Dog issues were not on the agenda for this meeting. However, they did arise in the Superintendent's Report, in three speeches by audience members under "Non-Agenda Items" at the end of the meeting, and in comments by Commissioners.
GGNRA Superintendent Brian O'Neill didn't address dog issues in his spoken report to the Advisory Commission, but referred them to his written report which was distributed at the meeting. Here is the section of his written report addressing dogs:
Update on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The draft Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) was transmitted to the National Park Service (NPS) in Washington, D.C. in early July. The draft notice will be reviewed at NPS Headquarters, then will go to the Department of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget for review. When approved, the notice will be published in the Federal Register, announcing how and when public comment will be taken. Efforts to secure the services of an independent third-party group to design the public comment process continue. Informative brochures and cards about enjoying the GGNRA with your dog will be available shortly, and this information will also be posted on our website at www.nps.gov/goga/pets. The brochures and cards will be available in the various visitor centers and will be distributed to all park staff. Minimal signs, needed to advise the public of the leash regulation, will continue to be installed.
PET UPDATE
This update is the 3rd in a series of public information reports on the ANPR process and pet issues within the GGNRA.
Overview
On March 21, 2001, the National Park Service (NPS) announced it would pursue
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to determine whether the
park should engage in formal rulemaking regarding pet management in the
Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA). Currently, the regulation
requiring dogs to be on leash where permitted is in effect. If undertaken,
the formal rulemaking process would specifically address how pet use of
the park would be managed at the GGNRA.
ANPR Status
The draft ANPR was transmitted to NPS Headquarters in Washington, D.C. in
early July. Once NPS Headquarters completes its review, the document will
go to the Department of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget
for review. When approved, the ANPR will be published in the Federal Register.
The Federal Register notice will announce how and when public comment will
be taken.
Education on Leash Regulation
Public education and outreach efforts continue. Informative brochures and
cards about enjoying the GGNRA with your dog will be available shortly,
and this information will also be posted on our website at www.nps.gov/goga/pets.
The brochures and cards will be available in the various visitor centers
and will be distributed to park staff. Minimal signs, needed to advise the
public of the leash regulation, continue to be installed.
Dog-Friendly Items Available
For the convenience of our four-legged friends and their human companions,
a variety of dog treats, bowls, placemats, cards, leashes and other canine-themed
items are now available at the Crissy Field Center Bookstore and the Park's
newest addition, the Warming Hut at Crissy Field.
Independent Consensus Building Group
Efforts to secure the services of an independent third-party group to design
the public comment process continue.
07/24/01
Lisa Vittori:
Hi. My name is Lisa Vittori.
I came here to report to you, and to ask you about the dog issue. And, luckily,
I've seen what you have to say. [Holds up a printout from GGNRA website
of the new publication, "Enjoying
the Park with Your Dog on Leash."] I think I've been watching
too many episodes of The Sopranos recently, which is why I think I'm not going
to watch it anymore, because: I feel like spitting on this document. This
is not the agreement that we made in January. This is not why we waived our
right to speak at that meeting.
In the last few weeks, I've been talking to a lot of people, which is not
what I want to spend my time doing. When Marc Albert gave his presentation
[Annual Park Vegetation Management Workplan, an earlier agenda item] --
I've worked at every one of those sites for the last ten years. I've taken
out Cape Ivy, I've been in Poison Oak; I've had literally 20 cases of Poison
Oak -- you are utilizing my abilities in the wrong way. However, I do have
to do this now. As I've been talking to people for the last three weeks about
a rally we're having, people have been asking me, "Whats been happening
with the Park Service?" We've been getting a lot of reports that people
are being cited and ticketed; what you told us in January was that people
would not be cited and and that we would have a process going on within the
next 120 days -- 600 people waived their right to speak in January on the
condition that you were going to work with us fairly. Now, whatever this is
called, the ANPR or whatever it is, you know, I quite frankly don't give a
shit about the "public process" -- or, the federal process, because
I've realized that the Park Service is behaving -- has become a Trojan horse.
And, I'm almost done with my three minutes.
