Dogs and Dogwalkers Flock to Ocean Beach for Protest
About 250 people attended the Mighty Mutt Strut, along with roughly 350 dogs.
About 250 people and upward of 350 dogs convened on Ocean Beach Saturday morning for the Mighty Mutt Strut, a walk intended to protest the proposed Dog Management Plan of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Dogs of all varieties chased each other and splashed through the shallow water as their owners waved signs of protest.
“And for every person who was able to make it out here, there’s a lot more who support what we’re doing,” claimed Samir Ghosh, one of the organizers of the event and the creator of saveoffleash.com.
People from throughout the Bay Area traveled to Ocean Beach for the march, which progressed along Sloat Boulevard and concluded in Stern Grove, to symbolize what would happen if dogs and dog walkers were removed from GGNRA parks.
“I’m here because it’s important to preserve off-leash dog access,” explained Bev, who requested that her last name not be used. “One of the great things about the city of San Francisco is our incredible access to open space.
“I obey the law with my dogs. I take them to Fort Funston where they are allowed off-leash. It is such a great, wonderful, huge expanse, and there are so few places where dogs are allowed to be off-leash. And they want to take it away. There needs to be some sharing.”
Susan Adams, another frequenter of Fort Funston, agreed as her dog Thelma Lou splashed in the ocean behind her. “We’ve been coming here for over 30 years. And I’m an environmentalist. I’m sensitive to the issues of the snowy plovers, but we only get access to 1 percent of the coastline. Dogs don’t run rampant through these parks, like they are often portrayed.”
The guests of honor, doing what dogs do best.
Sarah Schumm, an Ocean Beach resident who walks her dog Dave the Pug along the middle of the beach regularly, raised the question of enforcement.
“They can’t even enforce the off-leash law as it is, so how will they enforce a complete ban of dogs at Ocean Beach? It’s ridiculous,” Schumm said.
She, like many of the protesters, sought to make a distinction between concerned, responsible dog owners, and those who don’t comply with posted rules.
“Look around. There are hundreds of dogs here, and no fights, no attacks, and no problems,” she said. “If you ban law-abiding dog walkers from the beach, all that’s left are the people who break the rules.”
“And it’s people that do most of the damage to the beach, not dogs,” she added.
Dina Mondavi, who lives on the Great Highway, further speculated on the impact of the dog policy on the neighborhood.
“I don’t think the neighborhood will be as safe without dogs and dog walkers,” Mondavi said. “People wouldn’t be out walking around as much without their dogs, so there would be a lot less natural neighborhood watch.”
The march began at around 10:30 a.m., as owners and dogs slowly shuffled across the Great Highway to walk along the northern sidewalk of Sloat Boulevard. Officer Eddie Dare of the San Francisco Police Department was on hand to help with crowd management.
“This is a great event so far,” Dare said. “No problems with any behavior, just a minor traffic congestion to get people across the street, but otherwise everyone is well-behaved.”
Almost a dozen organizations had representatives on hand for the event, including Rocky Golub from Ocean Beach Dog. “This is my backyard, this is your backyard!” he boomed through a megaphone, to the cheering crowd. “My heart is fluttering with excitement to see you all here.”
Event organizers invited all of San Francisco’s current mayoral candidates were invited to the event, but the only to show was John Avalos, a current member of the Board of Supervisors representing District 11.
“I’m here to support broad usage of national and local parks,” Avalos explained. “Dogs, people and nature can co-exist.”
When asked about the potential impact of the Mighty Mutt Strutt on the GGNRA’s policy decision, Ghosh was optimistic. “One in three households in San Francisco has a dog. We have over 10,000 signatures on our petitions. I think that the GGNRA is going to have to listen to us.”
“This isn’t an issue about dog versus bird, like it’s portrayed. It’s about the rights of dog owners, who are voting citizens.”
The public comment period for the GGNRA Dog Management Plan will close May 30, at which point the GGNRA will work toward a final dog policy.
I should have been more clear when I was being interviewed, the most dramatic damage to the beach and the snowy plover habitat has been caused by flawed attempts at erosion management and worldwide plastic pollution finding it’s way home to San Francisco. Over the past two years we have lost whole blocks full of dunes as rock dumping to protect the waste management plant has pushed erosion further down the beach. I started taking videos of the damage from winter storms in 2010 when tons of trash were washed up on Ocean Beach. There used to be plover habitat in the area where I walk my dog, but it washed away, and tons of plastic garbage that had been at sea for over a decade were deposited in their place. The meaningful threats to the plovers are plastic pollution and erosion, and anyone who spends a lot of time on the beach can tell you so. The dog thing is a pissing contest, and the money spent fighting dogs would be better spent on proper erosion management.
