From The Independent
Tuesday, April 10, 2001
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.