We supported you, and I supported you in particular, doing habitat restoration
and, putting, you know, saving all this open land. And what's happened is
that the federal rules and regulations, which we have very little influence
over in our little jurisdiction here, have come in and, you know, basically
bitten us in the butt. And excuse my language, but, quite frankly, I know
where every tool in the Park Service is, and I have not used any tools to
do any damage to any object in the Park Service, because I'm using the public
process in the way it was designed. But you are really pushing a lot of people
to the point where we're going to have to start doing civil disobedience if
we don't start getting a fair and equitable response from you.
I'm going to formally ask you now to schedule the dog policy for September,
to give every person, every one of those two thousand people who were there
in January a chance to hear what you have to say about it.
Thank you.
Michael Goldstein:
Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Michael Goldstein.
I never received any response to my
question at your April 24th meeting. To remind you, I wanted to know
whether this Commission had approved a letter which was signed by your Chair,
Rich Bartke; and Vice-Chair, Amy Meyer. The
letter, which was on your website and published in local newspapers,
claimed that the Commission's 1979 Pet
Policy "had been declared invalid and was no longer in force."
If the policy was not in force, then why was there a "stealth motion"
-- not on the agenda -- to rescind it last November?
And, when that motion was objected to and found out of order for not being
on the agenda, then why was it placed on the January 23rd agenda -- if the
1979 Pet Policy was not in force?
Clearly, the GGNRA has permitted off-leash dog recreation for decades.
When this off-leash recreation was threatened by the motion to rescind the
1979 Pet Policy, over a thousand people showed up -- and you might contrast
that to nine letters that you received on one topic tonight, and a hundred
people that showed up at a meeting in Sausalito, not that those are not important,
but when a thousand people and almost all of your Board of Supervisors in
your city here show up, that is important -- most of whom were locked out
by police from attending your January 23rd meeting at the Golden Gate Club.
After hearing from fewer than fifty of these thousand people who wanted to
speak, the Commission cut off further speakers.
The only reason these people accepted being denied the right to speak was
the Commission's decision to table the motion for a 120 day period -- during
which there were explicitly to be no changes in policy or enforcement.
Instead, while announcing a complex and lengthy process known as Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the media, the National Park Service made
immediate changes on the ground, posting new signs which state, "Pets
on Leash."
Today, I see that a new publication has just been issued, entitled, "Enjoying
the Park with Your Dog on Leash." This is a complete rewrite
of the 1979 Pet Policy. It goes into great detail, including a map and details
on whether dogs are totally banned, or allowed only on leash, in each of 20
areas of the GGNRA. Except, that policy was the result of public input,
discussion, and negotiation over several years -- not accomplished by management
fiat, as is this new brochure.
As you know full well, the thousand people who tried to speak to you were
overwhelmingly opposed to rescinding your 1979 Pet Policy. Admit reality --
you could not, politically, rescind that policy -- neither by Stealth
Motion in November nor in the face of enormous
outcry in January.
Now, through the signs and the new "Enjoying the Park with Your Dog on
Leash" brochure and website publication, the management of the GGNRA
has made a complete end-run around this Commission.
Again, I ask, did this Commission approve the "Letter to the Editor"
by your Chair and Co-Chair? If so, was this done at a properly noticed, public
meeting?
And, are you trying to claim that you did rescind your 1979 Pet Policy, when,
in fact, you had it on your January 23rd agenda and most certainly did not
vote to rescind it?
Please, don't let the GGNRA management accelerate its campaign against off-leash
recreation without holding a public hearing.
If you do choose to do the right thing, please choose a venue that respects
the citizens whom you've already locked out before. I see that there are facilities
such as Herbst
Pavilion and Festival Pavilion, just down the hill at the piers here
at Fort Mason, which can easily accommodate large numbers of people.
Don't fence us out, don't lock us out -- do play your role as an oversight
body.
Thank you very much.
John Keating:
Good evening. Im John Keating. Just to follow up on what
Mr. Goldstein was saying, when Senator Bible was giving his testimony and
describing the specific intent for you folks as serving on the Advisory Commission,
what they describe as the intent is that the Advisory Commission is there
to protect the federal bureaucrats from running roughshod over the public.
Thats your job.
I want to, tonight, warn you about how this accelerating campaign against
recreation, specifically off-leash recreation, in the GGNRA, is going to cause
problems for you.
