 - Water Resources: Impairment Analyses
There were no comments for WQ6000
WR2010 - Water Resources: Affected Environment
Concern ID: 29540
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
The DEIS fails to address the pre-existing sewer lines of San Francisco that
discharge into the ocean, the excavation to update these lines and the stabilization
of the cliffs at Fort Funston.
For representative quotes, please see Concern 29506 (GR2010), Comment 207082
Concern ID: 29541
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Commenters have reported that they frequently encounter dog waste, dog waste in
bags, and dog urine on Ocean Beach, Crissy Field/Beach, and Fort Funston which
they believe contributes to water quality issues at the beaches and lagoon at Crissy
Field. Other commenters feel that creeks along trails are also susceptible to impacts
from dogs.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 959 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191592 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: One final note: I hear the the water quality on at least one
trail/fire road are in Novato has been seriously degraded due to dogs, off leash,
running free and defecating in the creeks.
Corr. ID: 1648 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 191034 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Every time I walk on Ocean Beach, Crissy Field/Beach or
the Presidio I encounter piles of dog-doo and plastic bags containing (presumably)
dog doo. I also see dog guardians allowing their charges to chase shorebirds, which
I find cruel.
On the beach at Crissy there must be a great deal of dog pee. That is utterly
unappealing for a beach visit. (an pollutes the BAY + LAGOON). I went to Ft.
Funston once but will not go back. The place is absolutely gorgeous but it is a
reeking dog toilet.
WR2010WaterResources:AffectedEnvironment
546
I don't know of any GGNRA place I can visit without encountering dog feces or
urine. (The same can be said of the City in general, but this is about the GGNRA)
Concern ID: 29542
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
Dogs are not part of a natural ecosystem. Their presence can be disruptive and
destructive to areas such as fish bearing creeks.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 2202 Organization: Not Specified
Comment ID: 200711 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual
Representative Quote: Unfortunately dogs aren't really part of the natural
ecosystem, and their presence is generally disruptive at best and quite destructive at
worst when, for example, dogs go into fish bearing creeks with spawning redds,
etc. As a hiker and park user, I would prefer to enjoy nature without dogs on the
trails, but do not object to on-leash dogs in approprate areas i.e., those without
sensitive species and habitats
Concern ID: 31877
CONCERN
S
TATEMENT:
There is no evidence indicating that diseases transmitted by dogs are present in
water, or that dog waste changes water nutrient levels. More data is needed to show
such impacts.
R
epresentative Quote(s): Corr. ID: 4686 Organization: The Marin Humane Society
Comment ID: 227781 Organization Type: Non-Governmental
Representative Quote: "Water Quality"- The draft plan is extraordinarily
insufficient in fact on this topic. More importantly, we believe it is dramatically
inaccurate and misleading. Our organization is highly knowledgeable about disease
transmission of dogs, especially rabies, parvo and distemper. There are no known
studies to our knowledge that claim that these three diseases survive in water and
we strongly believe that this statement is incorrect and should be removed.
Additionally, we question the accuracy of changing water nutrient levels from
dogs. We would recommend that the scientific data and reports used to make this
statement be supported in the document. The plan refers to turbidity issues ftom
dogs and this statement does raise concerns on potentially negative issues to certain
waterways, but again we urge that these assumptions be substantiated by factual
documentation and they should be site specific to each location. Many of the water
and wetland areas of the Marin sites can dramatically change through the natural
seasonal rainfall process which may also be a factor.

Navigation menu