Fort Funston Dog Walkers Association... Recent Stories In The News

Resolution requesting the National Park Service to delay enforcing, in the San Francisco parks situated in the GGNRA, 36 C.F.R. 2.15, requiring pets to be on leash in national parks, until the ANPR process has been completed.

WHEREAS, In 1975, the City and County of San Francisco transferred Fort Funston and other City-owned park lands to the federal government to be included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), to be administered by the National Park Service (NPS); and,

WHEREAS, The statute creating the GGNRA (16 U.S.C. Section 460bb) specifically states that the GGNRA was established to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to the urban environment and planning and requires that the Secretary of the Interior “utilize the resources in a manner which will provide for recreation and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use planning and management;” and,

WHEREAS, Former Charter section 7.403-1(a), as approved by the voters, required that the deed transferring any City-owned park lands to the NPS include the restriction that said lands were to be reserved by the Park Service “in perpetuity for recreation or park purposes with a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction;” and,

WHEREAS, When Fort Funston and other City-owned parks were transferred to the federal government, a federal regulation existed requiring all pets to be on leash in federal parks, yet the NPS chose not to enforce this regulation in the San Francisco City parks; and,

WHEREAS, In April 1978, the GGNRA stated its 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;” and,

WHEREAS, The Superintendent of the GGNRA in the spirit of this statement developed a draft pet policy and submitted it to the GGNRA Advisory Committee for further review and public hearings; and,

WHEREAS, In September of 1978, after extensive public hearings and public surveys, the Advisory Commission proposed guidelines for a pet policy for the San Francisco Unit of the GGNRA, designating Fort Funston, Lands End, Ocean Beach, Fort Miley, Baker Beach, and Crissy Field for continued off-leash recreation; and,

WHEREAS, On October 6, 1978, GGNRA General Superintendent Lynn Thompson accepted these designations with the following comment: “As you know, the Advisory Commission approved the proposed guidelines for a pet policy in the San Francisco Unit of the GGNRA at their September 27 meeting,” and she continued “We are accepting in total the Commissions recommendations for each of these areas;” and,

WHEREAS, On February 24, 1979, the GGNRA finalized the pet policy for both San Francisco and Marin County, establishing areas where pets could be exercised off-leash; and,

WHEREAS, In 1982, the 1979 Pet Policy was incorporated into the GGNRA Natural Resources Management Plan as Appendix C; and,

WHEREAS, On July 8, 1992, NPS Western Regional Director Stanley Albright assured U.S. Senator John Seymour that “there is no change in the 1979 Pet Policy which provides the visitor of walking one’s dog off leash”; and,

WHEREAS, By letter dated July 8, 1992, Western Regional Director Stanley Albright also assured U.S. Senator Cranston that there would be no change in the 1979 Pet Policy; and,

WHEREAS, On February 5, 1999, Pacific Western Regional Director John Reynolds assured U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that the “GGNRA has adopted a pet policy that is more liberal than the regulations enforced at other national park sites throughout the United States, where pets are required to be leashed at all times and are, for the most part, excluded from all but developed areas,” and the letter continued
“[The] GGNRA has, with the assistance of the park’s Advisory Commission, established a pet policy that allows some opportunity for visitors to enjoy a few designated areas… as voice control areas where pets are allowed off-leash;” and,

WHEREAS, On March 19, 1999, GGNRA Superintendent Brian O’Neill stated to U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the “GGNRA has adopted a pet policy that is more liberal than pet regulations at other national park sites throughout the country... Certain areas of the park have been designated as voice control areas where pets are permitted off-leash;” and,

WHEREAS, In November of 2000, the GGNRA Advisory Committee attempted to revoke the 1979 Pet Policy, but failed due to a point of order; and,

WHEREAS, On January 23, 2001, over 1,500 people attended the GGNRA Advisory Committee meeting to protest revocation of the 1979 Pet Policy, Nine San Francisco supervisors spoke, and both Senator Speier and Assemblyman Shelly sent letters to be read by their representatives; and,