While Supervisor ONeill -- Superintendent ONeill -- correctly
predicts that you have a good chance for the Senate committee to pass a bill
sponsored by a member of the committee, Dianne Feinstein, in a Democratic-controlled
environment, of course, your chances of success in the critical House Committee
on Natural Resources is very low, if you carry on the continued conduct of
the GGNRA, which is hostile to recreational uses. And, the other half of the
bill that you have before the Senate and the House, talks about the continuation
of the existence of this committee. As you know, you have to be renewed; its
set to be renewed for a twenty-year term. My understanding of the climate
right now on the House committee is that you should be renewed, and youre
a good organization, if you, in fact, protect the public. But, if they catch
you rubber-stamping efforts by the Park Service to restrict public access,
I dont think you have as good a chance of being renewed and I
think they will look into the makeup of the committee, as well.
Quickly, I want to go to the issue of whats happened with this radical
change in the Pet Policy. It is a radical change. You had a policy that worked
well for twenty years, and its been unilaterally, completely altered.
You do not need to make that radical change in the interim, while youre
studying the issue. The only reason to do that is if you have decided how
you want it to turn out in the end, and you know that by making the change
now, you have a better chance to get it, and thats what seems to be
happening.
The one thing that is clear about the case law in the area is that Superintendent
ONeill and the Park Service have the discretion to not enforce this
new interpretation of the regulation a different interpretation than
theyve had for twenty years, and now its expedient to have a new
interpretation you dont need to enforce that new interpretation
while youre studying the issue. Cases are clear on that; weve
provided that authority to the Park Service lawyers, I do not know if youve
been provided with that.
I want to say: what is also clear is that you are required to have a public
hearing. Now, the Park Service has given several excuses for not having a
public hearing on this radical change that theyre making. One is that
they never adopted the Pet Policy. That is simply inaccurate.
Document after document confirms that the Pet Policy was adopted. The GGNRA
made those representations to Congress repeatedly, it was included in the
Management Plan, it has been adopted theres no question as to
that.
The second argument the Park Service makes is that its
illegal, because of this general regulation. Well, thats an issue thats
been disputed, rather vigorously, and I want you to know that in the Fort
Funston litigation, the Park Services lawyers repeatedly made that argument
and the Court rejected it. The Court did not buy the Park Services
argument that they could avoid public hearings because they've had this new
interpretation that this regulation applied. In fact, something very unusual
happened in this litigation. The Court awarded the sanction of attorneys
fees against the Park Service on an injunction very rare. The reason
its so rare is that the Court only does it, and is only allowed to do
it, only has the discretion to award attorneys fees, when the governments
position has no substantial justification. The government can take a position
and argue it, even if its not a very good position, if its wrong,
it doesn't matter. They dont have to pay public attorneys attorneys
fees unless theres no reasonable basis for it. And if the Court
makes that extreme conclusion, then it awards attorneys fees. Now, the
Court argued the Im sorry, the government argued this
general regulation application in the lawsuit, and the judge determined that
there was no substantial basis for the governments position. Therefore,
the judge rejected it, and found that it wasnt an adequate excuse to
avoid the public hearings.
So, please, please, when you know the law applies, dont seek to jump
around it, or were going to be back where we were before. This time,
not only are you going down the road of following the advice that took you
down the wrong road before, but youre doing it already have been censured
by the Court.
Secondly, the argument by the Park Service that it doesnt need to have
hearings because the policy was never adopted is irrelevant to some extent,
because public hearings are required if there is any restriction in the use
that significantly changes the pattern of activity. So, it doesnt matter
whether youre changing a policy, if youre going to have the impact
of a big restriction of use -- clearly, it will. Youll also have to
have public hearings if its highly controversial -- no one can argue
that its not highly controversial.
My last quick point is: I understood today that these issues were being briefed
in a San Francisco committee hearing. [Commission Member Jack Spring, Chair
of the Commissions San Francisco Committee, had mentioned without any
elaboration in his committee report earlier, that the committee had heard
an update on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) process.] Were
not able to know whats said there, so we cant advise you if we
think that youre not getting accurate information.
The only person who has been truly impartial, who has looked at the quality
of information being provided by the park staff, was a federal court judge
a noted environmentalist, before he came onto the bench and
what he said is that it was being railroaded, the information provided was
skewed, and he took the unusual step of saying it was so skewed that he wouldnt
rely on the information that the Park Service provided, but that he needed
to go and do an independent analysis of the documents.
So I ask you, please, please, get some independent analysis of this, and dont
go racing down to that end result when you dont need to.