And anyone who has spent ANY time on Ocean Beach has seen whole flocks of plovers in person. Multiple people from out of town have even asked me how “those birds” could POSSIBLY be the “endangered birds” because there are so many of them.
seriously? Are you honestly saying that since you see lots of them that they can’t be a threatened species?
In China, there’s preserves with lots of panda bears. I guess they’re not endangered! Boy will the WWF be glad to hear about this!
If you want to argue environmental impact, which most on this page are doing, than stick to the facts. Learn the definition of critical habitat because that is what needs to be protected. If you want to make a difference, fight rising sea levels. Fight development and pollution. These are killing off birds. You may not like dogs on the beach, you may not like bonfires on the beach, you may not like bulldozers on the beach, you may not like people on the beach. But these are not convincing reasons to ban them. GGNRA has spent about $2 million on this plan; it will cost another million plus annually to enact. For a fraction of the cost clear signage designating seasonal Plover areas and warnings of steep fines would deter disturbances. The rest of the money could be used effectively to keep open state parks that have no budget.
“For a fraction of the cost clear signage designating seasonal Plover areas and warnings of steep fines would deter disturbances”
I dont believe it would, no.
I’ve had conversations with a lot of dog owners allowing their dogs off-leash at ocean beach, dogs that I observed myself chasing the plovers and the unfailing response was “I dont care. Are you a cop? Stop bothering men”
I think in four years I got one person to put their dog on a leash. Once in four years.
“And for every person who was able to make it out here, there’s a lot more who support what we’re doing,” claimed Samir Ghosh
ooo gee … but there are plenty of us that disagree with you … I’m certainly not going to counter protest your ridiculous protest. Come on people, they’re just fricking animals. You decided to bring a dog into your life, I didn’t and just because you decided to bring a dog into your life does NOT give you special rights to destroy any environment you wish. It is a stretch of hubris to think that we humans have that right, certainly your dog does not.
You should have thought about what you’ll do with that animal BEFORE you brought it home.
right,
we probably shouldnt have kids either…god knows they might disturb a protected species while playing on the beach…the world should be populated by single, unattached, environmental nazis…we’d all be better off…
@tom give me a break. I’m married with kids. I live 3 blocks from Ocean Beach. When I bring my kid, I control my kid. As a parent, I teach to have low / no impact in all our lives to the best of our ability. I’ve been “attacked” by aggressive and hyper dogs off leash. I’ve seen and experienced how quickly they get away from their owners. In all these years, no child has ever attacked me or my kid. By the time some of these dog owners stop their dogs, the damage is done. I’m sure the same could be said of irresponsible parents of children, but again, I feel it’s about ALL of us taking responsibility for our actions and the impact we ALL have and I’ve just seen too many aggressive dogs run loose on Ocean Beach … understandably because they’re otherwise locked up too long in small urban spaces.
Taking responsibility for our actions and expecting the same of others is NOT Natzi. Natzis were truly evil that committed genocide. Hyperbole with this reference is always disingenuous and disrespectful to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust … and diminishes the true evil that was the Natiis.
@4Oceans: According to the US Fish & Wildlife Service, dogs do NOT threaten the survival of the Snowy plover at Ocean Beach. In fact, if dogs were banned entirely from OB there would no measurable change in the number of plovers. Fluctuations at OB mirror those at Half Moon Bay, where dogs are not allowed because the beach is designated as critical habitat. Climate change is the real threat that will push bird inland. So why don’t you put your money where you mouth is by ponying up some money to save non coastal land that is threatened by development not innocuous dog play at Ocean Beach.
Dog owners love their dogs and love is blind.
Dogs have a negative impact on sensitive environments and especially on wild life. The evidence is clear and I would be more sympathetic to dog owners if they dealt with evidence. In most cities there are fenced dog runs.
I think the fact that dog owners organize and talk to one another allows irrationality to breed. Sort of like Republicans.
What you need to understand, dog owners, is that you are not the majority and you need to talk to folks other than each other.
@Lark: Since you are a champion of evidence, please provide proof that dogs are helping move the snowy plover towards extinction. @4oceans, this request is for you too. Let’s see the scientific evidence.
Lark, you also stated: “I think the fact that dog owners organize and talk to one another allows irrationality to breed. Sort of like Republicans.”
I’ll simply state that he who lives in a glass house (the city of San Francisco in this case) shouldn’t throw stones.
