City hearings dig into GGNRA dog leash policy
San Francisco Supervisor Scott Weiner has called for hearings Monday in opposition to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s draft off-leash dog policy.
To many in such a dog-friendly city, the idea of enforcing leash restrictions at vast places such as Ocean Beach, already popular destinations for people and their dogs, seems ludicrous. But the GGNRA plan’s environmental-impact statement asserts that “a dog management policy inconsistent with [National Park Service] regulations and increased public expectations for use of the park for dog recreation have resulted in controversy, litigation, and compromised visitor and employee safety, affecting visitor experience and resulting in resource degradation.”
In response to dog owners’ outrage, Weiner drafted a resolution stating that among other detriments, the plan “would not only curtail dogs, it would eliminate from the GGNRA a main group of recreational park users – people who recreate in the GGNRA with their dogs.”
On Monday, April 11, the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee will hear two items that will outline the effects of the dog leash policy and also will put the the City on record as opposing the GGNRA’s preferred dog-management alternatives.
Since its Jan. 14 release, the GGNRA plan has met considerable protest from Bay Area dog owners worried about the proposed reduction of off-leash areas in more than 20 spots from Marin to San Mateo, and areas such as Ocean Beach in between.
Monday’s meeting, scheduled for 1 p.m., is expected to include speakers from the SFSPCA, the Peninsula Humane Society, Weiner and fellow supervisor John Avalos, and officials from the GGNRA.
A noon rally on the City Hall steps is in the works, organized by dog advocates and opponents of the plan.
Feedback both in opposition and in support of the proposal can be submitted at Monday’s meeting as well as directly to the GGNRA until May 30.
Photo: “Gimpbully” under Creative Commons license.
***
Publisher’s note: Ocean Beach Bulletin readers, we need your help! Join your fellow readers in supporting news and information for San Francisco’s western edge. Donate to the Ocean Beach Bulletin using the “Donate” button in the right-hand column of this page. It’s fast, it’s simple and every dollar makes a difference.
So… according to Wiener, it is dog owners and not beach users who are the primary constituency at Ocean Beach. Why doesn’t someone inform Wiener that the beach is a natural resource asset and not a dog run. BTW Wiener might do better to concentrate on his own district, which is miles away from the coast. Perhaps Wiener should invite all the dog owners to use his district as a dog field instead of someone else’s?
Oh, and someone ought to remind Wiener that the property doesn’t belong to SF, it belongs to the Feds and NPS & GGNRA…. so his investigations and arm waving amount to another bogus waste of SF taxpayers dollars. Thanks for your help Wiener, now please go home.
People need a place to let their dogs run off-leash. People also need a place where they don’t have to deal with dogs.
We have Ft. Funston. I 100% support keeping this off-leash. Now where can I go in SF that isn’t covered in dog shit? There’s very few places in SF that dogs aren’t allowed.
Policing people at ocean beach to keep their dogs on-leash and make sure they clean up after them is a daunting task that no one seems to be willing to do.
So I want the snowy plover protected area of Ocean Beach off-limits to dogs. Want to run around off-leash with your pup? Go south of Sloat or to Ft. Funston.
I also visit Ocean Beach regularly. I’ve never seen a “responsible” dog owner suggest to an “irresponsible” one that s/he shouldn’t just stand and watch their dog illegally chase migrating shorebirds. There are so many dogs on the beach that even a percentage of them, whatever that percentage is, is too many for the birds (and the rest of us, including my friend who simply wants to go to the beach without having dogs come up to him).
It’s proven to be impossible to have a mixed on-leash and off-leash beach, even if all the off-leash dogs were actually under voice control. The owners simply ignore the signs, as they do in other parks in the city.
These birds have precious little habitat left. They really do need this protection in order to store energy for migrating and reproducing. Dogs do belong in some places, but not in all places. Ocean Beach is not one of the appropriate places for dogs.
To 4oceans, I’d say that Scott Weiner has all of San Francisco in mind. Once Ocean Beach and Fort Funston are off limits to dogs we will see that dogs flood the dog parks of San Francisco, overcrowding them. The GGNRA cannot look at its lands without considering the impact to San Francisco and the whole Bay area. But your point, which I think is that we should place more emphasis on preservation and conservation at Ocean Beach and less emphasis on recreation, has merit and is a valid point. I think this is what the GGNRA intends for the long term. I believe that banning dogs is just the first step. Fires outside of firepits were banned a few years ago, and we may expect to see a complete ban on them soon. Also perhaps limits on the activities of fisherman and surfers as there are threatened fish out there.
And actually, you should inform yourself of history. The city of San Francisco gave Ocean Beach to the federal government with the stipulation that it be kept for recreational purposes. The Board of Supervisors would be within their legal rights to take it back if the original governing rules aren’t followed.
Incidentally, I am a senior citizen and I’ve been visiting Ocean Beach almost daily since before the GGNRA took over. I love the whole scene — dogs, people, surfers, fisherman — I think we all have and can continue to co-exist.