WHEREAS, The Advisory Committee recommended that the GGNRA hold meetings with stakeholder groups within the next 120 days to resolve the issue, and to not change leash enforcement for this period; and,

WHEREAS, The Advisory Committee at this meeting did not vote on the Pet Policy; and,

WHEREAS, Rather than hold stakeholder meetings, the GGNRA received permission from Washington for a more formal process called Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), but this process has not begun; and,

WHEREAS, In November, 2001, the GGNRA began to aggressively enforce the leash requirement at Fort Funston, sending teams of law enforcement rangers for 2 to 3 hour segments, and issuing tickets for walking dogs off-leash without initiating the ANPR process in good faith with the public; and,

WHEREAS, Off-leash recreational users believe that off-leash recreation is legal at Fort Funston, and they agreed to go through the ANPR process and further rulemaking in order to obtain a special rule for the GGNRA that specifically recognizes that off-leash dog-walking is permissible in certain GGNRA parks; and,

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco finds that the recent enforcement of 36 C.F.R. 2.15 is in contravention to the representations made to the public at the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting on January 23, 2001; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby requests the National Park Service not to enforce, in the GGNRA parks which were donated to the federal government by the City and County of San Francisco, 36 C.F.R. 2.15, which requires that all pets be on leash in federal parks, until the ANPR process has been satisfactorily completed; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby requests the NPS to advise the Board as to the status of the ANPR process; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall send copies of this resolution to the offices of United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Tom Lantos, State Senator John Burton, State Senator Jackie Speier, Assemblywoman Carole Migden, Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, GGNRA Superintendent Brian O’Neill and the National Parks Service.

The Honorable John D. Graham November 9, 2001

Administrator, OIRA
Office of Management and Budget
262 EEOB
Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. Graham:

We understand that you are reviewing the ANPR submitted by the National Park Service (GGNRA) re off-leash recreation. We ask for your help to insure that the ANPR process is fair.
We are very concerned that the Park Service begins the ANPR with the assumption that off-leash recreation is illegal and that they never accepted the 1979 Pet Policy. This puts us at a disadvantage when entering discussions, and we feel this position is both inaccurate and unfair.
The Park Service actually drafted the pet policy, performed the surveys, and requested the Advisory Commission to hold public hearings. It was then accepted in full by GGNRA General Superintendent Lynn Thompson on October 6, 1978 " . . . We are accepting in total the Commissions recommendations for each of these areas." (Emphasis added.) It was recognized by the Park Service as the governing policy in planning documents, letters to U.S. Senators and House Representatives, in the GGNRA brochure entitled "Enjoying the park with your dog" and was included in the GGNRA resources management plan.
We are also concerned that the Park Service is issuing leash violation citations in traditionally off-leash areas while we enter good-faith negotiations regarding this very policy. Off-trail bicyclists were permitted to ride in the GGNRA during their long negotiations with the Park Service to develop a policy. We ask for the same consideration.
Other points to remember when reviewing the ANPR:
· Over 1,500 people attended a GGNRA Advisory Commission meeting in January to protest the cancellation of the 1979 Pet Policy and to show their commitment to preserving the right to walk their dogs off-leash in a small portion of the GGNRA (less than 1% of the available land.)
· When the Park Service took over our beaches and parks, the City and County of San Francisco and its residents were promised that historic recreational activities, including off-leash dog walking, would not be changed. This commitment to traditional recreation was incorporated into the enabling statutes. In fact, off-leash recreation was identified at congressional hearings as one of the recreational activities to be continued.
· The NPS promised San Franciscans who donated money and time establishing the Crissy Field Restoration Project that 60 acres would be designated for off-leash recreation. The Environmental Impact Report for the Crissy Field Plan Amendment also provided for this recreation.
· Off-leash recreation occurred for generations before the Park Service took over these parks. This was recognized in the Park Service's own documents -- "Developing a pet policy for GGNRA is not easy, especially since the ordinary guidelines outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations do not really apply in an urban area. People and their animals have been visiting the park for too long to apply an all-inclusive arbitrary policy."

Thank you for your consideration and review.