Mike & Ted: Your position is tedious. Since when is the burden supposed to be on the endangered species? What are you willing to wait for…. the last bird to die? Are you seriously going to argue that dogs chasing endangered species have no impacts on the survival of the species? Common on. This is child’s play. I watch dogs chase WSP’s at OB. Owners are hundreds of yards away staring out at the ocean while Rover rampages. Are you going to claim that can result in no impacts? Even when professional dog walkers have 6-10 Rovers rampaging unleashed at a time? I contend it is your sort of thinking and philosophy that has resulted in WSP’s imminent extinction in the first place. It is a death by a thousand cuts. Sure your dog isn’t the ONLY reason WSP’s are going extinct. Development, pollution, predation etc. all contribute. But for you to refuse to participate in any reasonable protections is callous, cruel, self-serving and disingenuous.
OK, that’s what I thought. Anecdotal evidence. Nothing empirical. And this is precisely the problem many San Franciscans have with the GGNRA report, based on page upon page of anecdotes.
Now, anecdotally, I could mention that I have never seen a plover actually, you know, CAUGHT by a dog. I could also mention that the plovers take off when a dog approaches and land right back where they were once the dog is gone, resuming their pecking feast. I could also mention that another habitat down the coast has also experienced a plover decline despite the absence of dogs there.
I would posit that living life by the precautionary principle is, in fact, a true “death by a thousand cuts”.
Nice Mike, now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve never actually seen a plover or seen your dog (or any dog) ‘catch’ a plover. This puts you in the same category as nearly everyone else. Thank you for being honest.
The reason most people don’t see plovers is they tend to be solitary, and usually higher up on the beach. Not in the wet sand area but foraging in the upland area of the beach known as the rack. The reason that dog owners in particular don”t see plovers is that running dogs are usually far away from their owners, and plovers tend to be ‘flushed’ away from foraging long before the dog could ever ‘catch’ it.
The point here is that birds have very little ‘reserve’ energy. Energy used flying away from dogs is energy not available to eat. Not eating makes birds weak and subject to predation and other injury and death. Make sense? Even just having a dog run loose around plovers has adverse impacts.
Another reason you may not see plovers at OB is that the species has been in serious decline for many years. We are in a recovery process. We’re dealing with the last few birds, trying to stave off extinction here in SF and along the entire coast. Dogs have run wild at OB for decades. Without some sort of balance the birds will continue to decline and ultimately perish altogether.
By the way, since plovers are also legally protected under the Endangered Species Act, it is a Federal crime to ‘harass, harm or pursue’ them. By definition, harm includes disruption of behavior including feeding and foraging. In other words, if a dog chases plovers and it leads to their injury, then it is a violation of the law.
It shouldn’t have to come to that. One would hope people in SF care enough about our last remaining wildlife to insure they don’t go extinct. Thanks for the opportunity to explain this.
“The point here is that birds have very little ‘reserve’ energy. Energy used flying away from dogs is energy not available to eat. Not eating makes birds weak and subject to predation and other injury and death. Make sense? Even just having a dog run loose around plovers has adverse impacts.”
This is the same tired propaganda that has been used for years against off-leash at non-crirtical habitat spots throughout this nation. 4Oceans can’t back this assertion with any scientific evidence. But, I can disprove it with scientific evidence. I refer this audience to the 2007 Warren Study (“Recreation Disturbance Does Not Change Feeding Behavior of the Western Snowy Plover”) from UC Berkeley Dept. of Environmental Sciences in conjunction with, yes, the GGNRA. Enjoy:.
http://oceanbeachdog2.home.mindspring.com/WSP_Recreation_Warren.pdf
As one who has worked along the California coast for over 20 years on the struggle to prevent the extinction of Western Snowy Plovers (which is still likely) I cannot disagree more with Suzanne. There is simply no basis for her statements. In fact, in every locale where simple measures have been taken to protect plovers from development, people, dogs and other wildlife predators, the results have been excellent and better than expected.
The simple fact at OB is that dog owners refuse to participate in even the smallest efforts. For example, do you EVER see anyone use a leash in the middle of the beach? I am out there everyday and less than 10% of dog owners use a leash for anything other than a hand toy.
In the future, whether it is to protect plovers or simply the environmental integrity of coastal resources, dog owners have to become part of the solution. The beach is not a dog park. The reason I support the MIghty Mutt effort is it encouraged dog owners to go off the beach, walk up the street and toward other parks and private property. If dog owners want to flex their influence and affluence, why don’t they band together and buy some non-coastal private property to run their domestic animals on? Wouldn’t that show a modicum of concern for real wildlife?