Thank you very much for your patience.
Rich Bartke, Chair:
Thank you. That concludes the speakers who have signed up to speak on non-agenda
items
[Later, after Commission discussion of other issues]
Edgar Wayburn, Commission Member:
I think that some answer should be given to the various people whove
been speaking on a proposed dog policy. They have to know that this is not
a local affair; this is a national affair, and there is, at present, there
are notes, Update on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
the pet policy. They cant know, not too many of us know, that this has
been in effect on a national basis for many years, and that the Superintendent
achieved a minor coup when he got the National Park Service to entertain this
method of dealing with it.
Theres been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not this park
is doing its duty by all of the people who want to have recreation, particularly
with regard to the dogs. And I think that we have an obligation to respond
to these people and tell them that Golden Gate has gone farther than any other
park in trying to meet this situation.
The opprobrium which has been heaped on the Advisory Commission is entirely
ill-centered, because this Advisory Commission has not taking any action.
It was what we did, in January, that caused the Superintendent to make...
efforts to try to change the national parks, and Advanced Notice of Rulemaking
is a part of that policy.
I dont know whether this is going to satisfy the people who object vigorously,
but our hands are at this moment tied, and I would suggest that they write
to their legislators and write to the National Park Service in Washington
to express their feelings, giving the same arguments they gave to us.
Rich Bartke, Chair:
Thank you. Any other comments? Amy.
[Amy Meyer follows up on other, unrelated topic.]
[Commission discussion of other issues]
Rich Bartke, Chair:
OK, thank you. Anything further?
Lisa Vittori: [from audience]
Can we ask that the dog issue be rescheduled?
Rich Bartke, Chair:
No. The Commission had its public hearing. The Commission took its action.
As I explained at the top of the meeting, the Commission is advisory; we gave
our advice to the Secretary of the Interior, through the local Superintendent,
and the Superintendent is doing what he can to carry out that advice. Theres
nothing further for this Commission to do.
The suggestion that we somehow misled the public is simply not true. The last
time this came up, which was about three months ago, I had the verbatim transcript
in front of me, and read from it, and what happened was exactly what happened
in January. We have not changed course; we didnt table it for four months
--
Michael Goldstein: [from audience]
Did you rescind it?
Rich Bartke, Chair:
-- we, uh, we took our action, we voted, we made our recommendation, and thats
been passed on to the Park Service. Thats what this Commission is empowered
to do, and thats what we did. We heard you, we acted, as far as were
concerned, theres nothing more we can do.
Lisa Vittori: [from audience]
So, in other words, we take our case up with Brian ONeill?
Rich Bartke, Chair:
Oh, I assumed that you were speaking tonight to the Park Service, not to this
Commission, because theres no further role for this Commission until
the rulemaking proceeds by the
John Keating: [from audience]
If I may say, you have an oversight
Rich Bartke, Chair:
[Asks Mr. Keating to use the microphone.]
Amy Meyer, Vice-Chair:
Oh!... [groans]
Lisa Vittori: [from audience]
Amy, Im sorry, but weve got to do this
John Keating:
Its John Keating speaking. You have an oversight role. You can look
into whether the Park Service is making radical changes that will destroy
our park, in a lot of aspects in our park, and subverting public input, at
any time, you can look into that issue. You do not need to accept the Park
Services position that your policy, that they adopted and embraced for
twenty years, is somehow unilaterally declared null-and-void and is no longer
your policy.
Rich Bartke, Chair:
OK, weve gotten that message. And youre correct, we do have an
oversight role.
John Keating:
And if I may make one other comment, as to the ANPR process: in some circumstances,
thats useful. In most circumstances, its regularly regarded as
a technique thats used by an agency to get to avoid having to
make a rule, to avoid public hearings. If the Park Service did a proper thing,
which was to have a public hearing on whether to change its current
policy, they probably would not change the dog policy as it currently exists.
If, however, they go through this ANPR process to determine whether to have
any public hearings at all, they may very well use the same arguments they
tried in the past, and even those that were rejected by the Court, they may
use it now to avoid that public hearing process. And I think this Commission
should look into whether the public input is being precluded, rather than
enhanced. Thank you.
Rich Bartke, Chair:
Thank you. We are going to adjourn our meeting
Hyperlinks added. Transcribed by Michael B. Goldstein. Corrections/questions?