Linda McKay
Chair, Fort Funston Dog Walkers
(Over 800 members)

A letter to Senator Kuehl from Linda McKay

The Honorable Sheila Kuehl April 25, 2001

Chair, Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee

State Capitol, Room 4032

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Senator Kuehl,

Thank you very much for allowing the supporters of SB712 to show their support yesterday by standing, identifying themselves, and saying a few words.

This was very generous on your part. We understood you had a very full agenda and that demonstrations of any kind are not normally allowed in the committee meetings, so we were pleasantly surprised when you asked us to stand.

Although we attend many local meetings in support of off-leash recreation, this was our first State hearing. Thanks for making it so pleasant.

Regards,

Linda McKay

Chair, Fort Funston Dog Walkers

Protesters gather at Fort Funston fences

Leashes now required on all dogs in area

Republished on the Web by permission of the author and the San Francisco Independent, 1213 Evans Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94124

By Edith Alderette
On Saturday morning, costumed pooches on one side of the city turned out with their humans to protest the exclusion of off-leash dog walking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area properties.
On the other, about 40 owners chose, rather than to debate the issue, to join forces with National Park Service workers to spruce up Crissy Field.
Despite the outward differences in the events, an underlying emotional current dominated both: Dog owners throughout the city are howling mad about the appearance of a new set of signs at GGNRA properties - signs that tell visitors that their rollicking pooches must be on a leash or they face a $50 fine.
The markers, say representatives of dog-owner groups, fly in the face of a January promise made by GGNRA officials to hold off for six months from making any decision on whether to continue to allow off-leash recreation at Fort Funston, Crissy Field, and Ocean Beach.
"We're angry and confused and feeling betrayed," said Anne Farrow of Fort Funston Dog Walkers, which organized Saturday's protest at Fort Funston, which was attended by more than 300 owners and dogs.
"I've been getting constant e-mails from within the dog groups about the signs. The reaction is just outrage," said Joan Boothe of Crissy Field Dog Walkers, which organized Saturday's cleanup at Crissy Field.
Farrow and Boothe were just two of many dog owners and animal-rights advocates who met with GGNRA superintendent Brian O'Neill last month to discuss a procedure to jointly develop a dog-walking policy that would satisfy owners' needs to let their pets get exercise as well as federal regulations that prohibit off-leash dogs on all National Park Service lands.
For the last 20 years, areas of Fort Funston, Crissy Field, and Ocean Beach have been leash-free zones - the few such remaining areas within the city.

Heated hearing
The negotiations came as a result of a raucous public hearing on the GGNRA's pet policy held in the Presidio in January. At that event, O'Neill announced a cooling-off period of 120 days, during which his office would make no changes to current regulations on GGNRA lands.
But last Monday, GGNRA officials released an announcement stating that signs warning visitors that dogs must be tethered at all times would go up on April 12.
The signs, however, began appearing last Wednesday, April 4.
"We didn't know they'd be up that quickly," explained GGNRA spokesperson Roger Scott. "The assistant superintendent's office got permission to put the signs up, and the maintenance people got there early."
Scott said that he had called leaders of dog-owner groups to let them know about the signs a week ago. By Friday, he'd received enough angry phone calls to suspend further postings.
Many officials from those groups, however, said they had never received the GGNRA calls. And even if they did, they would have not had enough time to get the word out to members, they said.
"They certainly didn't call all the respective dog groups because I didn't get a call," Boothe said.
"We were not advised this was happening, that's just bulls---," said Linda McKay of Fort Funston Dog Walkers. "We're beating our heads over what in the world could have prompted them to do this. Is this just abysmal communications or do they want to start off negotiations like this - give us nothing and expect us to beg for crumbs?"
Scott said the signs went up because NPS officials in Washington, D.C., insisted that current federal guidelines be enforced during the current negotiations for a new pet policy. He also said that even though signs had been posted, not every visitor with an off-leash dog would be handed a citation.
"Our intent is not to give out citations starting tomorrow," he said. "Our intent is to be in compliance and to practice discretionary enforcement."
Dog owners balk at the explanation. Current rules, they say, stem from a 1979 GGNRA pet policy that gives them explicit permission to walk dogs off-leash at about 10 GGNRA areas in San Francisco and Marin - including Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, Lands End, and Crissy Field.
"Public perception is a major issue, and the signs going up look to the general public as if there's been a change," Boothe explained. "They say there's no change, and I'm prepared to take their word for that. The difficulty is that the vast number of people who walk their dogs don't have the same sources of information that we who are involved in the negotiations have. They just see the signs, and they see there's a change."
GGNRA officials have steadfastly insisted that, because the local pet policy contradicts federal guidelines, it was never legalized.