Just as I thought. 4Oceans has nothing but his own intolerance for others who don’t share his extreme environmental views. No science. No studies. Nothing. Nada. 4Oceans needs to take a trip to the Great Salt Lakes where he will find the genetic equals of the Western Snowy Plover in the order of tens of thousands. In fact, the genetic equals of the WSP are all over North America. This ESA listing of the WSP is not about protecting an endanagered species but rather about keeping humans, their pets and their recreation activities out of all open space including urban parks and beaches. It’s just a simple case of environmentalism gone wild. And even after the WSP is removed from the ESL, which it will, I assure you, 4Oceans will find some other baseless reason to keep humans with their dogs off of his beach. But, of course, it’s perfectly okay for surfers who urinate and defecate in the oceans and scare endangered marine mammals to have free rein of the oceans and the beaches. Just ask the Surf Riders organization. Hypocrisy has no bounds for the 4Oceans of the world. BTW, 4Oceans – if you saw anything, which I doubt if you did, it was sanderlings not plovers. Plovers do not nest or breed at Ocean Beach and they rarely roost there. In fact, USFWS in its latest Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan does NOT list Ocean Beach as critical habitat fro the WSP. That means whatever happens at OB will have absolutely no bearing on the recovery of the species. And if you are upset that the plover counts have gone down over the years at OB, blame the brutal tides, the erosion, the increased predatation from the plover’s real enemies, i.e., ravens, foxes, coyotes, etc. and of course the GGNRA rangers and their 4 wheel drives and bulldozers which are ubiquitous in the so-called “Plover Protection Area”.
@4Oceans — Why don’t you identity yourself and affiliation? Your arguments sound awfully like Audubon society talking points. I am a former member. I left because of the GG chapter’s refusal to cede any ground for compromise, especially when it comes to reasonable proposals for dogs on beaches. If you look at other areas (beyond Bay Area) like Vandenberg AFB the claim is people disturb WSP and people are prohibited ostensibly for its protection on beaches there. Same at Lompoc. Why is it different at Ocean Beach?
KS
Big thanks and kudos to everyone who went out- I (sadly) wasn’t able to be there. Its hard for me not to take Josh’s bait, however, I do know that a huge percentage of the dog community inconvenience(s?) ourselves to respect the environment. We pick up extra trash, report injured wildlife, monitor for ne’er do-wells, stay off of the 99% of the GGNRA land we are denied access to- with no credible information available that our community does, in fact, any harm whatsoever. The human/animal bond has existed for centuries, with humans and the environment, benefitting most. Peace out.
Too many clueless dog owners don’t pick up after dogs.
Inconsiderate people are found in all aspects of society. They drive badly, talk in theaters, blow their cigarette smoke at us, urinate and deficate in public places, and the list goes on and on. Considering the huge number of dogs in San Francisco, it is a testiment to how considerate most dog owners are that this city is not buried in dog poop. However, the occassional stray turd isn’t really an issue at Ocean Beach south of Sloat where the Park Service has proposed a total ban of dogs. That piece of beach is completely covered by the tide right up to the parking lot, completely swept clean twice a day by nature. There is no habitat, rarerly any birds at all, and few people other than those with dogs. So, where is the rationale for this ban? No, some of what the Park Service is doing is just mean-spirited or an attempt to gradually clear all people from the beaches to save themselves maintenance and money.
my bad….
too many cleless non dog owners dont pick up after themselves.
I think the people who leave couches on the beach or other pieces of trash are a much bigger menace than the occasional poo which gets lost in the sand and eventually biodegrades.
But Josh, it’s precisely the new GGNRA rules which aim to legislate away and ban inconvenience for some. On a separate note, you do realize that the debate over the snowy plover is far from a settled case?
Thanks for sharing this. After a re-tweet I will past in on my Facebook. Yeah, it is people who litter our beaches and parks. Every see a dog toss a beer can or a plastic soda bottle?
“Susan Adams, another frequenter of Fort Funston, agreed as her dog Thelma Lou splashed in the ocean behind her. “We’ve been coming here for over 30 years. And I’m an environmentalist. I’m sensitive to the issues of the snowy plovers, but we only get access to 1 percent of the coastline.””
Oh, yeah, I’m an environmentalist, sure. At least, I am right up until it inconveniences *me*.
I would love to know when being an environmentalist left the realm of sound scientific analysis and became the playground of arrogant political ideologues? If you had the intelligence to evaluate the science you would understand that the activities along our coast have NO impact on the survival of the Western Snowy Plover. If you were to educate yourself utilizing the best scientific evidence available you would recognize that the Western Snowy Plover does not require protection at all.