City officials not pleased
City officials are also not happy about the development. Leland Yee, who has been spearheading a drive to get the NPS to include the city in policy-change decisions, says that this latest development has further deteriorated trust that the NPS can keep its word.
"I think they owe people an explanation why, at the meeting at the Presidio, they were going to give at least 120 days of input and then summarily truncate that time line and unilaterally make decisions," Yee told the Independent. "They need to explain why … every time they say something, they take their word back and do the opposite."
Yee has been the driving force of a movement to force the NPS into negotiations to rewrite its policies to allow more local oversight of the use of GGNRA lands, which the city gave to the NPS in 1975. If no settlement can be reached, he says, he's ready to take the NPS to court in an attempt to return the lands to the city.
"This thing with the signs has strengthened my resolve to press forward to maintain some kind of oversight or, absent that, take the property back," he said.
The closure of off-leash dog areas has become a hot-button issue with owners over the last year. Fort Funston, one of the most heavily used GGNRA properties and a favorite among dog walkers, has been the site of a string of closures. NPS officials have insisted the closures have been necessary to prevent erosion, defoliation, and threats to wildlife. Fort Funston Dog Walkers successfully sued the NPS late last year over the most recent closure, which involved a 12-acre section at the north end of the park that had been fenced off to protect a threatened species of bird.
Because of the suit, the NPS initiated a formal procedure to permanently close the section of land, and last month it erected fences.
According to Yee, such closures prompted City Hall interest in the matter. He expects negotiations between the City Attorney's Office and the NPS to begin shortly.

The Yee Resolution
FILE NO. RESOLUTION NO.
Urging the National Park Service to delay the closure of twelve acres at Fort Funston in order to allow the City to review the imminent closure.]
Resolution requesting the City Attorney contact the National Park Service requesting a delay in the closure of twelve acres along the coastal bluffs at Fort Funston; requesting the Department of City Planning, the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department, and the Director of Public Works review the pending twelve-acre closure at Fort Funston.

WHEREAS, In 1975, the City and County of San Francisco transferred Fort Funston and other City-owned park lands to the federal government to be included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), to be administered by the National Park Service; and
WHEREAS, In 1973, San Francisco voters had been assured that the GGNRA lands were being preserved “for recreational use by all citizens;” and WHEREAS, On April 29, 1975, the City and County and San Francisco entered into an Agreement (the Agreement) with the United States of America related to the operation of the City-owned park lands transferred to the federal government; and
WHEREAS, On September 11, 1974, the then-Superintendent of the GGNRA referred to the Agreement as “a fundamental guide for our future relations once City lands . . . are transferred to the National Park Service;” and WHEREAS, The Agreement provides that the GGNRA was created, among other things, “to provide open space necessary to urban environment and planning;” and WHEREAS, Under the Agreement, the NPS agreed to “utilize the resources of the GGNRA in a manner which will provide for recreational and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use, planning and management, to preserve the GGNRA in its natural setting and to protect it from development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of the land;” and Leland Y. Yee, Ph.D. Page 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4/13/01
WHEREAS, Under the Agreement, the General Superintendent of the GGNRA agreed to “consult with the Department of City Planning on all planning matters related to construction on the lands transferred by the CITY . . . in order to ensure that the Department of City Planning will be involved and informed during all stages of the planning process and in particular during the conceptual planning stage where potential conflicts can be resolved prior to the development of specific plans;” and WHEREAS, Under the Agreement, the General Superintendent agreed to formally notify and consult with the Department of City Planning on any “substantial alteration of the natural environment” of the lands transferred by the City; and WHEREAS, Under the Agreement, the Department of City Planning is to review proposed construction plans for conformance to the Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, Under the Agreement, the Department of City Planning is to seek the advice of the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department and the Director of Public Works before reporting its findings to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, From 1991 through 1995, the National Park Service erected numerous fences at Fort Funston, permanently closing off approximately 35 acres to all park users and significantly altering the character of the land, without providing any prior notice to the City and County of San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, Subsequent to the 1995 closure, the Superintendent of the GGNRA assured park users that there would be no further closures; and
WHEREAS, The prior closures at Fort Funston, as well as the pending twelve-acre closure, have resulted in significant conflict among park users and between park users and the NPS; and
WHEREAS, The NPS now proposes to imminently and permanently close twelve additional acres along the coastal bluffs and make dramatic changes to this land on February 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, The land proposed for closure is one of the areas most enjoyed by the 750,000 annual visitors to Fort Funston, particularly families with children; and
Leland Y. Yee, Ph.D. Page 2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4/13/01
WHEREAS, The NPS has not consulted with the City and County of San Francisco regarding this closure; and
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco wishes to have, but has not had, a reasonable opportunity to review, evaluate, and comment on the impact the proposed closure may have on the people and parks in the City of San Francisco and to ascertain whether the Agreement has been breached by the NPS; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco requests that the City Attorney write to the NPS requesting the NPS to delay the closure of the twelve acres along the coastal bluffs at Fort Funston until the City and County of San Francisco has an opportunity to review, evaluate, and comment on the proposed closure; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors asks the Clerk of the Board to draft a letter to the Department of City Planning, asking them to agendize this item on their next meeting; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors requests the General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department, and Director of Public Works review the proposed closure to ascertain whether there is adequate justification for the closure, whether the closure will negatively impact the people and parks in the City and County of San Francisco, and whether the Agreement has been breached by the NPS.

Leland Y. Yee, Ph.D. Page 3
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4/13/01

A Letter To Superintendent

Brian O'Neil From Jackie Speier

April 5, 2001

Superintendent Brian O'Neill

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Fort Mason

San Francisco, CA 94123

Dear Superintendent O'Neill,

I am writing to express my extreme disappointment at your decision to post signs requiring dogs to be on leash at GGNRA properties.

The public was certainly led to believe that the GGNRA Advisory Commission's Jan. 23rd decision would preclude any such action for 120 days. In fact, according to the transcript of the meeting, Chairman Richard Bartke stated as part of the resolution that "the staff make no change in its enforcement during the next 120 days." Prior to the vote, when asked by a member of the audience what instructions would be given to park staff, Chairman Bartke responded, " Hold off signs, citations, and so forth, until they come back with a plan."

However, the March 30 update clearly states "that the regulation would be enforced, until, or if," there is a change in regulation. In yet another paragraph, the GGNRA states that enforcement of the leash law will continue to be "up to the discretion of the officer."

These apparently contradictory statements are confusing to the general public. Your actions will likely result in some members of the public leashing their dogs, some avoiding GGNRA properties all together and for those who continue to use the GGNRA for off-leash recreation, a tense park experience as they worry if a citation is waiting for them around the next corner. I must ask you, why is it necessary to take such actions at this particular time?

While your decision to post signs may be consistent with National Park Service regulations requiring dogs to be on leash in federal parks, it appears ill-timed in light of your announcement to begin meeting with stakeholders to determine a dog policy for the GGNRA. I urge you to reconsider your decision to post these signs so you may enter into meetings with the public in a spirit of good faith. Dogwalkers, who have been at the forefront of educating others about responsible dog ownership, were hopeful when you announced on March 21 that the path had been cleared for stakeholder meetings to begin. Had they known the obscurely worded announcement on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking meant that signs would be posted requiring dogs to be on leash during this process, I am sure their reaction, as well as mine, would have been quite different.

I welcome the opportunity to talk with you further about this issue.

All the best,

JACKIE SPEIER

State Senator

8th District

Home